Livestream out of Syria

[Raoul]

What would you have had them do?




Wouldn't the rebels have got that to the media that days ago bearing in mine the location?

Who knows. Looked like a lot of victims with burns, so no evidence it's chemical (yet).

 

[Kingcon]

For me the issue remains, will President Obama bring his case for intervention before Congress or will he go against his previous stance on the legality of this issue and go it alone.

The American people do not want to enter into this conflict, period. This should be handled Democratically but like Republican and Democratic Presidents before him he will more than likely pull his monocracy card and go in alone.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Syrians welcome Commons vote against British involvement in air strikes

Prevailing view among Syrians is that Britain's absence from attack on Assad regime makes it less likely to happen at all

Martin Chulov in Beirut

Some described the decision as measured and wise. Others as more of a relief. Even among those who despise the Syrian regime, there is a prevailing view that Britain's absence from an attack on Syria could make it less likely to happen at all.

News of the House of Commons vote was eagerly digested across the Lebanese capital on Friday morning, the talk of coffee shops, downtown mosques and street corners, where newspaper sellers reported a rare upturn in sales.

"I watched the debate all day yesterday," said Tareq Abu Saleh, a businessman from Damascus. "It was very mature and the arguments were great. I liked what I heard."

Down the road, Khaled Abdullah, a trader from a village west of Aleppo, where the anti-Assad insurgency rages strongly, did not enthuse so much. "We knew the west would disappoint us. They haven't stopped disappointing since the war started," he said. "But even if the Americans hit them just once, at least they will have achieved something."

Syrians from across an increasingly fractured society have converged on Beirut during 29 months of revolt and war. Days, or even hours ahead of what is widely expected to be an attack on the Syrian capital, there were few to be found in the usual holiday haunts. "Everyone's bunkering down, even here," said the patriarch of a Kurdish family in a flat in west Beirut. "We know it's not going to happen here, but it's just the way we are feeling."

In Damascus, where preparations are well under way for an attack, residents say the British climbdown has neutered what was already an ailing US bid to assert itself in a crisis it has had limited means to manage. There was an awareness too that Iraq continues to cast a long shadow over decision makers across Europe and in Washington.

"The decision of this parliament was influenced by the decisions of Tony Blair," said Ali Salman, a merchant reached by telephone. "It isn't because they didn't want to hit Syria.

"It is not going to affect the power of the Syrians, but it is going to affect their morale politically and their attempts to try and keep what is left of the coalition strong."

Mohammed Najjar, a trader from west Damascus, said: "The British parliament fulfilled the British peoples' interest and that weakens the American position. They now don't know what to do, whether to hit or not.

"But we can't be too optimistic about it. This looks like a small battle in a big war."

Others in Damascus claimed that David Cameron's political defeat would embolden Bashar al-Assad, giving the Syrian leader a further reason to say he has emerged victorious from western attempts to topple him. "He will stay low for a few days and then say 'look, I survived and so did all of you,' " said Mohammed Saleh, an electrician from Homs who fought with the Free Syrian Army but now scrapes a living as a concierge in west Beirut. "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, and this message will be a powerful one for him, even if it's based on an illusion."

In the rebel-held north of Syria, where battle-worn mainstream units are vying for influence with jihadist groups that are slowly but surely filling the power vacuum, the cut and thrust of the Commons debate appeared lost on many, who saw the outcome as a contrived attempt to get all sides to the negotiating table.

"The UK said no because they want all sides to sit down and talk," said Major Abu Mohammed Saleh, a Free Syrian Army leader from near Aleppo. "If there are strikes, they will destroy the regime's ground capabilities. Maybe the US will attack [the main al-Qaida group in the north] the Islamic State of Iraq in Syria. Airstrikes would have helped us finish this fight."

Many of the al-Qaida groups that dominate pockets of the north have been moving men and hardware in recent days, fearing that they may be caught up in whatever might be coming the regime's way.

"We've seen them moving away from the airport and even from their bases," said another Aleppo rebel leader. "They are going to ride this out in the farms."

Some of those fighting in the north are well familiar with US airpower, having seen its effects in Iraq's Anbar province between 2003 and 2008.

