babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
War in Syria 3
August 12, 2016 - 8:33am
Continued from here.
The jihadists are being decimated, their Western sponsors are practically apoplectic with rage about it, and Aleppo is turning into a battle of attrition.
Great Battle of Aleppo
Will HRC, should she win in November, have any proxies to attack Syria with? Let's hope not.
Another wounded child: CBC "Blame Russia!"
Photo of a child injured juxtaposed with a photo of the inside of a Russian jet. Because, yes, when the terrorists are losing, anything is fair game. And CBC readers really do need to be led by the nose. So maybe just REMIND them about another child lying dead on a Greek beach. Otherwise they may not make the "correct" conclusions.
CBC. Fronting for jihadists.
The use of Iranian air bases for the Russian AF to attack Western-sponsored terrorists/jihadists in Syria is significant. Iran has specific clauses in its fundamental law/legislation prohibiting ANY foreign military forces being stationed in their country. There haven't been foreign soldiers or equipment stationed in Iran since 1945. This is a very big deal ... politically. Turkey's rapproachment with Iran as well is causing heads to explode in Washington's "think-tank-istan".
Russia, Iran, Iraq, and, (VERY) slowly, Turkey, working together to end the foreign-sponsored war (read: USA, and its NATO vassals like Canada, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc.) stands a much better chance of success.
The US has, rather predictably, ignored the successes against the terrorists and focussed on fabrications that using Iranian bases somehow violates UN constraints on supplying military aircraft to Iran. But the US is facing the real prospect of ... being left out the solution of the crisis ... and the reconstruction of Syria afterwards.
Hamadan Air Base in Iran
There are also reports that China is/will be playing a larger role in the training of Syrian Defence Forces.
There is a disturbing pattern here - when the head-chopping Wesetern-sponsored jihadists are losing the battle, then we hear noisy calls for a ceasefire. Translation: let the murderers reload. When those fighting the jihadists are winning, then we have what we have now; exaggerated claims about a humanitarian disaster, trivialisation of the humanitarian efforts already underway (not by the Western regimes), and attempts to shame those who are militarily defeating the barbarous jihadists into silence.
Non Western proposal to address humanitarian crisis in Aleppo
Key aspects of the excellent Russian proposal: creation of a corridor in which only humanitarian aid, and for the whole city, [not just the jihadist-controlled areas as the barbarous Western regimes want] can come into Aleppo, insuring no more arms, weapons, more fanatic jihadists can enter the city, and so on.
However, it's likely this proposal will be met by dead silence by the Western MSM.
Western MSM: Save the terrorists! Because, because, because!
Western media uses al-Nusra terrorists as a source for war propaganda.
Any civilians injured (much less the many Syrians that are killed by US-sponsored "moderate" jihadists) is bad. And they are much more vulnerable that those in the military in conflicts like the one in Syria.
But it's also true that the duplicity around the injured boy is despicable. Last month the US bombing in Syria killed 79 people. At most there was a perfunctory report, quickly forgotten, in the MSM. Why aren't these deaths getting the same attention as the injured boy?
My two bits. The injured boy can be used as a justification for more war, more violence, more funding for the "moderate" jihadists, more money for direct US (and NATO) bombing in Syria. That's why he matters to the US gov and its lickspittle MSM.
The 79 dead Syrians last month don't matter to the US, or the MSM, because they're not "important" deaths.
We will now get plenty of official media calling for more violence in Syria: more US bombing, more support for the "moderate" jihadists, and so on. Of that I have no doubt. And the photo of the shell shocked boy is simply a means to that end.
There are plenty of sober-minded analysts who take a similar view. I will post some links.
1. The Boy in the Ambulance: His name is OMRAN
The article also outlines some of the killers masquerading as "freedom and democracy" proponents around Syria.... most of whom have very nice offices in Washington's street of lobbyists.
