I haven't looked closely into all available plugins, but it seems that you can quickly find suitable options by searching for "leaflet wind" and "leaflet hexbin".
I live in Russia and in the past have been running a website that criticizes Russian elites and Putin in particular for years, the one that fails under this law, BTW.
But why do I get outraged by the unsourced comments as yours even more than by this stupid law?
I personally challenge you: I will provide you with information that I'm a real person and my claim about running website criticizing Russian elites is real if you take time to explain why is it OK for the West to support regime that kills Ukrainian civilians en masse.
You keep churning unsourced "Russian shills everywhere" message, while ignoring two simple possibilities:
1. While there are Russian Government shills on the Internet, as well as Western ones, real Russian people can also be genuinely outraged by actions of the West.
2. The West may be in reality backing puppet regime that commits horrific crimes.
P.S.
It is ironic that I'm probably the single person in this thread that is really affected by this law and at the same time I am being modded down.
> why is it OK for the West to support regime that kills Ukrainian civilians en masse.
Why do you try to imply that identifying pro-Putin shills is equivalent to supporting "a [Ukrainian] regime that kills Ukrainian civilians en masse"?
Assuming your supposition is true for now, why do you not go further and think to imply that these civilians would not be getting killed en masse if Putin would withdraw forces of the Russian Federation from the sovereign territory [1] of Ukraine?
History shows that the truest way to harm civilians in conflict between groups that are not trying to kill civilians (either directly through systemic action or indirectly through things like famine) is to prolong the armed conflict by interceding on behalf of one side or the other.
But even if you're completely right and not involuntarily affected by propaganda yourself, just because someone tries to keep a comment board free of "shills" of all types doesn't mean someone is necessarily aligned with any side, which is an issue you appear to be conflating here.
> Why do you not go further and think to imply that these civilians would not be getting killed en masse if Putin would withdraw forces of the Russian Federation from the sovereign territory of Ukraine?
Because there are no forces of Russian federation, probably apart from some Spec Ops, logistics and reconnaissance units.
> History shows that the truest way to harm civilians in conflict between groups that are not trying to kill civilians (either directly through systemic action or indirectly through things like famine) is to prolong the armed conflict by interceding on behalf of one side or the other.
So you say that Russia should abandon support of people of Donetsk and Luhansk and leave them at the mercy of Kiev government, who is committing crimes against them? [1]
I actually watch Ukrainian mainstream television and recently one of the experts was openly talking about the need to "physically eliminate about 1.5 million of civilians of Donetsk and Luhansk regions that are not able to fit in Ukrainian Nation" [2]. And he didn't get fined or jailed for these words, or even challenged by the TV host. If this is not Fascism, I don't know what is.
Why don't you ask questions such as: who started this mess? What has Russia done to stop it? What has the West done to stop it?
> Because there are no forces of Russian federation, probably apart from some Spec Ops, logistics and reconnaissance units.
Or in other words, Russian military forces have invaded a neighboring nation, unless there is permission from Kiev for such uniformed armed forces to be on the sovereign territory of Ukraine?....
As far as I can tell, your link [1] implies that the only reason Kiev is using air strikes or artillery is because of the presence of hostile military forces in their sovereign territory.
So, yes, I would suggest Russia should "abandon" the people of Donetsk and Luhansk (and for that matter, Crimea), return to its own sovereign territory, and then the fighting will stop as there will quickly be no hostile forces to launch artillery or air strikes against.
You implied with that link [1] that Russia intervened only after Kiev started committing atrocities against people in Donetsk and Luhansk, but the order appears to be completely opposite.
> I actually watch Ukrainian mainstream television and recently one of the experts was openly talking about the need to "physically eliminate about 1.5 million of civilians of Donetsk and Luhansk regions that are not able to fit in Ukrainian Nation" [2].
> And he didn't get fined or jailed for this words, or even challenged by the TV host.
He wouldn't be fined or jailed in the U.S. either, due to the First Amendment (although maybe you could make a good case that it's "hate speech"). Does that make the U.S. "fascist"?
Maybe the TV host didn't challenge him because his comments are already so backward and idiotic as to not need further emphasis.
And either way, are you trying to imply that some random asshole on T.V. spouting their stupid backward opinion about a million people he's never met, is justification enough to invade the sovereign territory of another nation. I mean, even Bush 43 tried to put a better case together than that when he went off to disaster in Iraq...
Maybe the TV host didn't challenge him because his comments are already so backward and idiotic as to not need further emphasis.
I'll give you a better explanation: the TV host didn't challenge him because it never happened. The "expert" (another journalist, in fact) never suggested to "physically eliminate about 1.5 million of civilians of Donetsk and Luhansk regions that are not able to fit in Ukrainian Nation" or anything close to it.
The expert is a journalist, from a newspaper «Тиждень». [1]
Here are the qoutes:
Донбасс – это не просто депрессивный регион. Там дикое количество ненужных людей. Я абсолютно осознанно об этом говорю. В Донецкой области примерно 4 миллиона жителей. И не менее 1,5 миллионов лишних. Нам не надо понимать Донбасс. Нам надо понимать украинский национальный интерес. А Донбасс нужно использовать как ресурс.
[...]
В отношении Донбасса: я не знаю рецепта, как это сделать быстро. Однако наиглавнейшее, что нужно сделать: есть люди, которых необходимо просто убить.
Which means that there is an "excess of 1.5 millions of people" in Donetsk Region, that "[people of] Donetsk Region mustn't be undestood [by the people from the rest of Ukraine], and Donetsk Region [and it's people] must be used as a resource instead" and "I don't know how to solve that problem [to remove excessive civilians], but the main thing is that some people must be physically eliminated".
So:
1. There are 1.5 millions of civilians of Donetsk region that are excessive.
2. People of Donetsk region mustn't be understood by the rest of Ukraine. Which literally means that they do not fit in Ukrainian Nation, they are not part of it.
3. He doesn't know the recipe how to remove the excessive civilians, but some people must be physically eliminated.
In the context of the whole TV show he is talking about elimination of excessive civilians. One could argue if he considers possible to physically eliminate 1.5 million of them, or only part of them and drive others by away by force or by economical means, etc.
> The "expert" (another journalist, in fact) never suggested to "physically eliminate about 1.5 million of civilians of Donetsk and Luhansk regions that are not able to fit in Ukrainian Nation" or anything close to it.
So, even though I have already claimed that it was too emotional for me to mention this TV show, I consider myself to have provided reasonable translation of his words.
P.S.
I've actually used pyyaml parser. :)
Edit: here is the relevant part of the show for you to check: [2]
Which means that there is an "excess of 1.5 millions of people" in Donetsk Region, that "[people of] Donetsk Region mustn't be undestood [by the people from the rest of Ukraine], and Donetsk Region [and it's people] must be used as a resource instead" and "I don't know how to solve that problem [to remove excessive civilians], but the main thing is that some people must be physically eliminated".
Wow, this is truly creative editing. None of your insertions are implied from the context and the quotes you picked up are several minutes apart. In particular, he talks about 1.5 millions of people lacking meaningful job prospects as one of the causes of the unrest (which is true). A few minutes later, when he talks about about killing people, nowhere he implies millions of civilians, in fact, it's obvious he means armed militants.
Good to see that you can take facts pipy -- and thanks xi for doing better than I did in discussing.
I -- and probably most people -- have been in the situation where we lost contact with reality, because we have read too much spin, even if the subjects are serious problems.
It is not easy. Good luck pipy. (And good luck to Russia and Ukraine -- they both deserve a break after the last century.)
> As far as I can tell, your link [1] implies that the only reason Kiev is using air strikes or artillery is because of the presence of hostile military forces in their sovereign territory.
No, it doesn't. Because there is no evidence of massive Russian troop presence, not to my knowledge. This is why you cannot attribute the sheer scale of Ukrainian Government actions to this issue.
I will quote the article for your convenience:
Poroshenko’s “peace plan” and June 21 cease-fire may have seemed such an opportunity, except for their two core conditions: fighters in the southeast first had to “lay down their arms,” and he alone would decide with whom to negotiate peace. The terms seemed more akin to conditions of surrender, and were probably the real reason Poroshenko unilaterally ended the cease-fire on July 1 and intensified Kiev’s assault on eastern cities, initially on the smaller towns of Slovyansk and Kramatorsk, which their defenders abandoned—to prevent more civilian casualities, they said—on July 5–6. [1]
The fact that there is a genuine insurgency by the Eastern Ukrainians that is not attributable to Russian influence has been supported by multiple experts from different countries. [2]
Even the sociologist that gets his money from US State Department says that:
"And the polls which were done in the first half of [May--and?] it means after massacre in Odessa and after very brutal attack on Mariupol by Ukrainian forces, they were showing that at least even in Donbass there are various--some sort of support for the claims of separatists, and the people in Donbas saw their seizure of governmental buildings as people's [incompr.] not as a terrorist act, not as a Russian intervention. But this were the public opinion in Donbass." [3]
>He wouldn't be fined or jailed in the U.S. either, due to the First Amendment (although maybe you could make a good case that it's "hate speech"). Does that make the U.S. "fascist"?
OK, for me it was too emotional to claim this and to talk about this TV show.
I don't doubt that there are people in Ukraine actually supportive of, and legitimately participating in, that separatist movement.
But that is not, by itself, justification for Russia to intervene, especially unilaterally. It's not, never will be.
Think of the logic: If there were a group of 5,000 Americans living in Russia (who had been forced to move there 50 years earlier during a period of American rule in Russia), and they rebelled against Moscow (after lengthy exhortations and propaganda from D.C.), would you really be OK with America sending military forces to intervene on behalf of those separatists? Would you be OK with America providing very advanced weaponry, passports, military support, intelligence support, international top cover and more, all to support this separatist movement?
Or would you say that it was an internal matter for Russians to resolve amongst themselves, and that other states should stay out of the sovereign territory of the Russian Federation? I can tell you the U.S. certainly didn't want outside intervention during our own civil war.
See, this isn't two states playing covert war games in a third state, this is Ukraine fighting for its sovereignty against a separatist movement (however many legitimate aspects it might contain), with Ukraine's bordering neighbor deliberately intervening to tilt the scales as they wish.
> I can tell you the U.S. certainly didn't want outside intervention during our own civil war.
So, you say that US has the right to support one side, including an anti-constitutional coup against democratically elected president, and Russia has no right to support the other side? I beg to disagree.