There has been little anger expressed on global jihadist sites this week about an imminent attack. "Some of them actually want it to happen," the rebel leader said.

Back in Beirut, Mutwalli Abu Nasser, a playwright who also contributes to the pro-Syrian al-Akhbar newspaper in Lebanon and an opposition title in Syria, said: "I think this is all a game. [Britain] could have taken this decision without making all this fuss. The government has interefered in foreign matters before without a decision of parliament.

"Any military choice will be designed to put more pressure on the government. They could hit certain bases in order to push the sides towards [the much delayed peace conference] Geneva 2. But I don't think they are going to do it."

At an empty narghilla restaurant nearby, where hordes of Syrian daytrippers were once the stock of summer trade, Hussein Murtada said a wrong move in the coming days could spell doom for his ailing business and much more. "America is a dinosaur and Syria is an ant, yet they are still scared to attack. That's because they know what the regime has behind it. Britain realised this, even if it was at the last minute. They are scared of Syria and its many friends."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/30/syrians-commons-vote-air-strikes

 

[Cali Red]

Well no, it's not irrelevant. In fact, it shows that efforts towards a multilateral approach have been tried repeatedly over the past two years, which sort of contradicts what you previously said.

What resolution has Obama lead against Syrian actions? What multilateral approach? Some speeches or press conferences in the White House Rose Garden? If he's worked through the UN as you are suggesting, surely the most powerful man in the world has got one. For crying out load, George Bush was able to sort one out, multiple if I remember right. He even spoke directly at the UN before sending Powell to make the final case to go in to Iraq. So I'm not seeing a contradiction. If anything, it seems we are beating the same drums Bush beat. Both AP and NYT are reporting it's not exactly clear cut evidence as the administration is suggesting. And those two news organizations are two of his biggest cheerleaders.

 

[Cali Red]

For me the issue remains, will President Obama bring his case for intervention before Congress or will he go against his previous stance on the legality of this issue and go it alone.

The American people do not want to enter into this conflict, period. This should be handled Democratically but like Republican and Democratic Presidents before him he will more than likely pull his monocracy card and go in alone.

Well he can actually strike without congress approval under the War Powers Act. However, seems it's time for some other countries to take the lead in the region.....

 

[Raoul]

What resolution has Obama lead against Syrian actions? What multilateral approach? Some speeches or press conferences in the White House Rose Garden? If he's worked through the UN as you are suggesting, surely the most powerful man in the world has got one. For crying out load, George Bush was able to sort one out, multiple if I remember right. He even spoke directly at the UN before sending Powell to make the final case to go in to Iraq. So I'm not seeing a contradiction. If anything, it seems we are beating the same drums Bush beat. Both AP and NYT are reporting it's not exactly clear cut evidence as the administration is suggesting. And those two news organizations are two of his biggest cheerleaders.

Go back and look at Susan Rice's efforts of trying to get the Russians and Chinese on board last year.

 

[Kingcon]

Well he can actually strike without congress approval under the War Powers Act. However, seems it's time for some other countries to take the lead in the region.....

I'm sure there are plenty of loop holes for any President to use for almost any circumstance. I just love pointing out hypocrisy amoungst politicians as it seems many actually believe their candidate is different than all the rest.

And I completely agree that it's beyond time for us to sit one out and let the rest of the world sort their issues out.

Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)​

OBAMA: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.​

-Thursday, March 17, 2011, in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington.​

http://www.salon.com/2011/03/18/libya_2/

 

[Red Dreams]

so how many people does Assad have to gas before we think we need to strike?

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Contrary to how Obama played it up during the election, the US was more of a peripheral actor in the Libyan intervention both diplomatically and militarily.

 

[Kingcon]

so how many people does Assad have to gas before we think we need to strike?

You know that we won't actually be striking chemical holding sites as that would cause further contamination. So the question remains, what does striking actually achieve?

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

so how many people does Assad have to gas before we think we need to strike?

If the politicians offered up something resembling a coherent strategy it might help, as opposed to an impulsive attack of veiled severity.

 

[Cali Red]

so how many people does Assad have to gas before we think we need to strike?