The failure of five years of American efforts to drown the elected Syrian gov in blood and replace it with bloodthirsty jihadists intent on ethnic cleansing has evoked "outrage" from the US authorities. So a campaign for more war, based on the powerful image of an injured child, for example, is the next step.
Time Magazine gives instructions. The photo of the injured boy "cannot be unseen".
The Aleppo Poster Child ... to ensure that Aleppo remains in the hands of the "moderate" terrorists and splits Syria into feuding fiefdoms
sidebar: US military killed 73 civilians in Syria last month. I think I typed 79 upthread. My bad. The bulk of them ... women and children. You won't get any heart-rending photos (even though they exist) in the Western MSM about those civilian casualties.
Let's take an example. This is how CNN does it...
Problem is, the Aleppo Media Center is funded by the US government (USAID, NED, etc.) . And the US government has made it crystal clear, for over 5 years now, that overthrowing the Assad regime trumps everything else: millions of refugees, thousands killed, the country destroyed ...etc., etc.. with the idea of giving Syria precisely the same sorts of "blessings" that Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, etc. have received ....
Here's another: Russia and Assad are responsible for "everything bad" that happens in Syria
Now for some counter evidence. Eva Bartlett with a good piece (Aug 14 - before the injured boy's photo controversy)
Western corporate media 'disappears' over 1.5 million Syrians and 4,000 doctors
And then the photo of the boy. Lots of links to back up her claims, footnotes, etc..
........................................................
Ask yourself the following: is an injured boy cause for more violence in Syria (by the NATO regimes, incl Canada) ?
Then, what to make of all the Syrians killed by the US-backed jihadists and "moderates"?
What are they? Chopped liver?
I think there would be a good number of people there who would take the position that nobody is really there for them. That are all nasty and all playing propaganda games.
I don't think we have any evidence of any innocent, honest and well meaning people there with weapons.
I assure you that Syrians care about their citizens that are killed and injured by foreign fighters.They are defiant, in fact, in the face of continuing efforts to destroy their country.
And what is this about "innocent, honest and well meaning people" anyway? Are you looking for some cowboy in a white hat to let you know who the "good guy" is?
Millions are displaced and turned into refugees. The enormous migration of millions of people is contributing to the "success" of right wing and racist politicians in Europe. Many are killed an injured in this war - a war bought and paid for by a country (the US) which is the key player in the NATO military alliance that Canada belongs to - which has gone on for 5 years.
What matters is how this war can be stopped. And the biggest thing would be to stop the support and funding by Canadian allies (US, and other NATO members, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel, Turkey, and other Gulf States) of these terrorists whose expressed aim is one of ethnic cleansing of the multi-ethnic secular Syrian state.
Why are we allied with such barbarism?
And why does Canada have SANCTIONS against Syria? Is overthrowing the Syrian government more important than the lives lost in this brutal five-year-old war?
Why does the Canadian government website BLAME Syria for the regional crisis and says nothing [here - elsewhere on the site there is plenty] about the foreign funded jihadists that have been causing such horrors?
You don't have to agree but the position is that the Syrian government tried to hang on to power by bombing civilians in order to get to the rebels. If they had not resorted to this presumably the government would have fallen, a more credible government would ahve been installed and order -- including a defense against ISIS and others -- possible.
The country may not have fragmented as quickly or as badly if the Syrian government had not conducted a war on civilians. This created an opening that ISIS also bad for civilians took advantage of.
Neither the US nor Russia are defenders of civilians either -- theya re out to further their geopolitical goals. They do not want to be seen killing civilians but that is also politics -- and BS.
Now when you talk about foreign people interfering in Syria you also have those on the Syrian government side (There were Iranians involved before Russia stepped up its interest in the country). I don't see how the syrian government can be made up to be the victim of foreign influence. Arguably without support from Iran that government would have fallen long ago.
Syria is a mess. Trying to make out that one of the many sides is an innocent victim is hardly likely to lead to success.
Again -- there are no innocents in the country with weapons.
