Syria: Support

Please invade Bahrain and Saudi if you want to help the 'oppressed people'.

Original post by prog2djent

Oh, wow, Galloway. That's convincing.

Reply 43

(aswell as frankfurt and Berlin)

There are hundreds of other videos from accross European cities and Arab cities, aswell as in Syria or pro-assad rallied, thousands of videos clearly showing Salafist-Jihadists attacking Shias, Aliwates, Christians, pro assad civilains/bloggers, setting up IED's, blowing up civilians, creating mobile car bombs, showing off the nice new US, Israel and european made weaponary.

This is not about the liberal and just West vs a small time "brutal" dictator, this is about Israel and its western allies vs Syria, one of the most anti-Israeli states in the region, the only arab nation not to have a peace agreement (surrender) with Israel, continuely support the Palestinian cause etc etc Israel hates Syria because Syria and Hezbollah, aswell as Iran, are all strategic openents. This is also a sectarian war, Extremist sunni muslims vs every other type of muslim and religious groups, of course, backed by Gulf Money, remember, Saudi Arabia are the biggest financeers of terrorism (aside from the US) in the world.

We are being duped into believing we need to intervene to takeout Assad because he is an anti-demoractic dictator with a poor record of human rights, .... right, well what about all the nations surrounding him that are WORSE in these areas huh?

Look at what we have done to Libya, that place is fast becoming the next somalia.

We need another war anyway, to get are economy moving again, according to Keyensian orthodoxy .... war is the perfect mechanism, it is the logical outcome of capitalism, and always has been ..... imperialism. Such an expansionist system can only survive we expand it everywhere else.

You must understand this, Libertarian to Libertarian?

Reply 44

fiz

Original post by prog2djent

BWAHAHA, George Galloway, seriously? Anyone here may wish to know that George Galloway;

1. Said to Saddam Hussein, "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength and your indefatigability."

2. Refers to the Shi'ites Saddam murdered in the 1980s as "a fifth column" who "actively undermined the Iraqi war effort in the interests of their country's enemy."

3. Defended Saddam's claim to Kuwait, describing the province as "clearly a part of the greater Iraqi whole stolen from the motherland by perfidious Albion".

4. Described Saddam's mass murder of democrats, Kurds and other anti-Saddam forces in 1991 was a "civil war" that "involved massive violence on both sides".

5. When shown the vast scale of Saddam's palaces, he replies, "Our own head of state has a fair bit of real estate herself". Remember that during this time people in Iraq were dying of starvation, unlike in Britain.

6. Said, "Just as Stalin industrialized the Soviet Union, so on a different scale Saddam plotted Iraq's own Great Leap Forward". The referance to the Great Leap Forward was ment in a positive way, remember that during the Great Leap Forward 20 million (minimum estimate) people died.

7. Openly supported an anti-democratic coup in Pakistan

8. Is an apologist for the Milosevic regime, and described Kosova as a "province of Serbia". He is also hopelessly ignorant about the region's history.

9. Openly supports Hamas (I support Palestinian statehood as well, but not theocratic groups like Hamas.)

10. Is an apologist for the genocidal dictatorship of Omar Al Bashir, and denies the genocide in Darfur. This is a person who cries crocodile tears for the Palestinians, but I guess the Kosovar Albanians and Africans of Sudan are not worth his time, or not anti-western enough.

11. Has the gall to call himself "anti-war" yet who supported the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. So he's not really an anti-interventionalist at all. He also supported their intervention in Hungary and Czekeslovakia.

12. Supports the theocratic dictatorship in Iran, and appears on their propoganda channel Press TV

13. Said "Syria is lucky to have Bashar al-Assad as her President." This was at a time when Syria was occupying Lebanon, and murdering the leaders of democracy.

14. Believes that Iraqi trade unionists today are "quislings" and dismisses their tearful recollections of torture at the hands of Ba'athists as "a party trick".

Here's some more examples of ~~Gallowsway's~~ Galloway's dishonesty;

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 45

Original post by Clessus

Agree with all that.

But that doesn't mean his argument about Syria is incorrect.

I like to take different points from different people, because of their other opinions or actions does not mean one particular argument is correct.