In fact, Kiev has been Washington’s military proxy against Russia and its “compatriots” in eastern Ukraine for months. Since the political crisis began, Secretary of State John Kerry, CIA Director John Brennan and Vice President Joseph Biden (twice) have been in Kiev, followed by “senior US defense officials,” American military equipment and financial aid. Still more, a top US Defense Department official informed a Senate committee that the department’s “advisers” are now “embedded” in the Ukrainian defense ministry. [1]
> This isn't two states playing covert war games in a third state, this is Ukraine fighting for its sovereignty against a separatist movement.
This is one way to see it. Hopefully, I gave you enough information to explain how it is possible to view the issue from completely different point of view.
> So, you say that US has the right to support one side, including an anti-constitutional coup against democratically elected president, and Russia has no right to support the other side?
All outside parties have the right to be supportive of whichever side they wish.
The ways in which that support is expressed are not all allowable under international law, however. For instance, Obama supports the "moderate Syrian opposition", yet the U.S. has not invaded parts of Syria and annexed it, and then sent further military forces into the remainder of Syria to fight against Assad.
> Hopefully, I gave you enough information to explain how it is possible to view the issue from completely different point of view.
You didn't need to remind me that there are alternate POVs. I'm sure that Russia has interests in Ukraine that are much different that the E.U., or the U.S., or NATO, or even Ukraine itself.
But having interests is no right to do whatever you wish. I've already expressed Obama's interest in the situation in Syria, yet you don't see him breaking down in a teary-eyed fit in international media about how Assad simply won't listen to him.
Obama is doing what he thinks he can and the situation will either resolve itself in the U.S.'s favor or it won't. But even if it doesn't go the U.S.'s way, he still won't invade. We used to be able to say the same of Putin, until Crimea (something he did finally admit to lying about, after the fact).
"Covert" action is one thing. Sending weapons and money is one thing. These are all things that are generally understood to be allowable ways for outside parties to aid (or not) belligerents. But even the things that are allowed come at the price of responsibility, which is why Obama won't give all the Super Ray Guns to Syrian moderates.
Some things, however, are never allowed, such as sending military forces to invade and annex the sovereign territory of another nation. Russia supported the rest of the world in stopping the last time a tinpot dictator tried that exercise, in Kuwait. But now Russia is the aggressor itself...
Another way to view it, is that the West is waging a proxy war against Russia.
One might say that confrontation started with the West instigating a coup against democratically elected president of Ukraine and installing a pro-Western, pro-NATO regime. Another might say that it started when the West has methodically sabotaged all Russian actions to find peaceful solutions to the crisis in Eastern Ukraine and instead pushed for military options [1]. But these are technicalities.
There are two steps left before the possible direct military confrontation between the West and Russia. One step is the West officially sending troops to Ukraine, and another is Russia officially sending troops to Ukraine. Most probably, neither of them would be taken, but the situation is already dangerous enough.
Many say, that after we have left our military bases in Eastern Germany in exchange of the failed promise of NATO non-expansion, after many other actions of good will by USSR and then Russia, the West has been methodically showing us that it doesn't accept Russia as a peaceful partner.
By sanctioning Russia, by turning the blind eye on atrocities carried out by Kiev government, the West is waging the war against Russians, not only against Putin.
I do not know, how this crisis would end, but it is for sure going to set back our relations with the West for decades to come. And this is not all Putin's fault.
> Some things, however, are never allowed, such as sending military forces to invade and annex the sovereign territory of another nation.
Before the Russian actions in Crimea, there was a popular uprising against coup government.
The main powerhouse of the uprising was the city of Sevastopol, which was home for Russian military bases for hundreds of years. The residents of the city have in 20+ years never been allowed to have democratic elections of the mayor, because all Ukrainian governments felt that they would elect pro-Russian mayor. Instead, for 20+ years, they got mayors appointed from Kiev, some anti-Russian.
Crimea has de facto not been under the coup government control even before the Russian actions and was lost by Ukraine before it was gained by Russia, just after the coup government has started to pass one of it's first laws, the one that revoked the rights of the Russian-speaking regions to use Russian as second official language.
Personally, I don't like how Russia used it's military in Crimea and think that people of Crimea should have been allowed to fight for the independence themselves, possibly with some help. This was important technical issue and Russia has most probably got it wrong.
The situation is complicated by the fact that in reality there are different parts of Ukraine with completely different mindsets, preferences and interests.
But it is the Western Ukraine that has invaded Eastern Ukraine (with the help of US), not the other way around. This is the core point. This is why the people of Eastern Ukraine have the moral high ground in their fight. This is why Russia is not an aggressor.
P.S.
The coup government has also been waging war against the population of Crimea [2], "it's own population". And it also doesn't allow for every citizen from Crimea to freely enter Ukraine, some of them are sent back home [3] [4].
[1] Great article by Stephen Cohen (professor emeritus at New York University and Princeton University), which more or less summarizes not only my personal POW, but POW of many Russians and Ukrainians as well:
http://www.thenation.com/article/180466/silence-american-haw...
> West instigating a coup against democratically elected president of Ukraine and installing a pro-Western, pro-NATO regime
You're ly... wrong. There was no 'west instigation' and government was elected by Ukrainian people, not by 'West'.
>West has methodically sabotaged all Russian actions to find peaceful solutions to the crisis in Eastern Ukraine
Tell me about these actions? Sending mercenaries and military equipment to Ukraine? Shelling Ukrainian forces across the border? Spreading lies about Ukraine on state TV?
What other 'peaceful solutions' did I forgot? Oh, violating WTO principles by initiating a little trade war with Ukraine? More peaceful, than sending tanks to Ukraine, I must agree with that.
> after we have left our military bases in Eastern Germany in exchange of the failed promise of NATO non-expansion
You're wrong. There was no such promise, and there was no 'exchange'.
> The main powerhouse of the uprising was the city of Sevastopol, which was home for Russian military bases for hundreds of years.
Do you understand how silly it sounds? Cuba was Spanish military base for hundred of years, do you think they mad enough to take it back on a such false premise?
>The residents of the city have in 20+ years never been allowed to have democratic elections of the mayor, because all Ukrainian governments felt that they would elect pro-Russian mayor. Instead, for 20+ years, they got mayors appointed from Kiev, some anti-Russian.
So, in your beloved Russia, governors was not elected for 10 years, so you will blame Putin?
> Crimea has de facto not been under the coup government control even before the Russian actions and was lost by Ukraine before it was gained by Russia.
You're wrong again. Using Latin will not bring more credibility to this statement.
> But it is the Western Ukraine that has invaded Eastern Ukraine (with the help of US), not the other way around.
This is so good fantasy, you can try to sell it as a movie script.
I'm not even sure that I need to debunk this particular myth.
> This is the core point. This is why the people of Eastern Ukraine have the moral high ground in their fight. This is why Russia is not an aggressor.
So you're trying to tell us, that if false statements are propagated in the russian media, then you could hide the facts of Russian mercenaries fighting against Ukrainian forces, Russian tanks and APCs flow across border and FSB/KGB crooks in Ukraine in charge of terrorists?
Do you honestly believe this could be hidden just because it was not shown on kremlin TV?
> The coup government has also been waging war against the population of Crimea [2], "it's own population".
Really? This is considered a 'war' right now?
Ok, in this case Russia is waging war against Ukraine right now, by cutting it's gas supply.
> And it also doesn't allow for every citizen from Crimea to freely enter Ukraine, some of them are sent back home
Yes. It's called 'customs', are you aware what this means?
> real reason Poroshenko unilaterally ended the cease-fire on July 1
Real reason was that pro-russian bandits continue to fire on Ukrainian forces despite all the arrangements.
And as for "would decide with whom to negotiate peace" this is absolutely acceptable, because there are a lot of bandit leaders in play and it's hard to understand who's responsible for peace negotiating.
How wonderful of you to provide link [2] to a real interview, but trying to support kremlin fakes with that link.
TL;DR - he didn't said "physically eliminate about 1.5 million of civilians of Donetsk and Luhansk regions that are not able to fit in Ukrainian Nation"
You REALLY think that dead civilians are on the heads of those countries defending themselves from military takeovers by non-democratic juntas, like Putin's.
Ah wait!
You also claim that this about large Russian military support of the rebels is just another Western conspiracy.
After the Krim takeover, Putin thanked the responsible Russian army units for good work and handed out medals. Before the Krim takeover, Putin claimed that there were no Russian military involvement. An obvious lie.
It is ridiculous to even consider that there are "just volunteers" again. The similarities makes it look like excerpts out of some internal Russian play book of how to do military takeovers.
Especially since there are contradicting satellite pictures, recorded conversations, etc. From USA and Ukraine.
Edit 2: There are similar articles about the BUK anti air system (with varying explanations out of Moscow and interviews (/social media) with rebels). There have also been articles about satellite pictures showing Russian artillery firing on Ukraine military units. Google yourself. Then you have recorded discussions of Russian and rebel discussions, etc, etc. Again, this is mainstream over the last few weeks -- let me know if you really need me to Google for you. Here is the BBC with voice recordings etc. Denied (with demands not to lay blame!!) from Putin. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28357880
Edit 5: Is this your position? You seem to not argue against that Putin lied about military involvement before the Krim takeover. You claim that there aren't enough proofs (and/or that all Western media lies) that his junta is doing exactly the same thing now, just because it looks so similar in action/time? (I am sorry if this makes you sound stupid/dishonest, but...)
>Dead civilians are on the heads of those countries defending themselves from military takeovers by non-democratic juntas, like Putin's
There is no evidence that supports your argument about Russian military takeover of Donetsk and Luhansk regions. You are talking about something so significant that must have left some verifiable trace, right?
> (Karma 34 account.)
You don't provide a single footnote, and I actually provide sources to my claims.
I give you simple questions and you prefer to ignore them.
Yes, I rarely participate in internet discussions. Is appealing to my low karma your last and most powerful argument?
> Especially with satellite pictures, recorded conversations, etc.
1. Money quote from NATO statement from Reuters article that you've provided: "but where they came from is in dispute."
> There are similar articles about the BUK anti air system
2. There is no solid evidence for the claim that BUK came from Russia also. But let's assume that it did, just for the sake of not forking the discussion.
3. What's wrong with "therealnews" interviews with acclaimed experts which credentials you are free to check?
>You seem to not argue against that Putin lied about military involvement before the Krim takeover.
4. Yes, what I argue is that the current insurgency is supported by population of Donetsk and Luhansk regions and I've provided sources for that statement. Which means that Kiev Government is at war with (part of) it's own population.
5. What I also state is that reunification with Russia has had overwhelming support from the people of Crimea.
>You claim that there aren't enough proofs (and/or that all Western media lies) that his junta is doing exactly the same thing now, just because it looks so similar in action/time?