That's just wrong. We have plenty of examples - examples I have sarcastically described as those states benefiting from the blessings of Western civilization - and we know what would happen in the scenario you describe.
Afghanistan. Libya. Iraq. Shall I go on? Or shall someone start lecturing me about how "immoral" it is to trivialize an injured boy?
But what to say about the trivialization of predatory war? Isn't this the greatest crime known to humanity?
The "rebels" have demonstrated what they want. The restoration of a Caliphate and the liquidation of the "infidels". I don't see how a morgue is more "credible".
This is contempt for the sovereinty of states. The concept is a corner stone of international law. States have the right to defend themselves.
There's no arguing with such block-headedness.
Sorry but you are spreading bullshit right now. This is nothing to do with contempt for sovereignty of states to explain a policy. I stted what the policy was and that there are no innocent actors there. If you think that is block-headed-- I return the favour in my opinion of your statements in this forum.
And guess what -- if I want to have an opinion about anyone this does not make it blockheaded or contempt. It is just an opinion. I am not personally interfering in Syria and I ahve not endorsed ANYONE.
So dial it back if you don't like the feedback.
OK, fine. I'm sick of the BS.
Here's a critical point re sovereignty. ONLY the Russians have the support of the Syrian authorities to be militarily active in that country. Only Russia. Period. The other states - US, Canada, Turkey, you name it - have no such approval. That basically means that any military action they do in Syria is a war crime.
Edited to add: military action by states, like the US and Canada, inside the territory of Syria without Syria's permission is like an invasion. It's an act of war. A war crime. This is extremely serious. It could literally start a regional or global war. In fact, this is HOW regional and World Wars have started. Hitler invaded Poland. The rest is history. If that sort of shite happens again, we could all wind up being nuclear ash.
This is what I mean by contempt for sovereignty. Syria is a member state of the UN, with recognized, elected leader, blah blah. So the actions of our NATO regimes - including Canadian interference in Syria - violates this bedrock international law.
I don't see how you can be so glib about this. The NATO regimes are acting like brigands.
Now say what you like about the Russians - and I'm sure there's plenty to criticize - the fundamental point is that they have been scrupulous about this issue. And, lo and behold, the Iranians have recognized this as well ... and allowed Russia to fly their aircraft to Iranian bases ... something that took a constitutional change in Iran - and hasn't been done since 1945.
Sorry. The Russians got it right. Everyone else is wrong.
Okay I am a bit pissed off today at another person on this board who has no desire to argue what is actually being said. I have not been glib and I have not supported or defended any action there. By anyone.
And I would appreciate it is people debating here would have the basic courtesy not to misrepresent what other people are saying in order to make their points.
Now if you are going to make up positions for other people I suggest that you make up a fantasy person to hold that made up position. At least that way you won't have them coming back and calling you on it.
Now I challenged your suggestions that the Russians and the Syrian government are acting properly and morally with an interest in the welfare of the people. I also answered you when you asked why the Canadian government did something -- I gave a rationale. I did not judge it -- I merely explained it as an answer to your very direct question.
Now are you interested in an honest conversation about what each other is actually saying or would you prefer to make up both sides of the conversation? If you prefer the second, then I encourage you to make up a person to go with that and leave me out of it.
Don't take that out on ikosmos, or I'll just have two things to feel guilty about.
Fair enough. And we can do with a reset -- start again better on something else.
1. That "dictator" has more support than the current US President. He won the most recent election fair and square. There is no way that he could have retained power - in the situation of foreign fighters in a virtual invasion of the country - without widespread support. Tens of thousands of Syrians would not lay down their lives to save their country were this not true. You're just blowing hot air.
Of course, the Western MSM was mostly dead silent on this. It didn't fit the narrative of "dictator Bashar al Assad" ... a narrative that you are lapping up.
2. They (Russia) certainly are giving DAESH a hard time and "exacerbating the conflict". They aim to wipe out the jihadists. And good on them. Unlike the barbarous Western regimes, that funnel money and support to the "moderate" terrorists and such, at least they are consistent and have made an enormous differnce in less than a year.