Good question, why wait for that......

 

[Kingcon]

If the politicians offered up something resembling a coherent strategy it might help, as opposed to an impulse or reaction.

Are you allowed to use coherent and politician in the same sentence?

 

[Red Dreams]

not using chemical weapons is the unwritten law in these conflicts. Once we ignore that, then really despots can do anything.

I honestly don't know how and what we are going to do to bring the culprits to justice. But having a completely hands off approach does not send the right message either.

 

[Cali Red]

not using chemical weapons is the unwritten law in these conflicts. Once we ignore that, then really despots can do anything.

I honestly don't know how and what we are going to do to bring the culprits to justice. But having a completely hands off approach does not send the right message either.

Ok, but then why is it the US seems to be the only nation hell bent on doing something? The rest of the world doesn't care about it? The UK, Germany, et al think it's ok for Syria (or anyone else) to use chemical weapons?

And they've been used before by other nations, that was fine then?


The current political path is illogical when looking at the rest of the worlds reaction thus far. I can't believe the US is the only nation on moral high ground (as much as we seem to think we are).

 

[Red Dreams]

Ok, but then why is it the US seems to be the only nation hell bent on doing something? The rest of the world doesn't care about it? The UK, Germany, et al think it's ok for Syria (or anyone else) to use chemical weapons?

And they've been used before by other nations, that was fine then?


The current political path is illogical when looking at the rest of the worlds reaction thus far. I can't believe the US is the only nation on moral high ground (as much as we seem to think we are).

I agree they have been used before. But is there not a Chemical weapons ban treaty that most nations have signed on to? Not sure if there is anything there that states what penalties exist for use of such weapons. But if Syria had not signed on to it.......

Think it is not right the US has to go it alone. But as I said, I don't know how we are going to enforce......

 

[Cali Red]

And RD, this doesn't even remotely begin to address atrocities in other parts of the world. Why no outrage about the slaughter in Africa? That seems just as disturbing? Thousands upon thousands hacked to death with machetes.

Most US citizens have any clue what chemical weapons do, they just know it's "bad". Most deaths from chemical weapons are fast, takes just seconds. Yes it's horrible. But worse than having a limb chopped off and left to bleed to death. Or a baby cut from the womb after being gang raped? I'd take nerve agent any day over that.

There's just no consistency in our policy.

 

[Red Dreams]

And RD, this doesn't even remotely begin to address atrocities in other parts of the world. Why no outrage about the slaughter in Africa? That seems just as disturbing? Thousands upon thousands hacked to death with machetes.

Most US citizens have any clue what chemical weapons do, they just know it's "bad". Most deaths from chemical weapons are fast, takes just seconds. Yes it's horrible. But worse than having a limb chopped off and left to bleed to death. Or a baby cut from the womb after being gang raped? I'd take nerve agent any day over that.

There's just no consistency in our policy.

lets be honest. we...and I mean the West intervenes where our 'interests' are threatened. Sorry. Chemcial weapons use is just a lot worse. These people had no way of defending themselves. I also think the abhorrence partly stems from what we know the Nazis did. while I don't like the US to be the world's policeman, we need to put our foot down where chemicals weapons are used. If the Assad regime has done this, it needs to be severely punished.

 

[Mihajlovic]

lets be honest. we...and I mean the West intervenes where our 'interests' are threatened. Sorry. Chemcial weapons use is just a lot worse. These people had no way of defending themselves. I also think the abhorrence partly stems from what we know the Nazis did. while I don't like the US to be the world's policeman, we need to put our foot down where chemicals weapons are used. If the Assad regime has done this, it needs to be severely punished.

The 100.000 killed are evidence for the victim's inability to defend themselves from whatever other conventional instrument of death they've been struck with. Not sure why chemical weapons make the whole difference all of a sudden.

 

[Red Dreams]

The 100.000 killed are evidence for the victim's inability to defend themselves from whatever other conventional instrument of death they've been struck with. Not sure why chemical weapons make the whole difference all of a sudden.

so we do nothing.....