What "same thing" are you talking about? (I am asking this just to be sure that we are talking about the same thing).
> (I am sorry if this makes you sound stupid/dishonest, but...)
I's OK. I appreciate that you are assuming good faith on my part.
Money quote from the BBC article: "the US says it has evidence that Russia has fired artillery across the border targeting Ukrainian military positions".
The US has also said that pre-invasion Iraq has had WMD. And that Assad has used nerve gas.
TL;DR: I read two points. One is contradicted by multiple sources at Wikipedia, the other argues that everything pipy dislikes from USA can be ignored. I quit the discussion in disgust over wasted time. :-(
>>Yes, what I argue is that the current insurgency is supported by population of Donetsk and Luhansk regions and I've provided sources for that statement
(I don't bother to look up your references, since it certainly won't be from mainstream media or similar.)
In a poll [..] in the first half of February 2014, 33.2% of polled in Donetsk Oblast believed "Ukraine and Russia must unite into a single state".[27]
According to a poll [...] 66% of Donetsk residents view their future in a united Ukraine
A second poll conducted 26–29 March showed that 77% of residents condemned the takeover of administrative buildings, while 16% support such actions. Furthermore, 40.8% of Donetsk citizens support rallies for Ukraine's unity, while 26.5% support rallies which are pro-Russia
And so on.
>> Money quote from the BBC article: "the US says it has evidence that Russia has fired artillery across the border targeting Ukrainian military positions". [Etc.]
The first thing I check is contradicted by Wikipedia (that and its sources is a conspiracy too?).
The second "argument" I read is "We can ignore that, USA just lies". (It is hardly just USA that claimed Assad used nerve gas. Any proofs against? Never mind, you read it in Putin's media so it must be true.)
I appreciate that you took time to write an answer.
> (I don't bother to look up your references, since it certainly won't be from mainstream media or similar.)
Then how can you possibly have an informed opinion if you limit your sources of information to Westernmainstream media?
> You are contradicted by Wikipedia.
No, I am not, because I have provided quote about May polls, not February or March ones. February ones were made before overthrow of Yanukovich (Donetsk and Luhansk regions were one of the big electoral bases for Yanukovich), and March before the fight for federalization of Ukrainian State by the people of Donetsk and Luhansk regions was completely ignored by Kiev Government.
And it is very important difference from the sociological point of view, because it was also after the Odessa Massacre and Ukrainian Forces attack on Mariupol. BTW, the author of the quote, sociologist Volodymyr Ishchenko is an author of The Guardian newspaper [1]. Is he not mainstream enough for you?
Which means that you've cross-checked one source and now erroneously claim that it is not credible.
> I have spent too much time on this. :-(
I can understand you. What is my point of view is that one should trust no single party or source of information to be credible and do research for oneself. And this is the only way to be free, as in Freedom.
> Any proofs against?
Food for thought:
"Possible Implications of Faulty US Technical Intelligence in the Damascus
Nerve Agent Attack of August 21, 2013" by Richard Lloyd, Former UN Weapons Inspector [2]
"Congress Members Who Have Seen Classified Evidence About Syria Say It Fails to Prove Anything" (has number of first-party sources). [3]
"UN Investigator Undercuts NYT on Syria" by Robert Parry, former Newsweek and AP reporter [4]:
The lead author of the UN report on the Aug. 21 incident has contradicted the much-touted “vectoring” claims of a New York Times front-page story and Human Rights Watch, which has been pushing for a U.S. military intervention in Syria.
The UN inspectors have voiced uncertainty about who carried out the attack. At the press conference, Sellstrom admitted, “I don’t have information that would stand in court.” He also told Wall Street Journal writer Joe Lauria that both sides in the conflict had the “opportunity” and the “capability” to carry out chemical weapons attacks.
This was not a waste of time after all, since I have seldom seen so hand picked sources.
You refuse to accept anything official from USA, and then quote conspiracy theories from a blogger!! :-)
About your claims about the Syrian chemical weapons attack:
The overheard communications (by Israelis and Americans) are lies, of course. And it is just more lies that the Syrian government shelled the attacked areas after the chemical attack to destroy the evidence!
Shameless liars about your Glorious Leader, those Westerners. :-) Uh, no... they hate Assad too! :-)
To be realistic, if there are state budget's involved, you can get any number of statements from individuals. Robert Parry might want to retire, who knows?
Here is a good source, with high credibility, about the second use of chemical weapons -- HRW (I assume the rebels had helicopters they used only for that bombing, then hid? :-) ):
group of pro-Russian separatists in possession of a 100,000 ballots already marked with a 'yes' vote for the referendum were captured
A campaign of intimidation, beatings, and hostage taking has forced many pro-Ukrainian activists and known opponents of secession to Russia to flee the region, leaving the referendum to take place without any dissent or opposing voices
And so on... More obvious lies!! :-)
So you claim a referendum whose result can't be verified [and after hunting of the opposition members!] is trustworthy and showed that all the opinions had totally changed in one month and resulted in a popular uprising... (No Russian military this time. Honest!)
Thanks for a good laugh. (My poor stomach. :-( )
Let me guess -- Wikipedia and its sources are just lies, you KNOW that the May vote was dependable because there is some blogger that support this, here too? You saw that on Putin's own media?
1. Chief UN investigator states that he doesn't have information that would stand in court, on record.
2. Many US Congressmen that were given access to US secret proof have stated that it is dubious, on record.
Are these sources wrong or hand-picked? Which ones did I hand-pick, US Congressmen, or UN investigators, or, perhaps, both?
It was not enough evidence to stand in court, but apparently, there was enough evidence for the West to bomb Syria and cause immanent civilian deaths.
Wittingly or not, you are trying to change subject, twist the narrative and so on. It occurs to me that you Sir are not trying to be objective at all. Looks like here I'm the fool who's banging his head against the wall.
>>It occurs to me that you Sir are not trying to be objective at all.
1. You use bloggers as references while shrugging at serious references.
2. A single minute's check on wikipedia showed that your claims about the May vote is garbage.
Why should anyone takes you seriously after that?!
(I am a bit disappointed that you ignored this subject and didn't explain the conspiracies and lies about your Glorious Leader?)
-----
About Syrian chemical weapons:
Of course there weren't much physical proofs remaining, the Assad government shelled the target area a lot, to remove them...
The rebel side didn't have the type of artillery used, no one overheard any communications from them about this -- and the rebels didn't use that artillery on their enemy afterwards.
But if the rebels seems so unlikely, maybe it wasn't the Assads either but a third party. Elves? :-)
[I am repeating myself and my references here.]
(And bombing the Assads: Because of internal politics, Obama has left hundreds of thousands of Syrians to be killed by Russian weapons. It is an outrage.)
> 1. You use bloggers as references while shrugging at serious references.
These have back-references to official sources that you try to ignore.
> 2. A single minute's check on Wikipedia showed that your claims about the May vote is garbage.
No, it didn't, and I have already explained why in previous posts. The words about May polls come from respected sociologist and author of The Guardian.
The same goes to your reference to Wikipedia page about Crimean referendum, in particular, the data about previous polling [1]. Previous polls were taken before the overthrowing of Yanukovich and before new Kiev Government has issued statement about revocation of Russian language law.
About Syria:
Here are the words of lead investigator, Ake Sellstrom from official UN press-conference, pinpointed to minutes and seconds: [2]
Congressman Alan Grayson on NYT: [3]
As about your links to HRW, first one [4] is about different attack, that was not used as a pretext to possible Western bombardments, so I would rather not discuss it to prevent "topic creep". The second one [5] is contradicted by the conclusions of UN investigators, because they report that rocket bust have had much smaller range: 2 km [6] instead of "3.8 to 9.8" reported by HRW article [5], which makes HRW narrative fall apart.
So, this means, that in Syria, just like with Iraq in 2003, the West has used at best dubious evidence as a political pretext for possible war. This, and previous history with accidents like the one in The Gulf of Tonkin [7], we have every right to be skeptical about western claims that are not supported by strong evidence.
>>No, it didn't, and I have already explained why in previous posts. The words about May polls come from respected sociologist and author of The Guardian.
So prove your conspiracy theory that shows Wikipedia, BBC et al wrong and the votes really were 96+%(!).
Post exact links and quotes that show the May poll was correct.
Sorry, it already took me too much time to watch UN press-conference in it's entirety to provide proper timed youtube links (which you've ignored) and pin-point other faults in your arguments that you also seem to ignore.
It is easy to promise that for people which don't "argue" by dismissing Wikipedia, BBC etc -- because they have posted a youtube link somewhere where they interpret what someone said as different.
That is arguably ruder.
[Edit: pipy changed opinion because of arguments in another place when he wrote crazy stuff. He is not a troll, just upset. I stand corrected.]
>Why do you try to imply that identifying pro-Putin shills
Identifying pro-Putin shills is not what's being done here. This is just accusing people that don't agree with everything said about Russia and the depiction in the US media of the current conflict in Ukraine of being Russian shills.
I remember when people who questioned the Iraq war had to constantly defend themselves from accusations of being terrorist shills. This has the exact same chilling effect.
edit: I am honestly interested in evidence of shill posting. I enjoy the detective work. If your evidence of shilling is that you think that the opinions people hold could only be held by shills, you're just stifling dissent in the traditional way that it has always been done. It's no more noble or complex than that.
1. You can provide me with your disposable one-time Gmail address (needed for GA).
2. I will send you my real name, give you temporary access to Google Analytics account for the website and some selected Google-translated pages from it. Possibly provide more information if needed.
3. You can support that I am not a shill in this discussion and that my claim about the law in OP affecting me is true.
I don't think in any way that you are a shill. And if you were, it wouldn't affect the validity of your arguments in any way. Shills only rise to the level of concern to me if they drown out all discussion that disagrees with them - and people who do that don't even have to be paid for me to consider them shills.
i.e I already support that you aren't a shill, and people who are interested in journalism or the protection of freedom of expression would do well by listening to your own experience in your own country under your own country's laws rather than poisoning the well with accusations (and no evidence.)
Systemd is controlled by Red Hat in a way in which critical system components including kernel haven't been controlled before. Not by single corporate entity.
That's what we know about this company from an old (2007) article:
> “When we rolled into Baghdad, we did it using open
> source,” General Justice continued. “It may come as a
> surprise to many of you, but the U.S. Army is “the” single
> largest install base for Red Hat Linux. I'm their largest customer.” [1]
It is better to go with a grass-roots solution, even the one technically inferior, that isn't being influenced by one single vendor or government (especially the one that has a tendency to indiscriminately infect other people's systems [2]).