In this instance, I disagree with George as a person, he is a contrarian, and Charlatan, deceitful, money and fame hungry, and an opportunist, he has defended dictators multiple times, he is an apologist for islamo-fascism in Europe, and he frequently uses Ad homs, bullying, strawmen, and buzzwords/catchphrases as a debating technique.

But that doesn't mean I don't listen to what he has to say about Syria (which my Syrian/Iranian friends have been saying all along), you are trying to discredit his argument as legitimate by attacking is personal standing, which I don't think is genuine.

Another example is Chomsky, what he has to say about US, Chinese and Russian foreign policy is Top Notch, but I disagree entirely with his economic views, his accuracy and non-chalant sourcing/recolection of data, and his knowledge, that his argument from a perceived aurthority, gives him a one-up on opponents, like Hitchens.

Reply 46

Original post by prog2djent

Agree with all that.

But that doesn't mean his argument about Syria is incorrect.

Perhaps not, but it does seriously undermine his credibility, and gives readers some idea of who he is.

In this instance, I disagree with George as a person, he is a contrarian, and Charlatan, deceitful, money and fame hungry, and an opportunist, he has defended dictators multiple times, he is an apologist for islamo-fascism in Europe, and he frequently uses Ad homs, bullying, strawmen, and buzzwords/catchphrases as a debating technique.

Mostly true, but if that is the case, why cite him as an authority, why uncritically post a video of one of his speeches, as though it was indisputable fact?

you are trying to discredit his argument as legitimate by attacking is personal standing, which I don't think is genuine.

Given his record of support for the syrian regime (and everything else posted above), I think it is fair to treat everything he says on the issue with a fair amount of skepicism, to say the least.

Another example is Chomsky, what he has to say about US, Chinese and Russian foreign policy is Top Notch

Partially true, much of his stuff in the 1980s was very good, I especially enjoyed his essay on Sharon's actions in Lebanon, it was brilliantly written and argued. However in the 1990s, starting with the breakup of Yugoslavia, he went off the wall and started to take incredibly wierd and reactionary positions which have completely discredited him in my view. That's not to mention his infamous and frankly bizzare essay on the Khmer Rouge.

I disagree entirely with his economic views, his accuracy and non-chalant sourcing/recolection of data, and his knowledge, that his argument from a perceived aurthority, gives him a one-up on opponents, like Hitchens.

Lets face it, any impartial observer would see that Hitchens slaughtered Chomsky in their exchange.

Reply 47

As yes, the old 'islamic extremism' propoganda line. In the war of the "narratives" Damascus (and its fellow travellers) has fashioned a version that emphasised opposition violence even as government troops and thugs were shooting without restraint at mostly unarmed protestors, and claimed that the FSA was a bunch of Islamic extremists. It is reminicent of the brutal dictatorships of South America, who claimed that the popular opposition to them was 'communism' and used this in a desperate attempt to keep legitimacy.

Assad's enemies did gradually take up arms, but the majority were defectors or those who joined the Free Syrian Army as a self-defence force. Atrocities like the brutal killings of soldiers in Jisr al-Shughour were an exception.

Assad needs terrorist enemies allegedly supported by foreign powers like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel and Turkey because they suit the sense of legitimacy and secular Arab nationalism he wishes to project – and help justify state repression. It fits neatly with the regime's attempt to ensure the loyalty of urban Sunnis and minorities fearful of Islamist rule by portraying all opposition as radical, violent and foreign-inspired.

Jihadi-type groups do seem to be operating in Syria, the Al-Nusra Front to Protect the Levant being the main one. However, there is no doubt that Assad is deliberately exaggerating the point for political and propaganda purposes. It is true that there are increasing reports of Sunni-sectarian militias in the rebellion. Some element of that is probably inevitable, given the lack of a widely-recognised leadership for the rebellion, and the Assad regime’s long-time manipulation of religious minorities (Alawite Muslims, Christians) to bolster itself. But an overview of the whole history of the rebellion leaves no doubt that its original driving force was revulsion against Assad’s tyranny, stimulated by the examples of Egypt and Tunisia, and aiming for measures of democracy and freedom. Solidarity from the left to the rebellion, and to its democratic andsecular is the best antidote to the danger of Islamist or Sunni-sectarian diversion.

