All the US has done in that region is destabilize it...
I tend to agree with that... but i think it's naive and incorrect to just put it all on "evil" America... didnt your liberal PM just support the strikes? but that's not what I've been debating... you also haven't heard me support any missile strikes, American action, or American intervention at all... thats a much broader conversation that i'm not typing and reading on my Phone lol... but my instinct would almost always be NO to all of the above
A woman with an interest, a degree, and career in political science and geopolitics took a job at Amnesty International. Holy shit, this is the smoking gun!
Taking a better job in the field you are interested in and work in does not make you evil or some global conspirator. That's called having a career.
And she was only there for a year? LOL
so ... literally a person from the state department who's mandate is to determine foreign policy taking a job at Amnesty doesn't phase you one bit!??? ... I guess Scott Pruitt taking over the EPA is also good in your eyes? ... the head of a drug company working for the FDA? ... all legit things?
The mainstream media, American government, Russian government, Syrian government, and Daesh, all have vested interests in pushing their agendas. All of them have acted in disingenuous ways and have shown efforts to complicate the way situations would be perceived in their immediate pasts. Because of this, Occam's Razor can't guide a course of action because all players can be presumed to be consciously complicating, confusing, and conflating the reality.
Depending on who's correct in their published position, bombing campaigns will have different outcomes. I would really love to hear one single rational explanation for how external parties' bombings of Syria will amount to improvements to the livelihoods of Syrians, how it is determined whose position is correct, and what risks reside if source information is proven invalid after the fact (meaning the wrong source is assumed correct). If these cannot be reasonably expressed, what right do any external parties have to be the global police force?
I've read, and it really feels like in the battle for Syria's future, everything except Syrians get considered.
exactly ... you clearly don't appear to be taking any sides here which is good ...
every time i ask people who are against assad here a rational question - no one wants to answer:
why launch a chemical attack just before winning a war? why not wait one more day for the OPCW?
no one has any rational explanations here and have avoided the question since page 1
All the US has done in that region is destabilize it...
I tend to agree with that... but i think it's naive and incorrect to just put it all on "evil" America... didnt your liberal PM just support the strikes? but that's not what I've been debating... you also haven't heard me support any missile strikes, American action, or American intervention at all... thats a much broader conversation that i'm not typing and reading on my Phone lol... but my instinct would almost always be NO to all of the above
I have no use for Trudeau...of course he backing the us ... doesn’t mean I do.
All the US has done in that region is destabilize it...
I tend to agree with that... but i think it's naive and incorrect to just put it all on "evil" America... didnt your liberal PM just support the strikes? but that's not what I've been debating... you also haven't heard me support any missile strikes, American action, or American intervention at all... thats a much broader conversation that i'm not typing and reading on my Phone lol... but my instinct would almost always be NO to all of the above
I have no use for Trudeau...of course he backing the us ... doesn’t mean I do.
ya ... not 100% certain but pretty sure I said fuck trudeau somewhere on this forum ... probably in the canadian politics thread ...
we are complicit as is the CBC and all mainstream media outlets in Canada
All the US has done in that region is destabilize it...the us is not a beacon for good in this world
Correct.
And regarding the Trudeau comments... he's developing as a weakling. As much hope as I had for him... I'm losing faith in him. The campaign slogan against him was 'he's just not ready'. The slogan might have been true.
It's spot on. Trump's strategy is basically blow some shit up to look tough while wagging the dog, do nothing to actually improve the situation, and then prevent as many refugees as possible from entering the United States.
The mainstream media, American government, Russian government, Syrian government, and Daesh, all have vested interests in pushing their agendas. All of them have acted in disingenuous ways and have shown efforts to complicate the way situations would be perceived in their immediate pasts. Because of this, Occam's Razor can't guide a course of action because all players can be presumed to be consciously complicating, confusing, and conflating the reality.
Depending on who's correct in their published position, bombing campaigns will have different outcomes. I would really love to hear one single rational explanation for how external parties' bombings of Syria will amount to improvements to the livelihoods of Syrians, how it is determined whose position is correct, and what risks reside if source information is proven invalid after the fact (meaning the wrong source is assumed correct). If these cannot be reasonably expressed, what right do any external parties have to be the global police force?
I've read, and it really feels like in the battle for Syria's future, everything except Syrians get considered.
exactly ... you clearly don't appear to be taking any sides here which is good ...
every time i ask people who are against assad here a rational question - no one wants to answer:
why launch a chemical attack just before winning a war? why not wait one more day for the OPCW?
no one has any rational explanations here and have avoided the question since page 1
The mainstream media, American government, Russian government, Syrian government, and Daesh, all have vested interests in pushing their agendas. All of them have acted in disingenuous ways and have shown efforts to complicate the way situations would be perceived in their immediate pasts. Because of this, Occam's Razor can't guide a course of action because all players can be presumed to be consciously complicating, confusing, and conflating the reality.
Depending on who's correct in their published position, bombing campaigns will have different outcomes. I would really love to hear one single rational explanation for how external parties' bombings of Syria will amount to improvements to the livelihoods of Syrians, how it is determined whose position is correct, and what risks reside if source information is proven invalid after the fact (meaning the wrong source is assumed correct). If these cannot be reasonably expressed, what right do any external parties have to be the global police force?
I've read, and it really feels like in the battle for Syria's future, everything except Syrians get considered.
Occam's Razor most definitely applies. We can still logically look to see who stands to gain from what action.
And if bombing facilities stops the use of chemical weapons then it surely is worth it. Not saying that is what is actually happening but turning a blind eye to atrocities against civilians is not the answer. We should have learned that lesson from WWII.
As a qualifier, I marched against the war in Iraq and the people comparing this situation to that situation have a poor memory.
