Livestream out of Syria

Don't Kill Bill said:
If they do nothing then they are ignoring oppression.

If they intervene in a revolution then they are backing one side and are responsible for all the wrong done by that side.

If they support a govt then they are responsible for all the wrong done by the govt they keep in power.

So whatever happens anywhere in the world you can blame the west/USA for it.

It gets a bit silly.
Click to expand...

who has given the right to the west to act as a policeman in the world ?
 
RedKaos said:
Well no, since its an internal matter that doesn't concern them.


I see nothing wrong with this sentiment. You arm extremists then you essentially have the blood of their victims on your hands.



The issue here is hypocrisy - support certain despotic governments, while condemning others. All based on how they interpret you diplomatically and who their mates are.



Well they're not the only ones to blame here, I'd say the gulf Arab states are the most guilty culprits.
Click to expand...


So your contention in the Myanmar thread about "ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya" would be that it is none of the west’s business being an internal matter. That's not the stance you take on that though is it?
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
So your contention in the Myanmar thread about "ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya" would be that it is none of the west’s business being an internal matter. That's not the stance you take on that though is it?
Click to expand...

Either interfere in all instances of oppression or dont interfere at all in the internal problems of others. Cant have it both ways and expect no one to call out the hypocracy.
 
VidaRed said:
Either interfere in all instances of oppression or dont interfere at all in the internal problems of others. Cant have it both ways and expect no one to call out the hypocracy.
Click to expand...

That is impossible in practice
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
So your contention in the Myanmar thread about "ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya" would be that it is none of the west’s business being an internal matter. That's not the stance you take on that though is it?
Click to expand...

The two situations are entirely different to one another. Syria is a civil war where interference would surely worsen things - hence it should be contained as an internal matter. In Myanmar we're seeing the ethnic cleansing of a defenseless group of people who for the most part aren't able to fight back, leaving them displaced as a refugees with no home. In the latter you don't need to physically or militarily interfere, but only to apply damaging pressure on the Myanamar regime.
 
peterstorey said:
Whether you've been given the badge or not, if you have power you have a responsibility to act for the common good.
Click to expand...

No superpower, past or present, has conducted itself internationally under the banner of common good. It's always sought to secure regional interests even if it mean getting into bed with some scumlike undesirables and end up killing millions in the process.

A world police can never work in practice, considering their benevolence would always take a backseat to their economic and geopolitical interests.
 
A lot of nonsense being spouted by the usual suspects in this thread. If anything, the UN system has once again revealed itself to be lacking in stoping dictators from mass murder, just as it has in stopping big states from effectively ignoring it to do as they please. The entire system needs reform, until which big states will continue to call the shots on the international stage.
 
VidaRed said:
who has given the right to the west to act as a policeman in the world ?
Click to expand...

If you study International Politics, you would learn that powerful states get to control the agenda within the international system. That's the way the system works in the absence of a world government.
 
RedKaos said:
The two situations are entirely different to one another. Syria is a civil war where interference would surely worsen things - hence it should be contained as an internal matter. In Myanmar we're seeing the ethnic cleansing of a defenseless group of people who for the most part aren't able to fight back, leaving them displaced as a refugees with no home. In the latter you don't need to physically or militarily interfere, but only to apply damaging pressure on the Myanamar regime.
Click to expand...

Says who?

You have constructed a world view based on your dislike of US/western foreign policy and you roll on from that. If as you previously stated in your answer to me, there is to be no interference in the internal affairs of nation states, then criticism of the US over areas it does not act in cannot be reasonable.

So Myanmar gets ethnically cleansed, what is that to the US, what is that to the UN?


If on the other hand we are going with the moral duty to stop the massacre of innocent civilian populations then Libya and Syria fall into that category every bit as much as Myanmar. At that point you personally disagree with the action taken so you blow up about it being a nation state and interference being unjustifiable.

Pick which principle you think is most important or accept there is no overriding principle and all situations get dealt with in an ad hoc mess. If you go with the second then get off your anti western moral high horse and join us in a more reasonable debate about what all this shit adds up to.
 
VidaRed said:
who has given the right to the west to act as a policeman in the world ?
Click to expand...