According to most reports, the Free Syria Army, with its base in the border areas in Turkey where many Syrians have fled, is still largely secular in orientation. The rebels’ main military supplier is... the Syrian army.

As for those complaining about 'western imperialism'. The main imperialist interventions in Syria are from Iran (boots on the ground) and Russia (political support and weapons).

Reply 48

Original post by Clessus

YEs, that is all true, but I think you undersetimate the amount of sectarianism and would be Jihadist violence going on in the country, the fact is the majority of the syrian population still support the Ba'aath party but want reform, outside militias are no doubt trying to turn Sryia into a Sharia Caliphate, as they partially have done in Libya.

The facts need to be faced that Assad is better than the alternative, Sunni Islamists in power ... at the least, which would ... at best, turn Syria into somewhere like Iran, though a different religion, but I'd say more like Libya/Somalia/Yemen.

The point I find frustrating is the out and out propoganda against Assad from major western media outlets, whenever the BBC repeats Assads words, or CNN, Fox, Channel 4, NBC ... and of them, there is always a sarcastic tone, "Assad claimed so called 'Terrorists' and (the gap is crucial) ............ gangs are trying to destabalise Syria", then missing out the part of his speaches where he says backed by Saudi Money (to deny Arabia is the biggest exporter of Sunni terrorism and sectarianism, is madness) and Nato weaponary.

The houla massacre, as we are told, was simply shelling, yet we never see any footage or opinion, apart from those of the FSA and allied groups. I have linked some videos on here, it was a false flag operation against Shia's and Aliwate families and supporters, to kill, right before idiotic UN observers arive, which has happened multiple time, every time the UN is about to come in some massacre happens somewhere.

On a personal level, I don't support a rebel conglomeration that shout "Allahu Akbar" all the ****** time, whereas we see Shi'ites, Christians, Aliwates and even Secular Sunni groups who would bow to Assad before Allah.

Who would you rather have running the country, the current Syria, which is probably the biggest supporter of the Palestinian Cause, has massive support from Lebabon, Iran, Russia, or the alternative, a proxy state for the US, Israel, Saudi arabia, and any other nation that has signee the Israel Surrender initiative.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 49

Another gripe I have with this situation is the the US, UK, and European public are gradually being coerced into being pro-interventionist, when the BBC quotes Assad;

Assad said the United States is "part of the conflict. They offer the umbrella and political support to those gangs to ... destabilise Syria,"

90% of the our populations have no idea what destabalisation means, they don't know its history and don't know who are the ones destabilising, the way the BBC presents it is just Assad trying to scapegoat other groups for his own "crimes", whenever they quote Assad they always have to put some sort of pause between and important words, which Assad clealry doesn't do in his speaches. When Assad talks about the US backing terrorism, the UK and US public will be startled and think he is mad, beacuse, we fight terrorism right? Like we are told to believe? The majority of our populations have no idea that the US and UK, have supported terrorist groups wherever they can, be it Afghanistan, Iraq, the far east, we do what we can to stop democracy developing in the non-western world, we do what we can to countries or groups that pose the most serious threat to Israel. We are told that invading Iran may be a good option because the leader is a "madman", which may be partially true, Iran is an authoritarian hellhole controlled by crackpot Mullah's, but so are any of the Gulf Countries, why not invade them? Maybe because the have a peace treaty with Israel and are oil/energy delegates to the US, whereas Iran is an oil competitor to the US???

I'm waxing lyrical here.

But the most important thing is for what the people of Syria think, or even what we think. (I'll find the figure/sourced later) But I think somewhere between 65-70 percent of the US public are against interventions, and it is 10% higher for the UK, and other major EU nations it is somewhere around 90%, why can't we see if the Sryian population want intervention? They will be vehemently against it, and that's not even considering the fact the majority of the population support Assad over the FSA, and the overwhealming majority support Reform, and keeping the Ba'ath party, over a complete alternative.

Reply 50

Rhadamanthus

Original post by prog2djent

(aswell as frankfurt and Berlin)

Galloway is right, capitalism 'logically' leads to war, and supporting brutal dictators against the evil imperialist USA is the correct course of action? And you call yourself a libertarian? If I were still the leader of the party I would have banned you from the subforum for being a mole by now.