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

What would you see as a proportionate response in this instance Red Dreams? Do you go so far as to indirectly hand the initiative to the rebels and in so doing bring about regime change without a plan for that eventuality?

 

[Mihajlovic]

so we do nothing.....

Honestly I'd love to do something but I don't know what. What I've heard so far from the 'pro-military intervention' fraction just sounds all very naive to me. Does anyone know what exactly the Alliance wishes to bomb, how long will they bomb, what would be the consequences of the bombing, how many civilians would get killed, would it even remove Assad, and maybe the most important question who does the West actually want to run Syria after Assad? And is this objective achievable? Or, has anyone actually give the thought that the rebels are the 'bad guys' in this story and we shouldn't really be supporting them? The Arab world is such a mess it's unreal. Does anyone know which side we're currently supporting in Egypt, btw?

 

[Red Dreams]

What would you see as a proportionate response in this instance Red Dreams? Do you go so far as to indirectly irreversibly hand the initiative to the rebels and in so doing bring about regime change without a plan for that eventuality?

once we start going down the road of playing political mind games...'handing the initiative to the rebels' what not...we really all allowing these murderers to get away with doing whatever they want. I think the regime must be punished. That means taking out their air force and their military structures. It needs to be seen by them and others such actions will never be tolerated.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

so we do nothing.....

I think people would rather there wasn't something done almost for the sake of it, this applies to those on either side of the argument i imagine.

 

[Red Dreams]

Honestly I'd love to do something but I don't know what. What I've heard so far from the 'pro-military intervention' fraction just sounds all very naive to me. Does anyone know what exactly the Alliance wishes to bomb, how long will they bomb, what would be the consequences of the bombing, how many civilians would get killed, would it even remove Assad, and maybe the most important question who does the West actually want to run Syria after Assad? And is this objective achievable? Or, has anyone actually give the thought that the rebels are the 'bad guys' in this story and we shouldn't really be supporting them? The Arab world is such a mess it's unreal. Does anyone know which side we're currently supporting in Egypt, btw?

sadly Syria as we used to know it will not exist imo. Assad has done such a job that it will be impossible for all these groups to come under one rule. The blood letting and genocide means all these groups will not be able to live with each other...just like Yugoslavia for example. You should know better than most. There will be enough blame to go around...but the reality is the ordinary Syrian is well and truly fecked.

 

[Red Dreams]

I think people would rather there wasn't something done almost for the sake of it, this applies to those on either side of the argument i imagine.

I agree. But destroying the regime's ability to do this again is a simple enough goal. What consequence follows is another matter.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

once we start going down the road of playing political mind games...'handing the initiative to the rebels' what not...we really all allowing these murderers to get away with doing whatever they want. I think the regime must be punished. That means taking out their air force and their military structures. It needs to be seen by them and others such actions will never be tolerated.

It's not anything of the sort.

I would simply ask for a few things t be made clear to the publci:

1] The nature of the attack and denial that it is regime change on the sly.

2] If a change in government is their aim in this instance or it is a genuine risk bearing in mind the scale of the attack, that they have more then rhetoric to offer the domestic population in Syria and refugees elsewhere, for otherwise it will be they who live with the consequences whilst Obama and co give themselves a pat on the back.

You seem to be advocating that we essentially hand victory to the rebels and then leave the Syrian to it.

I agree. But destroying the regime's ability to do this again is a simple enough goal. What consequence follows is another matter.

Not just another matter but our responsibility or at least in part.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

I reckon it will also convince those in Israel who still need to be convinced that we are on our own regarding the Iranian nukes issue. I'm not sure there are going to be many here willing to risk Israel's security in future Israeli-Arab agreements in return for Western guarantees. I wouldn't expect those UK parliament hypocrites losing any sleep over gassed Israelis more than they're doing now. Whatever side one picks on this Syrian issue, it is clear that Western credibility in terms of not tolerating war crimes and mass murder has taken a huge hit.

So if we don't bomb the people you want bombed when you want them bombing we can be blamed for Israel not moving forward on a peace plan it wasn't going to accept or move forward on anyway?

 

[Red Dreams]

It's not anything of the sort.