The jihadists are getting whupped. Too fukcing bad. Almost 5 years of the US and NATO "fighting the terrorists" showed bugger all. Good on Russia for making a difference. And shame on the NATO regimes for stoking the conflict from outside and creating misery on a mass scale.
Here's an example of the hubris of the Empire. It's really quite astounding.
The USA, with troops and "trainers" and arms inside Syria, WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF SYRIA (i.e., for all intents and purposes it is a US invasion of that country, an act of war against Syria just to be there), recently lectured Syria on what they could do inside their own country.
The US warned Syria of what it could do, and not do, in fighting terrorists inside Syria. Oh, and the US also warned Moscow as well. (The Russians are the only country to be officially invited to Syria to fight the terrorists. )
This is the action of a barbarous regime, used to barking orders to everyone.
CNN: All those who oppose the US Empire will die!
Babblers who think the conduct of the US Empire and the Russian regime in Syria is much the same are hopelessly biased. But it's hard to be independently minded and not re-gurgitate the missives of the Empire when we're all so much awash in their propaganda.
Try harder.
The hubris of the Empire explains something else as well. Because the US (and their NATO allies) won't coordinate their actions with the Syrian government, or the Russians, they are killing and injuring way more civilians than the latter.
off-Guardian: Well, that didn't take long.
They predicted a shrill call for war and ... there is a shrill call for war.
Which is another way of saying that the "humanitarian" organizations are on exactly the same page as the US State Department.
Let's bring the blessings of Western civilization to Syria! Just look at the grateful Afghans, Iraqis, and Libyans for similar blessings! They're so thankful that they're coming to Europe in the millions to thank us personally! [/rolleyes]
So what to conclude?
The greatness of Syria. A brief, and essential history of Syria’s 10,000 year civilization was provided by Syria’s Envoy to the UN, Dr. Bashar al Ja’afari, at his first Town Hall Meeting, in Orlando, Florida, July 2013, via the Syrian American Forum.
It's an interesting presentation from Dr. Bashar Jaafari [Syrian Ambassador to the UN] on US culture and the role of Syrian migrants. What's really remarkable in beginning to listen to the remarks, is the unwillingness of the presenter to express any sort of antagonism towards the American people.
The Yanqui regime tries to kill Syrians by the millions and the response is a kind of sublime generosity. Astonishing.
Did you know that there were 168 Syrians aboard the Titanic? Or that 134 of them perished?
Or that Damascus is the oldest capital city on Earth?
Or that, were it not for Syria, neither Christianity nor Islam would have spread to the rest of the world, and would have remained regional religions only?
When you have a civil war and outside countries interfere I don't think there is a great superiority for the side interfering to support the government. The government in a full civil war is just one of the two sides.
Characterizing events in Syria as a civil war, without qualification, trivializes the well-$ponsored terrorists, most of whom are not Syrian, who have made it their aim to drown that country in blood, carry out ethnic and sectarian cleansing, chop a few heads off for fun and profit, and establish a fundamentalist Sunni Takfiri regime.
If you can treat the only hope for a relatively peaceful transition for Syria - don't forget Assad has managed to bring over to his side no small number of fellow Syrians, thousands of whom have laid down their lives to defend the Assad led Syria - with these giddy child beheaders then you've failed to put any critical distance between your own views and those of, e.g., the US regime whose avowed aim is, and has been, the bloody overthrown of the democratically elected, UN recognized government of Syria and its replacement by terrorists.
WTF? Do you have any idea what would happen in Syria with these terrorists winning the conflict? Does: Afghanistan, Libya, and Iraq and the millions dead and displaced mean nothing to you?
How many dead Arabs is enough? These sorts of "liberal" views that you're defending are just evil.
Are you purposefully forgetting that there are more than two sides fighting in Syria? It sure looks like it.