🇸🇾 Syria

Fair dos. I was merely comparing the context that the thread was started with. Not for me, ta. Bazza does a better cold open :lou_lol:

Originally posted by @Coxford_lou

No I don’t. It’s a free country, and I can do what I like.

It isn’t, and you can’t. But don’t blame me for that. Blame the people that have made certain parts of speech illegal, and are sending the OB round to arrest people for what they’ve said on Twitter.

If you want to respect me less for it, that’s up to you, I’m fine with that.

I respect the thread less. There are millions of people displaced, no indication as to why you utterly reject the idea of Russia doing what the West has been unable to do (they’re the bad guys, right? I know. I’ve seen Red Dawn too :lou_lol:) and the narrowing of the argument into Diane fucking Abbot.

It’s a piss poor politically motivated opening to a topic that affects millions of people.

But I definitely don’t have to do what you want me to do.

This is true.

Originally posted by @pap

I respect the thread less. There are millions of people displaced, no indication as to why you utterly reject the idea of Russia doing what the West has been unable to do (they’re the bad guys, right? I know. I’ve seen Red Dawn too :lou_lol:) and the narrowing of the argument into Diane fucking Abbot.

It’s a piss poor politically motivated opening to a topic that affects millions of people.

Well, clearly I dispute that. I just don’t want to be involved in the thread talking about Russia bombing Syria, where you’re pitching the Russia approach as something to be celebrated. That’s not me playing funny games, or playing politics. That’s just straight up where I stand on it.

The Diane Abbott clip is a perfect encapsulation to me of how the Stop The War Coalition and others on the hard left have no interest in hearing the voices of those affected, when those voices don’t fit their moral stance. The Syrians are begging the West to get involved.

I perfectly understand the realpolitik argument of Russia supporting Assad, don’t get me wrong. But the reality of that approach, is those that have been oppressed by a dictator, are now being bombed by friends of Assad. That makes me sick in the stomach. You say you stand for the revolution. This is a real revolution.

You keep asking me to state my position on this, but I’ve already answered that question. I don’t think there is any solution that doesn’t have high risk of failure, whether humanitarian intervention, supporting local uprisings etc etc. But doing nothing doesn’t sit well with me either, and I believe the world should be taking humanitarian responsibility for issues like this. So I watch, I read, I listen, I form view points, and I have hope the region will progress.

And while I occasionally put in a counter argument here when most frustrated, I have zero desire to get sucked into a deep debate about the issue with those who are so far off my viewpoint on it. Or who have a generally anti-West viewpoint.

I don’t know what could be clearer than that.

5 Likes

I bet Diane Abbott likes sausage.

2 Likes

Syria has long been used as a means of proxy war by various Western-leaning interests. If Furball were still here, he’d talk about the atrocities that Assad’s father committed writ large upon his people. I’m not condoning nor excusing that, but Assad is the recognised head of a nation, and besides, there was a deal on the table last year to take him out of the picture, brokered by the Russians, which the West wanted no part in.

Russia’s presence, at the request of the recognised Syrian authority, is legal under international law. Besides, the West is more than happy to prop up dictatorial regimes when it is in their interests. We’re top mates with Saudi Arabia, sell crowd control gear to oppressive regimes like Bahrain and historically, have had a history of ignoring human suffering if it is being done in our interests.

So we can’t play the moral card, because when it comes down to it, we’ve proven over the decades that we will consistently oust democratically returned governments in favour of something else, such as napalmed warzones dealing with the lingering effects of Agent Orange, dictators like Pinochet being allowed to wreak havoc in Chile for decades, as long as he played ball. Mossadegh, Iran, 1953 - wanted to nationalise the oil interests of his country, ousted and replaced by the Shah’s regime, complete with death squads for any relenters.

The sphere of interests that you are protecting routinely goes to war because countries democratically choose leaders they do not like, or adopt new government forms.

You can call me anti-Western for disagreeing with this, but I fundamentally disagree with the arrogance of that position, and the death it has caused.

Who the fuck are we to choose?