My point was that if you take the line that it isn't and shouldn’t be, then criticism of it for not being a very good one is remarkably hypocritical. If it helps you line up the anti-US rhetoric and that gets you off then fair enough, but as method of debating what we should do about what is happening in the world it is a dead end.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
Says who?

You have constructed a world view based on your dislike of US/western foreign policy and you roll on from that. If as you previously stated in your answer to me, there is to be no interference in the internal affairs of nation states, then criticism of the US over areas it does not act in cannot be reasonable.

So Myanmar gets ethnically cleansed, what is that to the US, what is that to the UN?


If on the other hand we are going with the moral duty to stop the massacre of innocent civilian populations then Libya and Syria fall into that category every bit as much as Myanmar. At that point you personally disagree with the action taken so you blow up about it being a nation state and interference being unjustifiable.

Pick which principle you think is most important or accept there is no overriding principle and all situations get dealt with in an ad hoc mess. If you go with the second then get off your anti western moral high horse and join us in a more reasonable debate about what all this shit adds up to.
Click to expand...

Well it doesn't take an investigative reporter to see that Syria is currently in a violent, sectarian civil war and Myanamar....well isnt. I am outraged regarding the treatment of the Rohingya but I'm certainly not suggesting that the West should start arming them and encouraging them to wage a violent struggle against the Myanamar regime, nor do I think it would ever be a good idea.

In fact, I'd say my stance regarding intervention is rather consistent - don't get involved, period. I don't think they should have got involved in Iraq, nor do I think they should have got involved in nations such as Syria and Libya. Heck, I don't think they should intervene in countries which are otherwise very pro-West like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.

As for this anti-western high horse pedestal you claim I stand on, well funny enough I'm not really implicating the west here as the main culprits. In fact, I'm not surprised on the West's position regarding Syria considering their geopolitical agenda, nor am I surprised about the Gulf Arab's willingness to aid the rebels considering their anti-Shia sentiments. What I am surprised with is self-proclaimed lefties openly supporting a faction such as the FSA which has some seriously extreme elements, including a substantial Al-Qaeda contingent.

And in case you're curious, my views are shaped by my family's experience with Islamic militants in Iraq and how a so-called benevolent intervention in that country had turned that country into a dangerous, sectarian cesspit when it had otherwise been perfectly secular and terrorist-free nation. And this is coming from someone who had ardent contempt for Saddam Hussein. I fear Syria could face the same grueling fate if we start dignifying terrorists and impose upon them a forceful democratic transition, especially considering their sensitive sectarian fabric.
 
Raoul said:
A lot of nonsense being spouted by the usual suspects in this thread. If anything, the UN system has once again revealed itself to be lacking in stoping dictators from mass murder, just as it has in stopping big states from effectively ignoring it to do as they please. The entire system needs reform, until which big states will continue to call the shots on the international stage.
Click to expand...

Raoul ask yourself which permanent member of the UNSC has abused the veto system more so in the last 50 years than all the other members put together, and for what reason.
 
RedKaos said:
Raoul ask yourself which permanent member of the UNSC has abused the veto system more so in the last 50 years than all the other members put together, and for what reason.
Click to expand...

That's precisely my point. The UN system is deeply flawed in that the most powerful states aren't incentivized to abide by its rules and more than a few dictators have gone unpunished because the UN isn't always able to enforce its responsibility to protect populations rule. Blaming one country is simply a shallow interpretation of a problem that is innately systemic.
 
Raoul said:
That's precisely my point. The UN system is deeply flawed in that the most powerful states aren't incentivized to abide by its rules and more than a few dictators have gone unpunished because the UN isn't always able to enforce its responsibility to protect populations rule. Blaming one country is simply a shallow interpretation of a problem that is innately systemic.
Click to expand...

I'm not blaming one country at all considering they're entitled to the power as much as the others. I'd just suggest removing the veto vote altogether.
 
RedKaos said:
I'm not blaming one country at all considering they're entitled to the power as much as the others. I'd just suggest removing the veto vote altogether.
Click to expand...

That would probably not suit Russia and China's intersets as the US, UK, and France would probably form a coalition of collective interests to outflank them on all the key issues.
 