I would simply ask for a few things t be made clear to the publci:

1] The nature of the attack and denial that it is regime change on the sly.

2] If a change in government is their aim in this instance or it is a genuine risk bearing in mind the scale of the attack, that they have more then rhetoric to offer the domestic population in Syria and refugees elsewhere, for otherwise it will be they who live with the consequences whilst Obama and co give themselves a pat on the back.

You seem to be advocating that we essentially hand victory to the rebels and then leave the Syrian to it.




Not just another matter but our responsibility or at least in part.

our responsibility is simply to prevent such attacks in future.

 

[holyland red]

So if we don't bomb the people you want bombed when you want them bombing we can be blamed for Israel not moving forward on a peace plan it wasn't going to accept or move forward on anyway?

No, that's not what I said. In fact, I would guess most Israelis wouldn't want the war in Syria to be brought to an end. Let them kill each other is a popular sentiment here.

 

[MrMarcello]

And RD, this doesn't even remotely begin to address atrocities in other parts of the world. Why no outrage about the slaughter in Africa? That seems just as disturbing? Thousands upon thousands hacked to death with machetes.

Most US citizens have any clue what chemical weapons do, they just know it's "bad". Most deaths from chemical weapons are fast, takes just seconds. Yes it's horrible. But worse than having a limb chopped off and left to bleed to death. Or a baby cut from the womb after being gang raped? I'd take nerve agent any day over that.

There's just no consistency in our policy.

Isn't the answer to all of this - because of Israel?

The US has to ensure Israel is safe because of fecking religion (and other things too) so Syria, Iran, et al pose a serious threat whereas African countries do not.

Am I right? Close?

 

[Danny1982]

Do you really want to have a properly sourced debate with me about Jihadis in Syria, or do you just want to be able to continue to shout "AL QAEDA IN SYRIA, AL QAEDA IN SYRIA" without justifying it in any way?*

Al Qaeda's potent force in Syria (Oh my God, I think the CNN is also joining this big Russian conspiracy!)

act of war =/= war (I thought a soon-to-be-phd should know that). It's ridiculous to suggest that bombing another nation (without the UN support) is not an act of war.

The fact that you're resorting now to playing semi-phd cards says it all really.. You're arguing about things that even the most anti-Assad people are admitting..

It's also strange that you claim to be against the conspiracy theories (which is not even applicable in the case of blaming the rebels for the chemical attacks, because it's just a straight forward reasoning really), while you seem to think that everybody who doesn't agree with you is somehow just a part of some non-sensical, anti-Western, Russian/Baathist propaganda.. To be honest you seem to me too paranoid to even have a level-headed opinion about this issue.. Oh and by the way, you're not different from those who accuse you of being "simply some sort of non-sensical Western propaganda" too.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

So the Americans have collected a new assistant in Franc, a short road to disillusionment there i shouldn't wonder. Has Hollande sought backing from the national assembly on the issue btw?

Some commentators talking rather gloomily about about the 'special relationship' yet how special has it been during the Obama presidency anyway?

Cameron can still find his niche in this but it won't be in the way he envisaged last week. Once the dust has settled i'd like to see either him or William Hague do the diplomatic rounds in Moscow and Beijing, if this matters enough to them then they should speak to the other influential parties as much as they have done the TV cameras.

Why the haste from Cameron domestically and Obama militarily? If the former had waited but a week he wouldn't have had so many MPs absenting themselves on holiday or through prior engagements, and the latter could have built a wider coalition over time and added depth to the plan.

"This kind of attack is a challenge to the world. We cannot accept a world where women and children and innocent civilians are gassed on a terrible scale," Obama said.

But you could accept a world where the scale was not so terrible? Also perhaps an allusion to his realtive inactivity following previously alleged attacks.

 

[Cali Red]

Isn't the answer to all of this - because of Israel?

The US has to ensure Israel is safe because of fecking religion (and other things too) so Syria, Iran, et al pose a serious threat whereas African countries do not.

Am I right? Close?

I'd say it could certainly have something to do with it. But Obama has certainly shown he's no fan of Isreal. So is he manipulated by his advisors then? I don't think Obama is making his decisions based on Christianity or any other religion. If it's about Israel then it's about our only (powerful) ally in the region.