2 Likes

You choose the side of democracy and progress, and you criticise it come hell or high water until it does it better. And you choose the side of the people. I thought that’s what you’re all about - not this odd ‘recognised head of a nation’ respect. You’re letting your dislike for how things have been done in this past cloud your judgement on the reality of what is happening on the ground. I get the critique of the west. I get the realpolitik argument. But that’s where it ends for me.

Diane Abbott should have listened to the Syrians and she should have argued why she didn’t believe getting involved was the right thing to do even though civilians were being bombed. But she didn’t have the balls. I expect more from the left and from the Labour Party.

I agree she should have listened to the Syrians - but are those Syrians representative of the country? Imagine if someone asked some Brits their thoughts on politics and they chose SWF as their sample group?

Does it matter? If you and your family were being repressed by a dictator would it not be right to hear you, or would there need to be a poll first to check if it’s a majority view first.

Clearly this isn’t a one off viewpoint/experience.

Like I said, Abbott should have listened to them. I was merely saying that we/she could listen to them but this woman could have been a nutcase or had some kind of agenda. She could have used her time in front of Abbott to talk about Brewdog or the MOBO awards. We must be careful when listening to people.We should know what theyre all about.

2 Likes

Originally posted by @Coxford_lou

If you and your family were being repressed by a dictator

Ur really taking this too far, pap ain’t that bad ffs :lou_facepalm_2:

2 Likes

Not far from it with his treatment of Furball, in my opinion.

:lou_wink:

2 Likes

Is there such a thing as fractions on here??

1 Like

:lou_eyes_to_sky:

Are you just about to get jizzed on, Bletch? (metaphorically speaking)

1 Like

Originally posted by @saintbletch

Originally posted by @Coxford_lou

Originally posted by @Bearsy

Originally posted by @Coxford_lou

If you and your family were being repressed by a dictator

Ur really taking this too far, pap ain’t that bad ffs :lou_facepalm_2:

Not far from it with his treatment of Furball, in my opinion.

:lou_wink:

:lou_eyes_to_sky:

:lou_lol:

Originally posted by @Coxford_lou

Does it matter? If you and your family were being repressed by a dictator would it not be right to hear you, or would there need to be a poll first to check if it’s a majority view first.

Clearly this isn’t a one off viewpoint/experience.

It does matter, otherwise you end up with this.

The emotive impetus behind going after Saddam the first time was a Kuwaiti citizen talking about live babies being thrown out of incubators and being left to die, a cause taken up with zero fact checking by the Western media. It was completely false.

Now the truth emerges: how the US fuelled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq

The war on terror, that campaign without end launched 14 years ago by George Bush, is tying itself up in ever more grotesque contortions. On Monday the trial in London of a Swedish man, Bherlin Gildo, accused of terrorism in Syria, collapsed after it became clear British intelligence had been arming the same rebel groups the defendant was charged with supporting.

The prosecution abandoned the case, apparently to avoid embarrassing the intelligence services. The defence argued that going ahead with the trial would have been an “affront to justice” when there was plenty of evidence the British state was itself providing “extensive support” to the armed Syrian opposition.

That didn’t only include the “non-lethal assistance” boasted of by the government (including body armour and military vehicles), but training, logistical support and the secret supply of “arms on a massive scale”. Reports were cited that MI6 had cooperated with the CIA on a “rat line” of arms transfers from Libyan stockpiles to the Syrian rebels in 2012 after the fall of the Gaddafi regime.

Clearly, the absurdity of sending someone to prison for doing what ministers and their security officials were up to themselves became too much. But it’s only the latest of a string of such cases.

1 Like

Originally posted by @Barry-Sanchez

We should stay the fuck out, no bombing, no funding sides, nothing but helping the refugees.

The moment we started bombing empty buildings in Syria it will be a countdown to the next terrorist attrocity on our streets. Sadly though it will be the innocents who suffer and not those who sanctioned the bombings.