All these videos you've posted mean nothing. I could easily post some videos of anti-Assad protesters but it wouldn't back up my point. You do realise that what is right and wrong are not decided by whatever the most vocal group is?

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 51

If you want to look at who actually supports Arab dictators look no further the USA who has military contracts with every single dictator in the middle east so that America can sell weapons get money all whilst Arab people remian oppressed.

Reply 52

Rhadamanthus

Original post by mastanda

And yet not a peep from you about the Russian government's contracts with Assad. Something tells me you're not interested in the 'oppressed' Arabs; you just want to get angry at America for something.

Reply 53

Oh a neg, charming, some people cannot accept that America supports dictators, oh didums, truth is bitter isn't it?

America is a rascal dictatorship supporting country.

Reply 54

Original post by prog2djent

YEs, that is all true, but I think you undersetimate the amount of sectarianism and would be Jihadist violence going on in the country,

And I think you overestimate it, for the reasons stated above. And as said, the Sectarian violence which has occured is in a large part the fault of the Ba'ath party.

the fact is the majority of the syrian population still support the Ba'aath party but want reform

On what basis do you say this? The few polls which have been done have taken place in a police state with one of the worst human rights records in the world (appauling, even by middle eastern standards) and can hardly be seen as reliable. I find it almost impossible to believe that the majority sunni population would, after 40 years of repressive minority rule, still support the Ba'ath party.

The facts need to be faced that Assad is better than the alternative, Sunni Islamists in power ... at the least, which would ... at best, turn Syria into somewhere like Iran, though a different religion, but I'd say more like Libya/Somalia/

There seems to be this silyl delusion that Gadaffi was secular. Not only is this untrue, but all it would show is that secular dictatorships are just as nasty as theocratic ones. In Somalia, the cause of the instability is to a very large degree the fault of foreign aggression and imperialism.

missing out the part of his speaches where he says backed by Saudi Money

Yeah, because Assad, in a public speech, is a reliable and impartial source :rolleyes:

. The Saudis are calibrating their response carefully. They aim to show sympathy for the oppressed Sunni majority in Syria. However they don’t want to see Saudi youth fighting in Syria in the same way they fought in Iraq; and they are wary of the implications of further chaos in Syria.

The US and Turkey have offered non-lethal aid to the opposition, including communications equipment.

However the US has also invested a lot of diplomatic time in lobbying against Arab states sending weapons to the opposition inside Syria. The Saudi and Qataris have offered to send weapons, although do not seem to have taken many practical steps to deliver them.

The houla massacre, as we are told, was simply shelling, yet we never see any footage or opinion, apart from those of the FSA and allied groups. I have linked some videos on here, it was a false flag operation against Shia's and Aliwate families and supporters

No, although part of the Houla massacre was caused by shelling, most of it was at close range after Assad's death squads entered the town. Virtually all reputable news reports, eyewitness reports and UN reports blame the Syrian government for the massacre. The only ones that don't are Ba'athist, Russian and Iranian sources, as well as Western "anti-imperialists" such Edward Herman (who has absolutely no credibility as a scholar or observer).

On a personal level, I don't support a rebel conglomeration that shout "Allahu Akbar" all the ****** time

"Allahu Akbar" is very common in the Islamic world, and is hardly the sole reserve of extremists. The Bosnia war was discussed earlier. During that war the Bosniaks sometimes shouted "Allahu Akbar" after winning a battle, yet despite Serb propoganda attempts to portray them as such, they most certainly were not Islamic extremists.

I hardly need to mention the fact that many Palestinian resistance groups shouted "Allahu Akbar", including Fatah, and they were not Islamic extremists.

whereas we see Shi'ites, Christians, Aliwates and even Secular Sunni groups who would bow to Assad before Allah

And that's a good thing...because?

Who would you rather have running the country, the current Syria, which is probably the biggest supporter of the Palestinian Cause, has massive support from Lebabon, Iran, Russia, or the alternative, a proxy state for the US, Israel, Saudi arabia, and any other nation that has signee the Israel Surrender initiative.