France warns of Syrian chemical weapons attack
Associated Press

http://news.yahoo.com/france-warns-syrian-chemical-weapons-attack-081735822.html

PARIS (AP) — France's foreign minister says Western powers are preparing a tough response in case Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime deploys chemical or biological weapons in its civil war.
Laurent Fabius says "our response ... would be massive and blistering."
Fabius, speaking on RMC radio Monday, said "we are discussing this notably with our American and English partners." President Barack Obama has called it a "red line" for the U.S. if Assad's regime were to use chemical or biological weapons.

Fabius says Russia and China are "of the same position," but acknowledged frustration at their continuing support for Assad.

Syria's leadership has said it could use chemical or biological weapons if it were attacked from outside. Syria is believed to have nerve agents as well as mustard gas and Scud missiles capable of delivering these lethal chemicals.
 
Raoul said:
A lot of nonsense being spouted by the usual suspects in this thread. If anything, the UN system has once again revealed itself to be lacking in stoping dictators from mass murder, just as it has in stopping big states from effectively ignoring it to do as they please. The entire system needs reform, until which big states will continue to call the shots on the international stage.
Click to expand...

If France is all for removing dictators "for the common good", why did they oppose removing Saddam Hussein?

If the west is all for helping the people why did they remain silent in Bahrain?

If the west is all for fighting dictatorships why are they arming, supporting, and making an alliance with one of the biggest dictatorships in the world (Saudia Arabia)?

And ironically, you're accusing others of talking nonsense.
 
Danny1982 said:
If France is all for removing dictators "for the common good", why did they oppose removing Saddam Hussein?

If the west is all for helping the people why did they remain silent in Bahrain?

If the west is all for fighting dictatorships why are they arming, supporting, and making an alliance with one of the biggest dictatorships in the world (Saudia Arabia)?

And ironically, you're accusing others of talking nonsense.
Click to expand...

Each country makes its own policy based on its own interests at a given time. The fictional entity you call "the West" is composed of different countries that don't always share common policy interests.

As for France, don't make the mistake of presuming a country's norms and policy preferences always remain the same across leadership changes. Chiraq and Hollande are completely different people.
 
Its worth noting that France only opposed the Iraq war because it had contracts with Saddam where they would sell him Mirage F-1 fighter jets, and also because Chirac was contesting an election at the time (the French public were vehemently against a war on Iraq).

Hollande's stance on Syria is hardly surprising.
 
Jihadists join Aleppo fight, eye Islamic state

(Reuters) - Foreign Islamists intent on turning Syria into an autocratic theocracy have swollen the ranks of rebels fighting to topple President Bashar al-Assad and think they are waging a "holy war", a French surgeon who treated fighters in Aleppo has said.

Jacques Beres, co-founder of medical charity Medecins Sans Frontieres, returned from Syria on Friday evening after spending two weeks working clandestinely in a hospital in the besieged northern Syrian city.

In an interview with Reuters in his central Paris apartment on Saturday, the 71-year-old said that contrary to his previous visits to Homs and Idlib earlier this year about 60 percent of those he had treated this time had been rebel fighters and that at least half of them had been non-Syrian.

"It's really something strange to see. They are directly saying that they aren't interested in Bashar al-Assad's fall, but are thinking about how to take power afterwards and set up an Islamic state with sharia law to become part of the world Emirate," the doctor said.

The foreign jihadists included young Frenchmen who said they were inspired by Mohammed Merah, a self-styled Islamist militant from Toulouse, who killed seven people in March in the name of al-Qaeda.

Assad himself has consistently maintained that the 17-month-old insurgency against him is largely the work of people he refers to as "foreign-backed terrorists" and says his forces are acting to restore stability.

During his previous visits to Syria - in March and May - Beres said he had dismissed suggestions the rebels were dominated by Islamist fighters but he said he had now been forced to reassess the situation.

The doctor's account corroborates other anecdotal evidence that the struggle against Assad appears to be drawing ever greater numbers of fellow Arabs and other Muslims, many driven by a sense of religious duty to perform jihad (holy war) and a readiness to suffer for Islam.