Imagine if TSW was chosen for any sample group? :astonished:

Originally posted by @pap

Now the truth emerges: how the US fuelled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq

The war on terror, that campaign without end launched 14 years ago by George Bush, is tying itself up in ever more grotesque contortions. On Monday the trial in London of a Swedish man, Bherlin Gildo, accused of terrorism in Syria, collapsed after it became clear British intelligence had been arming the same rebel groups the defendant was charged with supporting.

The prosecution abandoned the case, apparently to avoid embarrassing the intelligence services. The defence argued that going ahead with the trial would have been an “affront to justice” when there was plenty of evidence the British state was itself providing “extensive support” to the armed Syrian opposition.

That didn’t only include the “non-lethal assistance” boasted of by the government (including body armour and military vehicles), but training, logistical support and the secret supply of “arms on a massive scale”. Reports were cited that MI6 had cooperated with the CIA on a “rat line” of arms transfers from Libyan stockpiles to the Syrian rebels in 2012 after the fall of the Gaddafi regime.

Clearly, the absurdity of sending someone to prison for doing what ministers and their security officials were up to themselves became too much. But it’s only the latest of a string of such cases.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq

Well, that article is from June. This doesn’t in itself invalidate its claims, but it does rather diminish your emboldened heading. After all, if this truth is just emerging, how come it was printed in the Guardian a few months ago?

But that’s quibbling. What’s more to the point is the central claim, which I think is incorrect. Whilst the US (and others) certainly supported opponents of Assad’s regime, notably the Free Syrian Army, I’m not sure there’s any proof that they funded or armed the emergent Islamic State. The 2012 document quoted by Milne is so massively redacted as to be almost uselss; what it does indicate is that the old adage of “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” has never gone away, particularly in the military mind.

This does not by any means apply to the US and its allies only; you can see it very clearly in the actions of Russia. I’ve read reports that the Russian bombing has strengthened Islamic State in some areas, as the targets of the bombs have been other groups opposed to Assad (such as the FSA). As these groups have suffered losses and withdrawn from certain areas, IS has moved in to occupy those areas. Putin wishes to maintain Russian influence and alliances in the Middle East; Syria is a key ally of Russia, as it was of the Soviet Union (enemy of enemy = friend once again). To this end, Putin had been quite happy to see IS gain strength, to the point where they would become the main (effectively the only) opposition to Assad. After all, if Assad’s opposittion is Islamic State, then how can anyone oppose Assad? Hence the Russian bombing raids on anyone but IS, and their insistence that all opposition groups are terrorists (see Sergei Lavrov’s comments). However, the events in Paris and the identification of a bomb as the cause of the Russian airliner’s crash have forced Putin to change tack somewhat.

What’s the state of play in Syria now, and is there a way forward which does not involve massive further bloodshed, and which will decrease rather than increase the threat of Islamic fundamentalism and it associated terrorism? First answer - things are a total, horrible fucking mess. I don’t think that’s a particularly controversial statement. As for the second question, the answer is yes; not least because there is always a way forward. It’s just a question of finding it.

Looking at Syria and Iraq (which is a clear necessitiy if you’re duscussing Islamic State), it’s clear that a key cause of the current mess is Sunni disaffection. Sunnis are a minority in Iraq, but under Saddam Iraq was effectively a Sunni–run state. Under the now departed Al-Maliki, Iraq became a massively sectarian Shia state, with Sunnis banished from all areas of government and the miltary. Meanwhile, Syria is a Sunni majority country ruled by a Shia clique; groups opposing Assad are universally Sunni. Put these two factors together and you have a potent brew of discontent. Sunnis (many of them with military training and experience) joined with the emergent IS in Iraq because they’d been thrown out of their jobs and left with nothing. Do they believe that what’s needed is a caliphate? Almost certainly not. But IS gives them money and food, which Al-Maliki’s government didn’t. If theyhadn’t been shat on purely for being Sunnis, would they have joined forces with IS or any similar group? Almost certainly not.

Address Sunni discontent and you address the fundamental cause of the rise of Islamic State; fail to do so and you’ll see its rise continue, regardless of how many bombs are dropped on Raqqah.

3 Likes