Also, the Interface Stability Promise [3] by systemd team is just a promise, nothing more. Will Red Hat keep it if it is to decide at some point, that it no longer serves it's bottom line? I wonder if it can be considered legally binding.
You do understand that systemd is open source, right? If they decide to leverage their "control" into something the rest of the community doesn't like, we fork it.
> If they decide to leverage their "control" into something the rest of the community doesn't like, we fork it.
I hope so. My concern is that when we'll see systemd grow in size and more and more software depend on it's interfaces and components (as in GNOME with logind) at the certain point it could take an insurmountable amount of resources to maintain the fork. At this point it might be easier to give up on Linux and build around some other kernel and userland, I hope this will never happen, though.
Also, there is a difference between steering the developments in the preferred direction and outright destructive actions. As in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog.
Systemd is controlled by Red Hat in a way in which critical system components including kernel haven't been controlled before. Not by single corporate entity.
That's what we know about this company from an old (2007) article:
> “When we rolled into Baghdad, we did it using open
> source,” General Justice continued. “It may come as a
> surprise to many of you, but the U.S. Army is “the” single
> largest install base for Red Hat Linux. I'm their largest customer.” [1]
It is better to go with a grass-roots solution, even the one technically inferior, that isn't being influenced by one single vendor or government.
Sure. I have a gut feeling that GNOME reworking was done solely to make trouble for Canonical.
The Interface Stability Promise [1] by systemd team is just a promise, nothing more. I wonder if Red Hat will keep it if it decides that it no longer serves their bottom line.
"One of the major forces at Euromaidan is the far-right xenophobic party ‘Svoboda’ (‘Freedom’). They are dominant among the volunteering guards of the protest camp and are the vanguard of the most radical street actions such as the occupation of the administrative buildings in the center of Kiev. Before 2004 ‘Svoboda’ was called Social-National Party of Ukraine and used Nazi ‘Wolfsangel’ symbol. The party leader Oleh Tiahnybok is still known for his anti-Semitic speech. Even after its re-branding, Svoboda is establishing cooperation with Neo-Nazi and neofascist European parties such as National Democratic Party of Germany and Forza nuova of Italy. Its rank-and-file militants are frequently involved in street violence and hate crimes against migrants and political opponents". [1]
You should have also cited some Russian news...
But there's some truth in this - 'Svoboda' is indeed far-right party, but it definitely doesn't have trained militants and I don't recall any "hate crimes against migrants and political opponents".
'Svoboda' is only one of the forces, having or not having Svoboda there doesn't change anything.
I do investigate my sources of information and, when discussing anything, I always try to use sources that are legitimate to all discussing parties.
So, please, don't invent stuff. This information source is not sympathetic to Russia. Also, it supports the Ukrainian protests. I have yet to read a single article from Cпільне that is pro-Russia in even the slightest way.
> Having or not having Svoboda there doesn't change anything.
Back in the autumn on one of the Moscow suburban electric train stations I've spoken to a man from Ukraine that has said that the economic situation in the country is terrible and it is on the brink of the civil war.
I wish Ukrainians all the best in their struggle for freedom and better life, but the main players of Ukrainian opposition might be much better off not allying itself with Nazi sympathizers. If they won't do it, they might alienate Eastern Ukrainians that also hate Yanukovych to the point that they might have an armed internal conflict.
I'm not familiar with the source, but abstract you cited is manipulation. There's no trained militants, nazi, etc.
Such texts are used to divide East/West Ukraine, so current regime can survive (classic divide and conquer).
Good list. Yeah, I really like Shepitko's "The Ascent".
Kalatozov is really good. The Cranes Are Flying (Russian: Летят журавли) has really beautiful cinematography.
Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Cuba is outstanding for cinematography. You will probably not enjoy its propaganda message, and Cubans didn't like, but cinematography wise it is a beautiful film.
Thanks for suggesting to watch "I Am Cuba", I definitely will.
"The Cranes Are Flying" is an amazing movie, I totally agree. I think it is a great illustration of an idea that morally-strong and courageous people are the first ones to die in hard times.
If you like "The Ascent", I wonder if you'd also be fond of her other movies, first of all, "Ty i ya" (1971) [1] (The film has it's fair share of problems but I find the main idea behind it really powerful). I'd also recommend you to watch movies made by her husband, Elem Klimov, at least, "Come and See" [2] and "Rasputin" [3].
As about "Come and See", for me it has a somewhat personal theme: when Nazis were exterminating the people of his village near Ula, the grandfather of my ex has survived only by chance. His mother, while holding him, has jumped into the ravine before the bullets hit them.
I just watched German's MY FRIEND, IVAN LAPSHIN a few days ago, it was excellent. Highly anticipating his final one, HARD TO BE A GOD..! I'll have to watch MY CAR soon.
Sokurov (mentored by Tarkovsky) can be good, though he's quite mainstream as well.
There's actually a STALKER parody by some other Russian, I forget the name.
Aleksey German is a true genius. IMO, one of the greatest directors ever lived. I've watched all of his works. "Khrustalyov, My Car!" is a true masterpiece, a film that is of great depth. But, unlike his other works, with "Khrustalyov, My Car!" you need to know quite a bit about Stalin era to feel it's completeness and integrity. There is nothing random in it.
I recommend you to watch "Public enemy - Bukharin" by Leonid Maryagin. It is an amazing film, about the rise of the Stalin's terror. Sadly, it is not widely known. You might want to check out the list of historical personalities mentioned there before watching. There are some truly kafkaesque moments in it.
Larisa Shepitko is also a genius.
One of my greatest passions is the trilogy by Sergei Gerasimov ("The Journalist"[1], "U ozera"[2], "To Love a Person"[3] ), the ones that he has not only directed, but wrote scripts for. However, I feel that these films might appear cryptic for people that haven't lived in Soviet Union.
Anything in particular I can read / read up on to familiarize myself before watching MY CAR?
Let's see, I have THE ASCENT but haven't watched it yet.
Another promising director is Mikhail Kalatozov, I've been meaning to watch SOY CUBA for ages... Even though I already have an original screenprint poster of it :V
Can't find anything available by Maryagin unfortunately. Wonder if there's a different spelling I should use maybe.
"The Ascent" is one of the greatest movies I've ever watched, the one with which I even began to somewhat identify myself with. By the way, it is based on a groundbreaking novella "Sotnikov" by Vasily Bykov [0] which is interesting to read in it's own sense.
Leonid Maryagin is "Леонид Марягин" in Russian. Here's his Wikipedia page [1] and here are the torrent links to the "Public enemy - Bukharin" [2] [3].
Well, I have thought about it and I'm really sorry that I'm unable to recommend you good English sources!
As about the ones in Russian, I'd read "Russia: What Happened to it During XX Century" [1] by Yuri Semenov, which is a theoretical text about the structure of the Soviet society. Sadly, it is not available in English. Someday I will probably translate it myself. I've heard that is was translated to Chinese, but I don't know Chinese, so I can't really tell.
From fiction I'd read "The Gospel of an Executioner" (Russian: "Евангелие от палача") [2] by Georgi and Arkadi Vainers [0] (Russian: Георгий Вайнер и Аркадий Вайнер). I'm not sure if it was translated, but I would certainly search for German and English translations.
Before watching the movie you surely must know something about the Doctors' plot [3], the fact that the rooms and the atmosphere of the main hero's apartment was made after the apartment of Alexey German's father and, probably, that an episode when an old family friend from a foreign country get's punched in a face has had a basis in Alexey German's life. (The idea is that half of his family has fought in the Civil War on one side, and another half on the other. Delivering news from the other half living outside of the Soviet Union could have meant a death sentence for Alexey German's father and misery for all of his family. Even though an Alexey German's pro-monarchism uncle living in exile has urged his old pro-communist Western friend not to visit his brother (and, consequently, an Alexey German's father) during his stay in Moscow, he got drunk and visited him).
I could make some more comments, but I'm not sure if they would do you any good and not spoil anything.
To better understand the Stalin's era overall, I'd read Varlam Shalamov [4], just everything that you can lay your hands on. Tons of his books are translated to German and one to English.
I don't usually read Western literature about the Stalin era because even better books are so full of bullshit. Not that I don't think that Stalin was an evil person, or that the Stalin era and Soviet Union are so mysterious that they are unfathomable to the people in the Western world. It's just that the ideological differences are still huge and the Cold War propaganda in the West IS a form of reality through which, as if it was some sort of glasses, Western people view the stuff that was going on here in USSR. The Soviet lies died when the Union fell, but the Western ones are living and well. Haha, didn't mean to make a rhyme...
Just as a side note: there are some truly great and deep fiction writers that wrote about Stalin's atrocities, such as Varlam Shalamov [4], Yury Dombrovsky [5], Georgy Demidov [6], Yevgenia Ginzburg [7], etc. etc. But the most famous in the West is a mediocre, albeit convenient Alexander Solzhenitsyn that has suited the propaganda needs, hated the Soviet Union and was willing to pull various "facts" out of his ass. As a famous exiled Russian writer and a fierce anti-communist, Sergei Dovlatov [8] once said: "Communists I hate the most, but the ones that I hate even more are the anti-communists".
>It's just that the ideological differences are still huge and the Cold War
>propaganda in the West IS a form of reality through which, as if it was
>some sort of glasses, Western people view the stuff that was going on here
>in USSR. The Soviet lies died when the Union fell, but the Western ones
>are living and well. Haha, didn't mean to make a rhyme...
It's not that I consider myself or Russians or any other group of people to be in a position to think of everyone else as being in an ivory tower. But there are certainly some Cold-War era myths and concepts that are still alive and kicking. Maybe because today's Russia is culturally really not a very significant country and there is not much interest in what was going on here in XX century...
I apply the general principle: It is a good thing to depose a mass murdering, torturing, raping and thieving tyrant.
Why do YOU think it could ever be a good thing when a small minority steal a country and treat the population -- except (partly) his own tribe -- as slaves?
How, "in all seriousness", can you call those minorities for the Syrian/Libyan peoples?!
(And yes, some of the people fighting this tyrant are hardly much better. Welcome to civil wars and revolutions.)
Few tyrants (except the Saudis) still have a large leverage by playing two sides against each others, as during the cold war. That is a good thing, they can be thrown out. The only ones that don't like deposing evil tyrants are the other autocrats, since they know they are next... Who are YOU to want to let them continue stealing, murdering and torturing?
Edit: pipy, I think you bought your local Russian media hype? :-) Go check HRW's website about Syria and Libya for the last few decades, or something?