I personally am sick of people changing the subject to Israel every time the rights of other peoples in the Middle East are mentioned. The crimes of Syria are easily worse than those of Israel, and even Saudi Arabia. Let's not forget Syria's occupation of Lebanon, which included crimes against humanity, including crimes against Palestinians.

90% of the our populations have no idea what destabalisation means, they don't know its history and don't know who are the ones destabilising

I personally see no problem destabalising a fascist regime, neither should any genuine left-winger who has any principles beyond merely hating the west.

When Assad talks about the US backing terrorism, the UK and US public will be startled and think he is mad, beacuse, we fight terrorism right? Like we are told to believe? The majority of our populations have no idea that the US and UK, have supported terrorist groups wherever they can, be it Afghanistan, Iraq, the far east, we do what we can to stop democracy developing in the non-western world

What terrorists has the West backed in Iraq, or the far east? The word 'terrorism' has become a meaningless word, and too often is used by tyranical governments to describe armed resistance by people who are themselves being terrorised (such as in Syria). A good example of this is the regimes which tried to hitch a free ride on sympathy for America after 9/11 and the fear of Islamic extremism it caused. The Sharon regime in Israel claimed that it was "the same as Arafat" (as if that's all it was), the Hindu Nationalist regime in India described armed resistance to their tyranny in Kashmir as "a plot by Al-Qaeda", and the fascist, imperialist Putin regime in Russia claimed that the Chechan resistance to their terror was "a plot by the mujahadeen and al-Qaeda".

The idea that the crisis in Syria is a plot by Israel, Saudi Arabia and the US to destabalise Syria would be slightly easier to accept if what was happening in Syria a) wasn't part of a wider pattern in the Arab world, and b) if the Syrian regime was benevolent and lovely and the Syrian people had nothing to protest about. Destabilising Syria surely runs the risk, from the point of view of the Western powers, of ending up with the Muslim Brotherhood. If Asad was a real thorn in their side, I suppose it might be worth the risk. But why risk it now? Of course, things have got so bad they reckon Asad needs to go, and they'd rather have some control over who replaces him. But that's not at all the same as 'deliberately promoting' the crisis in the first place. Why would America and Israel want an so-called "jihadist" regime in Syria, which if anything would be more hostile to them than Assad.

The overthrow of the Syrian regime is both a pressing humanitarian necessity and would bring enormous benefits to the Middle East. Baathist Syria has shown an exceptional readiness to massacre its own citizens, perhaps surpassed in the Arab world only by its defunct Baathist counterpart in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. The current slaughter still has not reached the scale achieved by Bashar’s father Hafez al-Assad at Hama in 1982, when as many as 40,000 may have been massacred, but the Hama massacre should stand as a warning to what may yet occur if the outside world does not act. Furthermore, Baathist Syria plays an exceptionally egregious role in regional affairs: as the principal regional ally of Iran and a supporter of Hezbollah and Hamas, it contributes more than any other Arab regime to obstructing Middle Eastern peace. Its overthrow would weaken extremist forces in the region and further isolate the regime in Tehran.

On the other hand, however overwhelming the case for humanitarian intervention in Syria is, the West will pay a stiff price in propaganda terms if and when it does. Unlike Gaddafi’s Libya, but like Saddam’s Iraq, as well as Bahrain (funny how no lefties claim that all the violence in Bahrain is all a plot by Iran to destabalise a US ally) the Syrian dictatorship is based upon the rule of a religious minority over a majority. As Saddam’s regime embodied Sunni Arab rule over Kurds and Shia Arabs, so Assad’s regime embodies Alawi (Shi'a) rule over Sunnis. The overthrow of the Syrian regime will inevitably be bloody and is likely to assume the appearance, at some level, of an Alawi-Sunni inter-communal violence. Although Western military intervention, by speeding the transition, may result in less bloodshed than would otherwise be the case, it will inevitably mean that the West will be blamed for whatever such bloodshed - undoubtedly substantial - does occur. Tated above all he massive slaughter that followed the fall of Saddam’s regime in Iraq, perpetrby the Iraqi "insurgency", was not caused by the US intervention – although the Bush Administration’s clumsy occupation policy undoubtedly exacerbated the problem. The fall of that foul regime would inevitably have had a bloody aftermath involving substantial violence between Sunni and Shia elements. But the US’s role in overthrowing it did mean that the US was blamed for the violence that occurred; violence that, more than anything else, discredited the intervention.

