Syria

[Foxbat]

Just a couple of points that bothers me about that facebook broadcast. He asks why Assad would do this and that it cannot be his regime.

Of course, strategically and politically, it would be unwise but I can easily imagine followers of Assad carrying out this atrocity with everything that has preceded it. Hate grows. Frenzy grows. Good sense and humanity go out the window.

Of course, it could be the work of other side, but the recently published satellite photos show the positions of the Syrian military (all focussed on the area of atrocity). Not conclusive proof but enough to put the military in the position of prime suspect.

The way I see it, events are controlling Assad and he is merely a weakling puppet(or even a fall-guy if things go awry). In the shadows behind him lies the real control in Syria.

[Venusian Broon]

Originally Posted by Foxbat

Just a couple of points that bothers me about that facebook broadcast. He asks why Assad would do this and that it cannot be his regime.

Of course, strategically and politically, it would be unwise but I can easily imagine followers of Assad carrying out this atrocity with everything that has preceded it. Hate grows. Frenzy grows. Good sense and humanity go out the window.

The way I see it, events are controlling Assad and he is merely a weakling puppet(or even a fall-guy if things go awry). In the shadows behind him lies the real control in Syria.

Or it could be of course that Assad and his regime feel (and are) in a position of strength - strong military, good ties with Russia - and they have calculated that they can get away with it.

And as you state 'Hate grows' and now the tribal groups are looking for payback, revenge and a chance to get one back on other groups. When you have thousands of angry, fearful men armed to the teeth facing each other in a daily struggle tit for tat, it's no surprise that we are starting to see such events occurring.

Again from the broadcast, I would question if we are going to do anything militarily - I would be surprised even if anyone ran some sort of Libya-type air operation. Sure the US would like to get Syria to leave the Russian sphere of interest - but invading yet another middle eastern country. Nah!

[JimBraiden]

It is an interesting approach- the massacre was so dreadful and so counter productive the Assad regime could not have done it.
As in the Rape of Nanking was so dreadful and counterproductive the Japanese could not have done it.
As in the massacres in Serbrenica were so dreadful and counterproductive that the Serbs could not have been responsible.
As in the Holocaust etc.

And yes he does not like Israel.
Actually I have always found attitude to Israel an excellent litmus test when it comes to judging someone.

Of course Assad fil is a piker compared to Assad pere-the death toll in Hama in 1982 was close to 20000.

And it should be remembered that the Syrian regime is not without its supporters in the UK.
The current MP for Bradford is a fervent admirer of the regime and its leader.

[Nerds_feather]

As JimBraiden notes, this has all happened before in Syria, and was carried out by Assad's father. Look up the Hama massacres of 1981 and 1982 if you don't believe me.

Pretty disgusting, if you ask me. The problem, from a geopolitical perspective (as well as from a non-political Syrian's perspective), is that the alternative to Assad brutality may very well be instability and chaotic sectarian violence, a la Lebanon or Iraq. Not a good choice.

[Nerds_feather]

Originally Posted by Moonbat

to be fair

Syria - no oil - no intervention

Syria has oil, and has in fact seen production increase recently due to the discovery of two new oil fields.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Nerds_feather

Syria has oil, and has in fact seen production increase recently due to the discovery of two new oil fields.

Relatively speaking, I mean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Syria#Oil

0.5% of the world's oil output hardly makes it a significant oil interest for the West.

[Nerds_feather]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Relatively speaking, I mean.

0.5% of the world's oil output hardly makes it a significant oil interest for the West.

in the sense that a halt in production would not endanger western lifestyles, the way the 1991 invasion of kuwait did.

but then again, same is true for the US in libya. not so the EU countries, of course, who get a lot more oil from libya.

i guess, at the end, i find the "it's all about oil" theory of middle eastern politics is questionable, at best. the US put troops on the ground in lebanon in the 1980s despite a lack of oil interests. the US (and UK) put troops in iraq in 2003, rather than in iran, which has more oil and is equally "problematic" from a US perspective. or, for that matter, venezuela, which has far larger oil reserves than either.

i also think the main reason you're not seeing calls for intervention in syria, as opposed to libya, boils down to two things:

1. in libya you could bomb airfields and tank columns in the desert, when traveling the long distances from one city to another; whereas in syria most of the "action" is happening in urban environments, where aerial bombardment would necessarily entail a lot of "collateral damage"

2. syria is enmeshed in complex and difficult geopolitics drawing in lebanon, israel, iran and iraq--this makes it fundamentally different, with much broader and more difficult to predict implications for the region.

taken together, this raises the "cost" of intervention beyond the point where any of the UNSC veto-holders would be willing to take action outside a UNSC resolution authorizing the use of force (which will never happen).

[Peter Graham]

Actually I have always found attitude to Israel an excellent litmus test when it comes to judging someone.

Why?

The current MP for Bradford is a fervent admirer of the regime and its leader.

Bradford has more than one MP. Which one are you talking about? One G Galloway, by any chance?

[JimBraiden]

Because 9 times out of 10 I find those who are anti Israel are also anti democratic, pro totalitarian or terrorist apologists.

An excellent example being the current MP for Bradford West- sorry, I should have been more specific- George Galloway.

[HareBrain]

Originally Posted by JimBraiden

Because 9 times out of 10 I find those who are anti Israel are also anti democratic, pro totalitarian or terrorist apologists.

How do you define "anti-Israel"?

[svalbard]

Originally Posted by JimBraiden

Because 9 times out of 10 I find those who are anti Israel are also anti democratic, pro totalitarian or terrorist apologists.

An excellent example being the current MP for Bradford West- sorry, I should have been more specific- George Galloway.

9 times out of 10 I find supporters of Israel to be blinkered on their world view, suffer from a severe case of it is always everyone(Palestinians) elses fault, to be ultra conservative and have an almost racist view of Muslims...rubbish of course. But such are all sweeping statements.

[JimBraiden]

Opposed to the existence of the state of Israel.
Opposed to Israel's right to defend itself against threats external and internal.
Of the opinion that Israel is a colonial/apartheid/fascist ( pick your adjective) state.

[svalbard]

I am not going to into the whole Israel debate. It is fruitless debate. The point I was making is that general statements like the one you made are not very accurate.

[JimBraiden]

Well, it works for me.

As for a racist attitude to Muslims- not sure how you can be racist with regards a religion.

[Nerds_feather]

not saying you're doing this, Jim, but to respond to the notion that you "can't be racist with regards a religion:"

if you imbue members of a broad and diverse faith--ANY faith--with "essential," negative characteristics and then act as if deviation from these "essential" characteristics is impossible, then it's no different from doing the same thing via skin color or place of origin.

as for israel and palestine...well, let's just say that you've got some good people on both sides and some really terrible people too. those are the ones who keep it going, when poll after poll after poll show majorities of both groups want peace. why? because said terrible people understand that, even if both groups want peace, neither trusts the other...and a lack of trust is easy to exploit.