You are deluded if you think the motivation of the US is to help those who are suffering.
Syria is of significant geo-strategic importance. Gaining control over Syria through force or threat of force will substantially bolster US influence in the region and in Europe.
First, that conspiracy theory has fucking nothing to do with my point, you just reacted with your ideological hate where USA is worse than WMD using tyrants (oh yeah, you deny the chemical weapons in another comment, assuming France, Israel and US to be in a conspiracy).
Second, ah, no... I have a bit of a life. Go defend the rapers, thieves, mass murderers etc etc to get a rise out of someone else.
I never said the US gov is worse than Syria gov. I never advanced an ideology.
In other comments which you refer to I simply stated that there really isn't any evidence that has been presented as to what chemicals were used if any and by whom. Compelling evidence seems like one sensible precondition for starting a war.
Finally, my statement that the US doesn't care about Syrians is germane to your point: You can't expect their situation to improve if those who claim that they effect that change don't actually care.
Devil's advocates are needed, but you refuse to acknowledge that you defend the devil.
Again: Are you in a Syrian or Iranian 50 cent army? Or are you one of those leftwing extremists that never support a democracy against a dictator?
Like many others all over the internet now, you really avoid the point that the Syrian junta is a pack of mass murdering, raping, torturing assholes which the world would do better without.
Again: You argue there is a conspiracy with Israeli, US, French information lying. You know full well that information sources often can't be publicized when you disqualify everything. (Doctors without borders et al have talked about large scale gas attacks. The insurgents just don't have much artillery around Damascus. And that French and US intelligence would both lie is a conspiracy.)
Is it worse to torture and rape children -- or to defend such people dishonestly...?
I don't defend the Syrian government. Is it not possible to say that there is not yet any compelling evidence about who used weapons in Ghouta and what those weapons were without supporting the Syrian government? And likewise to state that the goals of the US are not humanitarian?
And of course there is a conspiracy: These are allies acting for substantial mutual benefit just as Iran, Russia and China are conspiring. We saw similar concerted misinformation in Iraq and Libya, both of which are much worse off after their humanitarian-bombardment.
> Doctors without borders et al have talked about large scale gas attacks.
DWB do not have members in the area. They received second hand reports of fairly non-specific symptoms that they said would be consistent with a chemical attack. Moreover, they were adamant that they could not determine who launched the attack.
> The insurgents just don't have much artillery around Damascus
I know nothing about artillery positions but I as far as I know a method of delivery has not been established.
"Devil's advocates are needed, but you refuse to acknowledge that you defend the devil. [...] you really avoid the point that the Syrian junta is a pack of mass murdering, raping, torturing assholes which the world would do better without."
I just note you missed a third(!) chance to condemn... A member in an Iranian/Syrian "50 cent army" would write just what you write. (Does that make you proud?)
I would like to touch your arguments too, but...
You are certain France, Israel and USA are in a conspiracy and lie (despite all the leaks). And that all the western media are in on the conspiracy and keep the truth away from the "sheeple".
Not much to say, since that isn't falsifiable; it explains every argument anyone can write, you can just stay with the media which write extremist conspiracy theories...
(As an additional note -- the method of delivery might be hard to establish with the large shelling from the Assad artillery after the gas attack. But that is probably just another lie? :-) )
I didn't take the opportunity to condemn because it wasn't relevant to my point which was independent of anyone's feelings on the Syrian government. But to make you happy: I condemn the atrocities committed by the Syrian government. And to make you less happy: Without making a comparison or equivalence, I condemn the atrocities committed by rebel forces and the US government.
I am not certain of anything. Allied forces have strong incentives to mislead, as does the media in those countries, and we have recent historical evidence showing that they have done so in other cases (Iraq, Libya). It is simply not a defensible position to assert that governments don't mislead, even in concert. Your argument seems to boil down to "the government wouldn't lie to me" when we have seen that they would.
And of course whether or not allied governments are lying and cooperating is falsifiable: They can present evidence to show that their claims are supported by compelling evidence.
To be clear the Syrian government may, at a later date, be proved to have used chemical weapons. But that still wouldn't make the fact that, right now, there is no compelling evidence to support such a claim. Unjustified belief is not knowledge.
You also claimed the US involvement is a conspiracy. After Obama has wriggled like an eel for two years to not get involved in another war...
You have no comment on that you are on the side of just the dictators, against democracies?
You have no comment on that if you don't believe three independent intelligence organizations, you won't believe any proof?
>>And of course whether or not allied governments are lying and cooperating is falsifiable: They can present evidence to show that their claims are supported by compelling evidence.
If some general left Syria and witnessed then you, Putin and Assad would only claim it is faked. Because proofs were faked by someone else, somewhere else, some other times...
Let me also note the contrast of how certain you are about the US motivations (a heterogeneous entity if any!) -- and here you write that you are "not certain of anything"!
I am certain of one thing -- you are either confused or you write simple propaganda from the viewpoint of some dictators.
When we are discussing the issue of Syria bombardment, it is a good idea to address these questions separately:
1. Justification (legal and moral).
-a. Is there a conclusive proof that the Syrian government has used these weapons?
-b. Are the US officials words that 'there is a proof, but it's secret' to be taken at face value?
-c. Can the USA claim the moral high ground to be the World's policeman instead of UN?
2. Consequences (to the Syrian people and the Middle East at large).
-a. Is it possible that the Syrian people will suffer more as the result of the bombardments?
-b. Is it possible that the bombardment of Syria would trigger the wider regional war, with far more countries and casualties?
1. Justification
1.a. There is conclusive proof (at least, public). UN has not completed the investigation. And there is a number of facts that support the the theory that these were the rebels to use chemical weapons. The latter facts are completely ignored by US and european officials. They are not officially disproved.
1.b. USA has already invaded Iraq on a false pretext (of securing the WMD stockpiles), just ten years ago. This is official, there were no WMD stockpiles in Iraq whatsoever. Also, the CIA has a history of false flag operations. For example, the somewhat recently declassified CIA documents prove that the CIA has planned to commit a number of terrorist acts (including shooting down planes and sinking US ships) on US territory and blame them on Cuba, to start the invasion of Cuba. [1]
1.c. As declassified CIA documents show us, the USA has knowingly supported Saddam Hussein with military intelligence in one of the most brutal chemical attacks in the world's history (20,000 Iranian soldiers dead, many thousands permanently injured). It has supported Saddam Hussein when it was gassing Kurdish civilians in Halabja (3,200-5,000 dead; 7,000-10,000 permanently injured). [2]
During the twentieth century US has supported the most brutal dictatorships in the world, including, but not limited to Augusto Pinochet (came to power with the help of USA), Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavī (came to power with the help of Britain and USA), Somozas. The USA has supported Suharto's occupation of East Timor, which led to at least 100,000 deaths, according to the UN.
Now USA is supporting the dictatorships of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait (Man, each and every one of them has already done some brutal stuff to their people, and continues to do this).
If the US is really serious about fighting the war crimes and use of chemical weapons(which would be great!), why doesn't it prosecute it's former senior US officials that are implicated? Why doesn't it appy the same rules to it's allied dictatorships? Without answering these questions, the statements by foobarqux that the US agenda in the region has nothing to do with protecting innocent Syrian civilians seems perfectly plausible. [3]
As to legality, according to international law, US cannot bomb Syria without UN resolution.
2. Consequences
2.a. As I have written in a number of previous posts, there is a great chance that the bombings will result in many more deaths than we can possibly attribute to actions of Assad regime. This issue is the biggest and it is not addressed, which is a great red flag.
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that military strikes could help the opposition and put pressure on Assad, but — pointing to the last decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan — he added, "it is not enough to simply alter the balance of military power without careful consideration of what is necessary in order to preserve a functioning state."
And he warned that if the government collapses without a viable opposition to take its place, "we could inadvertently empower extremists or unleash the very chemical weapons we seek to control." [4]
2.b. Israel is currently preparing to defend itself from a possible strike from Syria or Iran as a consequence of US bombardment of Syria. Israel, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon are all preparing their armed forces for a possible conflict. What is this if not a sign that the US and French bombardment of Syria could potentially escalate to a more atrocious conflict?
There are not only bad answers, but bad questions, as Žižek put it in a lecture that I recently linked to. Most of the questions that you've raised in [5] are precisely the bad ones. In this post I have attempted to raise the questions that let us better understand the situation.
From Medialens.org:
"As we have discussed, many of the alleged horrors said to justify Nato's assault - Gaddafi's use of vicious foreign mercenaries and Viagra-fuelled mass rape, his planned massacre in Benghazi - were sheer invention. The violent chaos that has befallen Libya since Nato's war, however, is very real."
You have a non-extremist link that shows Gadaffi to be a democratic humanitarian? :-)
Ahh, I forgot... all the large media with the best reputation (NY Times, Washington Post, BBC, etc) are in on the conspiracy!
The only countries supporting the horrible regimes of Libya and Syria are non-democratic (let's face it, Putin can't lose an election). Are you proud of the company?
Nobody said Gadafi was a humanitarian, he was monstrous as far as I know. The point was that the attack was justified using several unsubstantiated but widely-publicized-as-fact claims.
1. What says it was your hated USA that lied and not the locals? (In Syria, US, France and Israel agrees.) The first thing that dies in a war is the truth -- e.g. the Internet is full of people arguing exactly the same conspiracies as only brutal dictators. Like you.
2. It is really easy to go to a muslim tribe society with honour killings and ask people if they or their relatives were raped a year earlier.
pipy, you ignored my answer and jumped in much later. Please use one account. :-)
Some general notes:
A. You are [also] not going to acknowledge how straight out evil the mass murderers, rapists, torturers and thieves are in the junta?
B. You ignore that French and Israeli intelligence corroborates the chemical attack from Assad. France is seldom in lockstep with the USA...
>>As I have written in a number of previous posts, there is a great chance that the bombings will result in many more deaths than we can possibly attribute to actions of Assad regime.
Some trivial points:
1. How much atrocities will the Assad regime do, Mr Neville Chamberlain, if they win the civil war and then "clean up"? It is a small minority that oppress a large majority; they must be f-cking brutal.
2. To let use of chemical weapons against civilians pass will lower the threshold for using WMD. A very, very bad precedent.
3. No reaction because of civilian damage makes the Assad method work of moving artillery etc into civilian areas... Another bad precedent.
4. Your argument about the risk of a spreading conflict implies the world should let the Assad mass murdering torturers keep the whole Middle East as hostage with WMD. A ridiculously bad precedent.