But while some are professional "jihadists", veterans of Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya or Libya who bring combat and bomb-making skills with them that alarm the Western and Arab governments which have cheered the rebels on, many have little to offer Syrians but their goodwill and prayers.

Beres described treating dozens of such jihadists from other Arab countries, but also at least two young Frenchmen.

"Some of them were French and completely fanatical about the future," he said. "They are very cautious people, even to the doctor who treated them. They didn't trust me, but for instance they told me that Mohammed Merah was an example to follow."

Merah tore a wound in France's fragile sense of community in March when he gunned down three soldiers from North African immigrant families, a rabbi and three Jewish children.

Paris has for several years been concerned that French radical Islamists who have travelled to lawless zones would return to plot attacks at home. Merah had travelled to Afghanistan and Pakistan to receive training.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/08/us-syria-crisis-jihad-idUSBRE88708W20120908
 
Inside the villa two rebel commanders and a chubby civilian in jeans and T-shirt were exchanging pieces of paper, which the civilian signed. He issued a series of instructions to the men outside, who began transferring crates into the commanders' white Toyota pickup.

"All what I want from you is that you shoot a small video and put it on YouTube, stating your name and your unit, and saying we are part of the Aleppo military council," the civilian told one of the commanders, who fought with the Islamist Tawheed brigade. "Then you can do whatever you want. I just need to show the Americans that units are joining the council.

"I met two Americans yesterday in Antakya (Turkey). They told me that no advanced weapons would come to us unless we were unified under the leadership of the local military councils. So shoot the video and let me handle the rest." Looking in the back, it was clear the ammunition was new. The RPG rounds were still wrapped in plastic.

Abu Mohamed described where the weapons had come from. Different donors in Saudi Arabia were channelling money to a powerful Lebanese politician in Istanbul, he said. He in turn co-ordinated with the Turks – "everything happens in co-ordination with Turkish intelligence" – to arrange delivery through the military council of Aleppo, a group composed mostly of defected officers and secular and moderate civilians.

"They told us to start the rebellion and then we would get support," Abu Mohamed said. "The city was divided into three sectors and we split our forces and ammunition between the three fronts, but we didn't imagine that we would enter Aleppo so easily. We took 60% of the city in the first few days. We overstretched our units, while the regime had decided to concentrate all his power to fight in one sector, Salah al-Din."

"We started pulling resources from the two other sectors and concentrated them here. At the same time the support we were promised stopped. That led to all three sectors buckling at the same time. We don't have the ammunition we were promised. Every day the [Syrian] army is pushing forwards. So we expend the one thing we have, men. Men are dying."

The major had been in Turkey looking for funds, and had now decided to spend a few days with Abu Hussein before heading to his battalion. He described the difficulty of finding money and supplies across the border. "I tell you it's rotten up there," he said. "Everyone is willing to pay you just a little bit to buy you – the Muslim brotherhood, [the defected air force colonel] Riad al-Assad. They are rotten, playing with us. I sat for three weeks waiting there and nothing came."

He had met the former head of the transitional national council, Burhan Ghalioun, in Turkey. "He took me with him into a meeting in Istanbul. I love this man, we met a prince in the Qatari armed forces. We talked and explained everything and he had an idea of what was going on, but he said the good times were coming soon. We left with nothing.

"One of his men gave us some useful advice. He said if we all pointed our guns at a Mig fighter at once it would come down."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/25/syria-bloody-stalemate-aleppo-rebels
 
Getting ugly between Turkey and Syria

Mahir Zeynalov ‏@MahirZeynalov
Sources on the ground say Turkey is now deploying huge number of tanks, artillery and missile batteries to the Syria border.
Click to expand...

This is a response to Syrian shelling of Turkish bordertown resulting in the death of 5 Turks
 
The Six Hour War - coming soon to a history book near you.


All the fun of the 6 day war, packed in a 6 hour lolfest at the arab armies.
 
Zionist imperialism missed a golden chance to build on that opportunity in its quest to reach the Euphrates. Damn it, only the Nile left as a realistic target.
 
Shit's about to get real in the next week or so if reports that the Syrians are preparing their chemical weapons as rebels get closer to Damascus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.