 

[Mihajlovic]

Isn't the answer to all of this - because of Israel?

The US has to ensure Israel is safe because of fecking religion (and other things too) so Syria, Iran, et al pose a serious threat whereas African countries do not.

Am I right? Close?

Wouldn't Israel profit more from a more-less passive Assad than they would from who knows what future Al-Qaida affiliated rebel nutcase? As HR said, seems like Israel doesn't really know which side to 'support' in this madness.

 

[holyland red]

I'd say it could certainly have something to do with it. But Obama has certainly shown he's no fan of Isreal. So is he manipulated by his advisors then? I don't think Obama is making his decisions based on Christianity or any other religion. If it's about Israel then it's about our only (powerful) ally in the region.

Are you serious? Syria has had chemical weapons for decades and never dared using against Israel even during wars, or following recent attacks on its soil. If Obama had the security of Israel in his mind he would have targeted Iran instead.

Israel has kept its hands out of the Syrian mess so far. As I said, the atrocities are carried out across the border by two sides which are sworn enemies of Israel. Of those, it's Assad who has proved he's quite responsible in keeping the border quiet. You Yanks are not helping us one bit, and if anything you may leave us counting the cost of your adventures again.

 

[711]

Isn't the answer to all of this - because of Israel?

The US has to ensure Israel is safe because of fecking religion (and other things too) so Syria, Iran, et al pose a serious threat whereas African countries do not.

Am I right? Close?

It's an understandable question, and in many things to do with the middle east the answer would be yes, but probably not this one.

I think a lot of the outrage against chemical weapons in the West is genuine. Lots of other factors of course, but I don't think gas is being used as an excuse to act.

Can't be said often enough, the United Nations is the way forward. Personally I think talking to Russia (not at them) is the key.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

I think a lot of the outrage against chemical weapons in the West is genuine. Lots of other factors of course, but I don't gas is being used as an excuse to act.
Can't be said often enough, the United Nations is the way forward. Personally I think talking to Russia (not at them) is the key.

And if the ongoing war crimes committed by the rebels received similar media attention and condemnation from Hague we'd probably have half a mind to attack both sides. *shrugs*

 

[Chabon]

Al Qaeda's potent force in Syria (Oh my God, I think the CNN is also joining this big Russian conspiracy!)

Absolutely nothing in that article backs up your assertions or questions my claims. It even manages to include the fact that al-Zawahiri has no authority whatsoever over the groups claiming allegiance with his organisation. You literally think Al Qaeda can be compared to an army, so I have no idea why I'm continuing to debate these issues with you. It's like listening to a six year old explain physics.

And I never accused you of being part of a conspiracy, you clown, I pointed out that your beliefs about the nature of this conflict firmly align with propaganda, not because you're part of the creation of it, but because you're a useful idiot. Newsflash, chucklefeck, you're why they make the propaganda, not part of it. And unlike myself, you clearly do love a good conspiracy theory, because you believe that rebel groups would kill 1500 of their own people on the off-chance it would draw a half-hearted response from the West. If that's 'straightforward reasoning' then I suggest you seek medical attention.

act of war =/= war (I thought a soon-to-be-phd should know that). It's ridiculous to suggest that bombing another nation (without the UN support) is not an act of war.

*sigh* 'Act of war' is purely a reactive expression. If the nation attacked does not regard a military action as such, and declare war in response, then that military action simply isn't an act of war. I gave you several examples of this and could give hundrreds more. If/when the US bombs Syria as a punitive measure relating to the regime's chemical weapon use, the two countries will not be at war, unless Assad is truly insane.

Anyway, I offered you a reasonable, well-sourced debate and you continued being a tedious prick, so I'm out. I hope you continue to enjoy cheerleading for a man who has murdered tens of thousands of civilians because that's what Daddy did.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Chabon, would you care to offer an opinion on what is believed to be an imminent strike rather than arguing quite irrelevant semantics?

You said earlier that you disagreed with the proposed intervention for sound reasons, what were these out of interest?

How do you think the various politicians have handled the situation?