I don't believe you are intellectually honest here. These obvious points slaughter your argument that it is better to let mass murdering torturers get away with it.
And about USA...
The foreign policy of democracies are about as much realpolitik as the foreign policy of dictators (and they also lie about it), except for two things:
1. When the home opinion cares. This is getting larger with time, especially after the Cold War.
2. When it doesn't cost money or influences badly on important interests.
But... the USA has argued/pressured for the democratization of the Middle East a long time. (See TFA, which has an old example.) It is just stupid to argue as if they are pure evil. ("Pure incompetent/stupid"? Maybe.)
(A note: If you think Pinochet was one of the worst dictators you're confused. A few thousand dead, a few tens of thousands tortured. Go check the really bad dictators... like the Assad clan. Supported only by non-democracies. And people like you. How does that feel?)
I will reply in the coming days. Too much work, no time for research today. The one thing I'd like to say is that I haven't yet found the documents that would support your thesis about the human rights record of Bashar Al Assad, especially the numbers of his victims.
Also, too bad, US government doesn't seem to care about the possible humanitarian catastrophe in Syria that would ensure after strikes. At least, I haven't found any documents that support this. If you and US government are so sure that the bombing of Syria is for the better, I think that you should provide documented arguments in support of your position.
(Also note that the present dictator isn't the first one in the family to use artillery on cities...)
>>US government doesn't seem to care about the possible humanitarian catastrophe in Syria that would ensure after strikes
I gave multiple reasons why it was a very bad idea to let mass murdering and torturing dictators use civilian hostages to get away with using WMD on civilians.
You are just going to ignore that?
AGAIN: WHY WOULD THE RESULTS OF THE STRIKES BE WORSE THAN LETTING THE MASS MURDERERS GET AWAY WITH IT, SO THEY KEEP USING WMD??? (Not to mention keep using air/artillery on civilians.)
Again: I just don't think you're intellectually honest.
First, I would reiterate some of my points and supplement them with new information. Then I would comment on your concerns. The last part of my message will be my response to your ad-hominem points.
1. Lack of evidence.
>You know full well that information sources often can't be publicized when you disqualify everything.
The members of US Congress who have seen the classified evidence about Syria gas attacks and say that it fails to prove anything. [1]
The BBC article that you've linked to has also no proof whatsoever, just allegations from Mr Cameron, who, by the way, has just failed to convince the House of Commons. If you would take the time, as I did, and randomly scan through the discussion in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom [2], you would hear yourself that the same arguments that I have already made in this discussion were voiced by many of it's members. I guess, that now you've got to accuse the US Congressmen and the members of the UK House of Commons of being intellectually dishonest and pro-Putin shilling?
2. Lack of humanitarian project, disregard for consequences, lack of a clear humanitarian objective.
I already have provided the argument that the number of civilians killed during the three weeks of bombardments of Kosovo was higher than the number of Milosevic victims, that were supposed to be the cause for bombardments. And that doesn't even include the number of Serb civilians that were killed by various organized Albanian groups afterwards.
The bombing of Syria has no humanitarian goals whatsoever. There is no assessment of potential civilian casualties, no roadmap for resolution. [3]
3. You seem to claim that keeping Bashar-Al-Assad in power is somehow worse than allowing him to continue being in power, but there's no evidence that supports this.
The mere idea that you seem to infer that you should first take action(bomb a country, kill people), and weight the consequences of the action after you've already made it, defies logic.
The most authoritative document on Syrian death toll provided by UN suggests that there is total of 92,901 dead, predominantly males (as of June 2013). The number includes combatants and non-combatants. [4] The document also states that the current data makes it hard to make a distinction. There is no data on the number of victims of Bashar-Al-Assad that would support that he is worse than Pinochet. The document by HRW that you've provided states that the Assad regime has made about 25,000 documented detentions (as of June 22, 2012) [5].
As we also know, the US, Saudi Arabia, Quatar and Turkey all have been pouring weapons and foreign fighters into Syria for a number of time, which is to say that they must be held accountable for their fair share of a total death toll.
Let's suppose that the Bashar-Al-Assad is worse than Pinochet, just for the sake of the argument. How come would it justify bombing Syria into oblivion? There is no such thing as being partly pregnant. If you know anything about military, there is no such thing as `limited strikes`.
4. Why is US disregarding the peace talks and doesn't push for ceasefire?
We oppose any foreign military intervention in Syria under any pretext, because it does not serve the Syrian aspiration for freedom and justice. Instead it will exacerbate the crisis, and push the parties of the armed conflict to escalate their armed actions, and push them to use the worst of weapons. А statement made by part of the Syrian opposition. [6]
5. Your posts contain ad-hominem attacks and too much of hand-waving instead of informed arguments.
You have already accused me of 1) paid shilling, 2) having multiple accounts, 3) intellectual dishonesty.
And your strongest argument for bombing Syria is that "OMG, Assad is a really, really bad guy and he uses WMD!" (I concur that Assad is a very bad guy, but bombing is really not enough for a plan to solve Syrian problems).
Please forgive me for the one ad-hominem attack in return to three of your's. Here's the difference between me an you: in 2003 I have participated in protests against the war in Chechnya, for a large number of years I have taken part in criticizing Russian regime. An you are engaged in blind warmongering on behalf of your ruling elites.
To quote the Bible:
“Why do you look at the splinter in your brother’s eye but you don’t notice the log in your own eye? And how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me get that splinter out of your eye,’ with that log there in your own eye? You fake, first get the log out of your own eye, and then you can see about getting the splinter out of your brother’s eye.”
I wish you all the best and, first and foremost, to do your own research instead of blindly believing your very own government.
To quote Vladimir Lenin, "if you're not interested in politics, sooner or later, politics would be interested in you".
I hope this won't be the case for you and your loved ones, and that you're life won't be taken neither in any new imperialist war waged by your government in your name, nor in any of the terrorist fallouts that usually come afterwards.
I wrote an answer, but removed it. I repeat my only argument regarding motivation from the GP comment, for the THIRD time. You seem to have missed answering it?
This is hardly new for you. Almost the same argument is presented by the Obama administration whenever anyone there gives an interview.
(I'll post my original comment when/if you finally talk about my answer to your position.)
I gave multiple reasons why it was a very bad idea to let mass murdering and torturing dictators use civilian hostages to get away with using WMD on civilians.
You are just going to ignore that?
AGAIN: WHY WOULD THE RESULTS OF THE STRIKES BE WORSE THAN LETTING THE MASS MURDERERS GET AWAY WITH IT, SO THEY KEEP USING WMD??? (Not to mention keep using air/artillery on civilians.)
So much text and you didn't answer my single argument (same as what the Obama administration use) for the FOURTH time.
You even repeated that which the argument answered, pretending never to have seen it...
(Note that I motivate why I think you're not intellectually honest -- you write many kb without touching the only counter argument. So it is not an ad hominem.)
Man, what argument are you talking about? That it is up to you and to US to make the case that bombing Syria will actually lead to less casualties than not bombing it? Not up to me. What do you want me to oppose? The case that has never been made?
Either I have misunderstood you, or you have some severe problems with the basic logic itself. Let me explain again:
1. You propose the goal (e.g. reduce the number of civilian deaths in Syria, topple Assad, make a point for the World that it is bad to use WMD and that America is going to take action)
2. You state the actions that you're going to undertake to achieve it.
3. And you make the case for your own experts, lawmakers, the World an your citizens that the stated actions are the best to achieve your goals.
During the aftermath of WMD use US has sequentially stated multiple confronting goals (e.g. help people of Syria, but not topple Assad; topple Assad; that there is no threat to US, that there is threat to US; yesterday Hillary Clinton has said that the reason to go is to make a point to scare off worlds dictators not to use WMD). So, there is no clear goal.
There is only the first action stated: the bombing. So, there is no clear stated path for stopping conflict after the bombing. And, respectively, no reasoning behind undertaking it.
No clear 1., only the first step of 2, no 3. How do you suppose me to argue with the things that are not even being stated?
I can only support arguments that the _supposed_ goal(1.) is likely to be achieved with other actions than bombing the country. And that all the stated goals are different from the real goal.
I have contacts all over the World, and since no one has said to me that I'm in any way dishonest, for now I would go that it is you who is wrong in your assessment.
After the blatant lies about Iraq, it is hard for me to conceive how can you be so uncritical to the statements of your governments.
BTW, Tom Malinowski, the director of HRW’s Washington office, has been nominated by Obama to be Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. For a number of years HRW is known to be very selective in what human rights violations it was to report in the Latin America. Currently the HRW is calling for the bombing of Syria (and, obviously, doesn't make it's case too). I think it is understandable that I'm skeptical about it's reports and goals. I'll wait for the UN report, at least, UN is a truly international organization.
1. I write my single argument about bombing (similar to the Obama administration).
2. You write about everything else.
3. I ask for an answer time and again.
4. Then I only post short comments and ask for answers to my single argument.
5. You continue post large text comments, without any input from me!
6. Specifically, you post all over the comment tree to hide that you lack an answer.
Isn't the above true? Well, finally answer the argument:
1. How much atrocities will the Assad regime do, Mr Neville Chamberlain, if they win the civil war and then "clean up"? It is a small minority that oppress a large majority; they must be f-cking brutal.
2. To let use of chemical weapons against civilians pass will lower the threshold for using WMD. A very, very bad precedent.
3. No reaction because of civilian damage makes the Assad method work of moving artillery etc into civilian areas... Another bad precedent.
4. Your argument about the risk of a spreading conflict implies the world should let the Assad mass murdering torturers keep the whole Middle East as hostage with WMD. A ridiculously bad precedent.
----------------
And a final comment about one of your conspiracy theories:
>>For a number of years HRW is known to be very selective in what human rights violations it was to report in the Latin America
So HRW, multiple intelligence organisations and EU are in a conspiracy -- and the Truth comes from you, Putin and Assad.
(And I must question your claim on HRW; Wikipedia has a page with all the criticism of them. Some of it is probably correct (it is a big organisation), but NONE claimed they are in USA's pocket.)
Your so called counter-argument, the one that you repeatingly kept asking a reply for is not a counter-argument at all. It is illogical of you to think of it as such. That's why: you and US propose an action with an obscure goal and of obscure scope. Actually, not even an action, but a first step of an obscure sequence of actions the second step of which is unknown. Furthermore, there is no concrete statements or documents that allow us to link the proposed action (however obscure it may be) to the proposed goal (however obscure it may be).
It is logically impossible to argue against something that is so ill-defined. It is the same thing as to logically argue about the unstated intentions of a person or unstated wills of a person.