This does not mean that the West and its allies should refrain from intervening. But it does mean that we should be extremely careful how we do so, studying the lessons of the propaganda disaster in Iraq as well as of the essentially successful interventions in Kosova and Libya, and treating the propaganda front in any future intervention as of primary importance. We do not need a UN Security Council resolution to intervene, and it would be wrong to grant the Assad regime’s friends in Moscow and Beijing absolute power to block intervention. But we do need a broad coalition incorporating Arab states as well as Turkey , and enjoying at least the passive approval of a significant part of the international community as a whole.

As a precursor, Britain and other Western states that have not done so should recognise the Syrian National Council as the legitimate representatives of the Syrian people, withdraw recognition from Assad’s regime and draw up plans to provide arms, training and intelligence to the Free Syrian Army. The coalition should prepare the ground for the eventual imposition of a no-fly zone over Syria, and for air strikes to defend cities liberated by the Free Syrian Army and other rebel forces, if and when this becomes strategically and diplomatically feasible. A no-fly zone could be followed by the establishment of a liberated area in northern Syria under Turkish-led Western military protection, where Syrian civilians would be safe and where rebel forces could operate freely and begin to build a new administration for the country.

Western leaders need to be very clear, however: though we can help the Syrian revolution to defeat the old order, we cannot guarantee that it has a happy outcome. It is the responsibility of the Syrian people and their revolutionary bodies – the Syrian National Council, Free Syrian Army and Syrian Revolution General Commission - to do this, and above all to prevent any sectarian bloodletting. But come what may, we should never accept the premise that those outside forces trying to halt the bloodbath are the villains: that title goes to the murderous regime in Damascus, and to its criminal defenders – in Tehran, Moscow and Beijing.

Reply 55

The russians sell to Syria, the americans sell to every other citatorship in the ME, a big difference, but clutch at them straws, the Russian contract with syria is around 400M, have a guess at how much the US contracts with the Sunni dictatorship club is?

The arabs in Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi are just as oppressed, why not help them as well? seems like you double standards.
If the USA and the west was so serious about helping the oppressed people then why sell weapons to sunni dictators? answer this question please

If the west is going to interfere in Syria, why not interfere in Saudi, Qatar, Yemen, Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait etc as well then?

Is it because it may stop the flow of oil, is it because it may bring down the western economies to their knees at a critical time, is it becuase the west values it economies over human life, depsite boasting about HR all the time?

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 56

Yes, yes it does logically result in war, it always has done and always will. Its not a case of "crony" capitalism, which is a term only applicable to the financial industry, because capitalism is crony by default, to deny so is a-historical.

You have mistunderstood my argument, I said that we seupport anybody who best serves our interests, whether it be brutal dictators or rebel groups. The US doesn't care about democracy, and will often try undermine it in certain countries, as the inevitable outcome is the population voting in a party who give a middle finger to the US government and its crony corporations. Because the brutal dictators are often pro-USA, though not in rhetoric, but in Energy and financial contracts.

I see you are one of these ideologicall purist libertarians, the ideologicall spans many different areas, idiot.

We shouldn't be involved in anything anywhere unless it is democratically called for and the population fully understand the arguments.

And banning me from the forum is a funny thing, isn't it. Fairly unlibertarian, you don't like what I say so you ban, control and silence me.

Reply 57

Aj12

Original post by mastanda

The arabs in Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi are just as oppressed, why not help them as well? seems like you doyble standards.

Why sell weapons to Saudi, Yemen, Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, all dictatorships.

If the west is going to interfere in Syria, why not Saudi, Qatar, Yemen, Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait etc as well then?

Is it becuase it may stop the flow of oil, is it becuase it may bring down the western economies to their knees at a critical time, is it becuase the west values it economies over human life, depsite boasting about HR all the time?

Why should it be all or none? Such a line of thinking is pretty disgraceful. We should do what we can where we can, rather than just wringing our hands and saying well we could easily help one of the above countries but because we cannot help them all we should do nothing.

Reply 58