What we can do, and that is what I did, is to draw a framework in which the possible action is taking place, whatever forms it may take (and that is harder and requires much more effort than debunking something faulty, but concrete). And argue for or against alleged possible forms and alleged possible goals of the alleged action in the boundaries that are set by the framework in which the action is taking place.
My main point is, therefore, that in the current context the action can lead to a catastrophe, much more fierce than the consequences of Bashar-Al-Assad staying in power. Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit. It is up to you and to US to provide the proof that US actions would lead to the better outcome for the Syrian people. However obvious you and US would like to portray it, you would have hard time to make your case.
!!!There is nothing, I repeat, nothing self-evident about the statement that the bombings would eventually lead to less civilian suffering and deaths.!!!
As lot's of experts and officials see it, the bombings could lead to orders of magnitude more suffering and deaths that it is possible to attribute to actions of Bashar-Al-Assad, or theoretically possible to attribute to him in the future.
-------
I have not described any single conspiracy theory. I am really disappointed that you didn't follow the footnotes, because all of my significant statements are supported either by official documents or by statements made by officials, or articles by big media. PLEASE, PLEASE, stop attributing to me things that I have never said. All that I said is that I'm skeptical about assessment made by HRW in this particular case. If you would've followed my footnotes, there are direct sourced statements by US SENATORS THAT HAVE SEEN THE COMPLETE CLASSIFIED "PROOF" THAT STATE THAT THE PROOF IS FAULTY. THE STATEMENTS BY UK HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS THAT SAY THAT THE CHEMICAL ATTACK ATTRIBUTION TO ASSAD IS NOT PROVEN. STATEMENTS BY UK HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS THAT SAY THAT THE BOMBINGS COULD LEAD TO HUMANITARIAN DISASTER ON A GRAND SCALE.
>>Your so called counter-argument, the one that you repeatingly kept asking a reply for is not a counter-argument at all.
As I've written five++ times, it is not only my motivation -- it is the Obama administration's motivation.
So your long argument why you don't need to quote and answer that goes also for the main US motivation... THE thing to argue against, you refuse to touch!
Which makes your well written text funny, in all its dishonesty. (That you call trivial game theory "illogical" makes it even better.)
>>All that I said is that I'm skeptical about assessment made by HRW in this particular case
You hint HRW is in the US pocket, without any support.
Another thing you refuse to touch is when I repeatedly write:
"So HRW, multiple intelligence organisations and EU are in a conspiracy -- and the Truth comes from you, Putin and Assad."
I try to write little to dishonest people, so they can't easily avoid subjects. But even without input from me, you just write really long without touching what I write!
For instance, my/Obama's motivation which you refuse to touch is relevant for the "catastrophe risk". And you also refuse to touch that the main humanitarian problem is the military. And... Enough.
(I stop now, after noting some cases where you're just dishonest, so you have less chance to avoid the subjects you try to bury.)
I only want to add one thing to my comment here. And that is that I'm an idiot for wasting my time.
There are three possibilities when someone repeatedly refuse to answer the single, simple reason for my position (in this case, also the central point in the Obama motivation for bombing) -- and instead write lots of gigantic blocks of text.
a). You're a troll.
b). You're an idealist. They lack answers, but "know" they are correct so they ignore anything contradictory.
c). You're a politician or some other kind of paid propagandist, which don't care if you argue honestly (or if what you write has anything to do with reality).
I would be willing to bet money that you're a case of c).
So I've wasted time trying to talk to you, since you're probably paid for every anti-bombing comment you post on HN. No matter that anyone reads this deep.
(I just wonder about the souls of people who knowingly help the Assad juntas of this world with torturers, murderers and rapists. Most of you people are religious and believe in a judgement after death...)
I sincerely don't understand what you're talking about.
What "counter argument" I refuse to touch, in your opinion? Just state it in _one single sentence_. Do you really think that "Obama's motivation" is some kind of proven fact that is on your side? Is this it?
Also, just for the sake of a joke, what if I was able to prove you wrong in your assumptions about me, in a skype call, let's say? :)
At first I was really disappointed to have spent so much time in explaining the whole context of Syrian situation. Now I'm really amused, since 1) I believe in your sincerity 2) I find it really incredible that you haven't grasped my position in all it's honesty and being grounded in facts.
I'm not a self-centered person (at least, I like to think so). And I'm really interested in understanding other people. To me your view of the situation is a big question mark that would be fun to resolve.
>> I sincerely don't understand what you're talking about.
>>What "counter argument" I refuse to touch, in your opinion?
pipy "sincerely" lie -- in his previous comment he was aware of the subject (and avoided it in another dishonest way):
>> Your so called counter-argument, the one that you repeatingly kept asking a reply for is not a counter-argument at all. It is illogical of you to think of it as such.
(The other example I selected is pipy's refusal to acknowledge that the main humanitarian problem in Syria is certainly the Syrian army.)
I'll just quote my answer to his previous comment:
As I've written five++ times, it is not only my motivation -- it is the Obama administration's motivation.
So your long argument why you don't need to quote and answer [what I wrote] goes also for the main US motivation... THE thing to argue against, you refuse to touch!
Which makes your well written text funny, in all its dishonesty. (That you call trivial game theory "illogical" makes it even better.)
[And let me note -- shameless liars on the Internet that want to identify me makes me want to call the police.]
Answering here, so that my reply to your post [1] won't get squeezed.
[PART 1]
Just in case: I believe in your sincerity and want for the truth, and didn't mean to offend you in any way.
>Amnesty talks about 10K dead just in detentions (without e.g. bombing/shelling of cities) as probably low.
No, I've opened the actual article by Amnesty that is linked in Wikipedia near the figure, and on pages 10 and 11 it states this:
Since the outbreak of pro-reform protests in Fe
bruary 2011 and of mass protests calling for the
downfall of President Bashar al-Assad and his
government, in particular after the security
forces first shot dead several demonstrators in Dera’a on 18 March 2011, Amnesty
International has received the names of more than 10,000 people – mainly men and boys -who
have been killed during the unrest, although
the actual figure may be considerably higher.
The evidence collected in the Aleppo and Idlib governorates, including the Jebel al-Zawiyah and
Jebel al-Wastani areas, shows that hundreds, possibly more, have been deliberately killed at
close range. While some of the victims were active in the opposition, many of them were killed
unlawfully after having been taken captive; others
appear to have been targeted simply because
they were living in opposition-held areas and
as such may have been considered supporters of
armed opposition groups, including those linked
to the FSA. Others were reportedly killed
simply because soldiers wanted
to take revenge on people from the area and/or could not find
those they were looking for. [2]
That is not to say that Assad is not to be held accountable for at least part of this deaths, but it is a civil war death toll, and not the number of deaths in detention/and deliberate killings.
I think that Assad is a horrible guy. His father was obviously a brutal dictator and Assad has mismanaged the country so badly that it fell into the civil war. I have personally seen videos of the shootings at demonstrators. One of the most touching and at the same time not explicitly graphic being this one [3]. I think that he's got to be held accountable for what he did. But not at the expense of tens of thousands dead innocent people.
>AGAIN: WHY WOULD THE RESULTS OF THE STRIKES BE WORSE THAN LETTING THE MASS MURDERERS GET AWAY WITH IT, SO THEY KEEP USING WMD??? (Not to mention keep using air/artillery on civilians.)
Here, I would abstain from commenting on the validity of claims that the chemical weapons were used by Assad regime, since I think that I've already made my point that the so called 'evidence' is not to be taken seriously. Even the members of the US House Intelligence Committee that have seen the full classified version of it don't seem to consider the evidence compelling. Even the White House chief of staff has stated that the "Administration lacks irrefutable beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence". Let's consider that the WMD was used by the explicit order of Assad, just for the sake of the argument.
0. Why not call for peace talks, and/or immediate ceasefire? It is the US and Syrian opposition that has continuously abstained from them.
1. First and foremost, if the good of the Syrian people is to be taken as the priority, before any strike there should be a plan that takes potential civilian death toll into consideration. There is no such plan, not to my knowledge. And not to the knowledge of the members of the UK House of Commons and US State Senators (at least, the ones whose testimony I watched). How are you going to imply that the death toll would be magically minimal? Do you really think that it is the matter to be discussed without relying on documents, calculations, etc.? You somehow seem to imply that it is commonsensical that the death toll would be low, but that is not enough, as the past shows.
1.A. Kosovo (in this thread I have made a sourced point about the civilian death toll in Kosovo operation and the fact that it was well above the supposed number of Milosevic victims).
1.B. Iraq. Invation of Iraq has led to a horrendous civil war with tens of thousands (by conservative numbers) civilians killed, and that is not to mention couple of thousands of civilians that were killed during the invasion itself. Sorry, US has destroyed this country, it's infrastructure, etc. etc. The fact that Saddam was a horrible guy is not a validation for destroying the lives of millions of Iraqis. This is a crime against humanity, the same one for which people were hanged after Nuremberg Trials. Not to mention the horrible illnesses that were inflicted on Iraqis by depleted uranium contamination.
Actually, the list can go on, and on, and on.
As a large number of experts claim, and as I have written in previous comments, the situation could potentially deteriorate and go out of control. Israel is preparing for potential armed conflict with Iran as a result of this war. Turkey is preparing it's troops for potential ground invasion of Syria. Etc. etc. etc., I have written about it in this very thread. The civil war in Syria is not a war of Assad against all of it's people (or he would've already lost long time ago). It is a war between various factions in Syria and outside of Syria. It is a war of Alawites against members of other sects. It is a war between Sunni and Shia. It is a war of Syrian people against invasion of foreign jihadi militants from all over the world. It is a war of Quatar for the ability to sell natural gas on the European market (they finance foreign militants to be able to install the regime that will allow to build pipeline over Syrian territory). It is a war of Saudi Arabia, United States [4] [5] for the regional domination. It is a war of Iran for it's security. It could be a war of Israel to potentially gain more territories beyond Golan Heights. It is a war of Russia for the domination of the European natural gas market. It is a war of Russia with it's very own jihadists that have travelled to Syria from Chechnya, the list goes on, and on, and on. Oh, and also this is an opportunity for the Kurds to create their own nation state. And a war of different factions of Iraqis against each other.
Just to elaborate, according to a Qatari poll that was made in the end of 2011, 55% of Syrians were supportive of Assad at the time. [6]
1.C. As you probably know, today Syria and Russia have agreed to the proposal by Kerry that the only way to prevent attacks is to put the WMD's under international control. And the US reaction, at least immediate, was to instantly shift the goals of Syria bombings from helping the people of Syria to "Making a point for international community", and state that it welcomes the political solution but is still going to bomb Syria nevertheless.
2. In fact, the Obama administration has constantly shifted the goals of the bombings, to the point when it is really hard to take their arguments seriously. They were stating that they are not going to force Assad out of power, now they are stating that they are going to force Assad out of power, etc.
I hope that I have answered your question about why the bombings are a great potential threat to the people of Syria. I don't see the US trying to find a peaceful solution.
3. Obama is a mass murderer himself, he kills thousands of people by drones, not to mention the "double drone attack" tactic that targets first responders, which constitutes a war crime under international law. [7] And the list can be continued with mass tortures (for which large number of torturers have recently got official immunity [8]), extraordinary rendition, etc.
Man, suppose we have a large family in which one of the members is abusing others. You are suggesting feeding an entire family to a crocodile (US bombs and forein jihadis brought in by Quatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey) as a remedy. Or, potentially nuke them from orbit with a whole city as a worst-case scenario (ignite the whole region in conflict).
Shit has hit the fan on the March of 2011. And there is no silver bullet, no silver DU munitions, not even a silver nuke to clean it up.
You are suggesting to fight fire by pouring gasoline into it.
A number of countries and experts have called for ceasefire and peace talks, to which the Syrian government has agreed. There is no rational reason behind US putting this option off the table beyond it's strategic interests in the Middle East. Not that I know of. This, plus the lack of evidence that support the statement that it is Assad who used WMDs, is a giant red flag (don't forget the Iraq lies too).
Sadly, there is no good force to sort things out, probably, beyond the UN.
I'm probably as against Assad as you are. The point in which I differ is that the US bombardments would cripple the poor country even further.
Oh, I think I should've gone to sleep long time ago...
[5] To quote Zbigniew Brzezinski, renowned US strategist and Obama's mentor (sorry for pasting such large number of quotes, but it's definitely worth it).
"...To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together."
"Moreover, they [the Central Asian Republics] are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold." (p.124)
"The world's energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Department of energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125)
"In fact, an Islamic revival - already abetted from the outside not only by Iran but also by Saudi Arabia - is likely to become the mobilizing impulse for the increasingly pervasive new nationalisms, determined to oppose any reintegration under Russian - and hence infidel - control." (p. 133).
"It follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it." (p148)
"America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe's central arena. Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and to America's historical legacy." (p.194)
"With warning signs on the horizon across Europe and Asia, any successful American policy must focus on Eurasia as a whole and be guided by a Geostrategic design." (p.197)
"That puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent (preempt) the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America's primacy..." (p. 198)
In short: I still can't see that you answered my simple counter argument. The shorter I write, noting you pretend you don't see it, the more text you write.
I have put quite an effort to explain my position and the view on the situation. I've got some background in applied math and (I suppose) that my arguments are well in line with the requirements of elementary logic. Maybe I was too emotional in making my case, I don't know. I really feel helpless to somehow protect the Syrian people from unnecessary deaths and their country from complete destruction by US and it's allies. In a similar way I feel helpless in arguing with you.
I feel that I've been deluding myself in a sense that discussing the issue of Syrian bombardments with you was only a channel to funnel my complete helplessness to prevent US from bombing Syrian people.
I feel that for now it is better for me to channel my free time and efforts to the subjects that are in the realm of reach, such is the situation in my own country and in my own life.
Best wishes and good luck! Let's hope that our motives in this issue are much closer than we might feel.
I didn't read carefully -- after I asked FOUR times, you really did touch (not answer) my single argument, similar to the Obama administration's position.
>>the so called 'evidence' is not to be taken seriously. Even the members of the US House Intelligence Committee that have seen the full classified version of it don't seem to consider the evidence compelling.
You still didn't really touch the content of my argument, the trivial game theoretical points.
Intelligence organisations in multiple countries, the EU and now HRW has claimed there was a chemical attack. Almost certainly from the junta (from signal intelligence -- and the rebels lack heavy delivery mechanisms in Damaskus).
So you, Putin, Iran and Assad claim it is a conspiracy between those disparate organisations...
I don't believe you are honest here.
>>First and foremost, if the good of the Syrian people is to be taken as the priority, before any strike there should be a plan that takes potential civilian death toll into consideration.
I posted the wikipedia links, which you read, so you only pretend you don't know this:
From a humanitarian perspective, the chemical attack was a rounding error -- the junta has systematically used artillery, bombs, torture, rape and indiscriminate murder of civilians, to break the population's resistance.
It would help the Syrian population to remove the military capabilities which are used to mass murder them.
>>really feel helpless to somehow protect the Syrian people from unnecessary deaths and their country from complete destruction by US and it's allies
Thanks for a good laugh! See above, you don't believe yourself that bombings of Syrian military units would "destroy Syria".
Enough. I have better things to do than to read dishonest propaganda. (You wouldn't write this much crazy and carefully written text if you just were a troll.)
Edit: I'll append my simple argument (see link above):
----------------
Some trivial points:
1. How much atrocities will the Assad regime do, Mr Neville Chamberlain, if they win the civil war and then "clean up"? It is a small minority that oppress a large majority; they must be f-cking brutal.
2. To let use of chemical weapons against civilians pass will lower the threshold for using WMD. A very, very bad precedent.
3. No reaction because of civilian damage makes the Assad method work of moving artillery etc into civilian areas... Another bad precedent.
4. Your argument about the risk of a spreading conflict implies the world should let the Assad mass murdering torturers keep the whole Middle East as hostage with WMD. A ridiculously bad precedent.
I tried to write short, with just the content of mine (and the Obama administration's) argument, to force you to answer it.
You just wrote longer, still without touching the main counter argument!!
(I thought the Amnesty reference was to the previous paragraph. Never mind, the point is shown: The Pinochet revolution was like a children's party, compared to the previous and present Assad dictator.)
If I touch your points you get a chance to write without answering that for a FIFTH time, so I'll keep my fingers in check.
>>the situation could potentially deteriorate and go out of control.
I already answered that, as a sub point to my argument. And so on.
Syria sits right in between the oilfields in the Middle East and the oil consumers in Europe, so when a pipeline is built connecting the two, Syria has a vote for or against its completion. Since oil pipelines are both necessary and quite profitable, this can lead to very large disputes. Al Jazeera covered this last year here [2] where it was suggested that the West would be inclined to usurp Assad for someone more favorable to the West's long term energy interests. It seems their prediction was correct as the US (along with Britain and Turkey) is escalating relations with Syria, using chemical attacks and civil rights violations as justification.
The Guardian also has a great summary of the issue here. [3]
How about Wahhabi Jihadists that are being brought in from all over the world to fight Assad regime. There is a good piece by German media that talks about how Europe is supporting ultra-extremist insurgency in Syria [1] by turning the blind eye on Turkey, which is providing al-Qaeda affiliated jihadists with arms, shelter and healthcare. They gather in Turkey, then proceed to fighting Assad regime and massacring civilians by hundreds in the spare time. [2][3] Who is going to "show limits" to them?
Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.
“From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families… many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” writes Dale Gavlak. [4]
Dale Gavlak has been a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press for two decades and has also worked for National Public Radio (NPR) and written articles for BBC News.
The situation in Syria is extremely complicated. The presence of "jihadists" does not exculpate nearly anything I said. Even if the opposition consisted only of extreme islamic jihadists (which they obviously don't) destroying living quarters of millions of civilians (who are supposedly on Assad's side according to the regime version of the truth) is hardly the best way to deal with them.
I can't help but feel that the fact that a lot of the victims are muslim is playing a big role in making this genocide "Ok".
>I can't help but feel that the fact that a lot of the victims are muslim is playing a big role in making this genocide "Ok".
This is not the point. The point is who will suffer as the result of the American and French bombings. And the ones to suffer the most are Syrian people. This is Kosovo all over again.
"The casualties among Serb civilians in the first three weeks of the war are higher than all of the casualties on both sides in Kosovo in the three months that led up to this war, and yet those three months were supposed to be a humanitarian catastrophe." [1]
>Even if the opposition consisted only of extreme islamic jihadists (which they obviously don't).
Even CNN now admits that FSA is completely overwhelmed by jihadists. [2] Even if you were right, dropping more bombs won't solve the issues in Syria.
The planned military intervention does not want to "solve" the problem. It wants to send a message beyond Syria.
It's about holding people accountable for genocide.
I also have to ask: Why exactly is it that the FSA is "completely overwhelmed"? At the start that was clearly not the case. Hm, now is there some authority in Syria that wanted to frame the conflict from the start as a democratically elected leader against foreign jihadists? Could it be that said authority targeted primarily the non-jihadists over the last two years?
The planned military intervention does not want to "solve" the problem. It wants to send a message beyond Syria.
It's about holding people accountable for genocide.
I have raised my concerns about this position here. [1]
I also have to ask: Why exactly is it that the FSA is "completely overwhelmed"? At the start that was clearly not the case. Hm, now is there some authority in Syria that wanted to frame the conflict from the start as a democratically elected leader against foreign jihadists? Could it be that said authority targeted primarily the non-jihadists over the last two years?
I think that the most plausible explanation is that the jihadi movement had more external support. War is expensive: all sides of the conflict are in need of arms, food, medical and other supplies, training and expertize. And the FSA has got least.
I think that Assad is generally not a good guy. And that FSA has had legitimacy at the start of the war. Probably, Assad would've liked to frame the conflict as "Assad" vs "Jihadists/Foreign-sponsored freedom fighters" from the very beginning. But the conflict has indeed became a proxy war with many sides, and the FSA has got caught in the middle of them. [2] [3]
I guess we won't come to an agreement. I think chemical weapons are immoral and their use must be punished, even if there is a one in a thousand chance we are hitting the wrong party. The party that, incidentally, is single handedly responsible for cleaning up and avoiding any solid investigation.
You think that because the US (and every other country) has acted immorally in the past, no such punishment must be carried out, and Assad should be given a free hand in dealing with his civilian population...
Also, no mention of Wahhabi Jihadists that are being brought in from all over the world to fight Assad regime. There is a good piece by German media that talks about how Europe is supporting ultra-extremist insurgency in Syria [1] by turning the blind eye on Turkey, which is providing al-Qaeda affiliated jihadists with arms, shelter and healthcare. They gather in Turkey, then proceed to fighting Assad regime and massacring civilians by thousands in the spare time. [2][3]
Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.
“From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families… many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” writes Dale Gavlak. [4]
Dale Gavlak has been a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press for two decades and has also worked for National Public Radio (NPR) and written articles for BBC News.
Thanks in advance