These past few days have been filled with accusations against Bashar
Al-Assad´s government that blame it for the chemical attack that took
place in Douma, near Damascus, the Syrian capital.
There are a
large number of articles and pieces representing different views about
the incident and the parties that are to blame, which is why I will, in
this short article, focus on the benefits and disadvantages of carrying
out such an attack for Al-Assad and his allies.
First, we need to
have an understanding of the place where the chemical attack took place
(there are many who argue whether or not it really happened but I will
not dedicate time to that discussion) and its situation.
Douma was
until just days ago the last bastion of the rebels and it was under the
control of a combination of FSA and jihadi-related groups like Jaysh
al-Islam. At the time of the attack —7th April— the Syrian Army and allies had fully surrounded Douma and were already beginning to storm the city.
The
Syrian forces had the clear advantage and it was just a matter of time
that this rebel bastion would also fall under the government´s forces
control. Also the militants in Douma were cut off from the outside world
and posed no immediate threat to the Syrian forces.
All of this
brings us to the question that why would Al-Assad want to gas his own
people knowing the severe repercussions that it would have for him? Does
it actually make any sense for the Syrian “regime” to carry out a
highly controversial (and indiscriminate) attack against the very same
people he is achieving military victory against?
One could argue
that the Syrian government wanted to make an example of the rebels left
in Douma in order to scare their comrades in Idlib and Daraa into
submission. This argument makes little sense since there are many, many
more ways to intimidate the enemy than launching a chemical attack that
would turn the whole world against you while you are on the verge of
victory.
So would there be any benefit for Al-Assad in launching a
chemical attack on Douma in these circumstances? No. But then it begs
the questions that, if the attack really did take place, then, who did
it and what parties are to benefit the most from it?
Sadly, these
are questions that, at the very least, we haven´t seen a lot in the
media and, even worse, among the many people that are commenting on the
issue on the different social media networks.
The mainstream media, American government, Russian government, Syrian government, and Daesh, all have vested interests in pushing their agendas. All of them have acted in disingenuous ways and have shown efforts to complicate the way situations would be perceived in their immediate pasts. Because of this, Occam's Razor can't guide a course of action because all players can be presumed to be consciously complicating, confusing, and conflating the reality.
Depending on who's correct in their published position, bombing campaigns will have different outcomes. I would really love to hear one single rational explanation for how external parties' bombings of Syria will amount to improvements to the livelihoods of Syrians, how it is determined whose position is correct, and what risks reside if source information is proven invalid after the fact (meaning the wrong source is assumed correct). If these cannot be reasonably expressed, what right do any external parties have to be the global police force?
I've read, and it really feels like in the battle for Syria's future, everything except Syrians get considered.
exactly ... you clearly don't appear to be taking any sides here which is good ...
every time i ask people who are against assad here a rational question - no one wants to answer:
why launch a chemical attack just before winning a war? why not wait one more day for the OPCW?
no one has any rational explanations here and have avoided the question since page 1
The only logical answer is: Assad has a perverted fetish for it. Other than that there is no rational answer.
Inside the Shadowy PR Firm That’s Lobbying for Regime Change in Syria
Posing
as a non-political solidarity organization, the Syria Campaign
leverages local partners and media contacts to push the U.S. into
toppling another Middle Eastern government.
I say pull all American troops from Syria and let them deal with the situation let the good guy Assad bring peace to his own country let’s see how that goes ...
These past few days have been filled with accusations against Bashar
Al-Assad´s government that blame it for the chemical attack that took
place in Douma, near Damascus, the Syrian capital.
There are a
large number of articles and pieces representing different views about
the incident and the parties that are to blame, which is why I will, in
this short article, focus on the benefits and disadvantages of carrying
out such an attack for Al-Assad and his allies.
First, we need to
have an understanding of the place where the chemical attack took place
(there are many who argue whether or not it really happened but I will
not dedicate time to that discussion) and its situation.
Douma was
until just days ago the last bastion of the rebels and it was under the
control of a combination of FSA and jihadi-related groups like Jaysh
al-Islam. At the time of the attack —7th April— the Syrian Army and allies had fully surrounded Douma and were already beginning to storm the city.
The
Syrian forces had the clear advantage and it was just a matter of time
that this rebel bastion would also fall under the government´s forces
control. Also the militants in Douma were cut off from the outside world
and posed no immediate threat to the Syrian forces.
All of this
brings us to the question that why would Al-Assad want to gas his own
people knowing the severe repercussions that it would have for him? Does
it actually make any sense for the Syrian “regime” to carry out a
highly controversial (and indiscriminate) attack against the very same
people he is achieving military victory against?
One could argue
that the Syrian government wanted to make an example of the rebels left
in Douma in order to scare their comrades in Idlib and Daraa into
submission. This argument makes little sense since there are many, many
more ways to intimidate the enemy than launching a chemical attack that
would turn the whole world against you while you are on the verge of
victory.
So would there be any benefit for Al-Assad in launching a
chemical attack on Douma in these circumstances? No. But then it begs
the questions that, if the attack really did take place, then, who did
it and what parties are to benefit the most from it?
Sadly, these
are questions that, at the very least, we haven´t seen a lot in the
media and, even worse, among the many people that are commenting on the
issue on the different social media networks.
exactly ... it's why Peter Ford is more and more irritable in interviews ... people aren't thinking critically about this ...
but ultimately what is most troubling to me is that people don't care enough to at least consider the possibility that the rhetoric is false ... i've posted numerous links and articles and no one is really countering any of this ... hopefully, as with Iraq - the truth will eventually come out and people will be more critical of the information they get and not just assume it's true because it's what they want to believe ...
These past few days have been filled with accusations against Bashar
Al-Assad´s government that blame it for the chemical attack that took
place in Douma, near Damascus, the Syrian capital.
There are a
large number of articles and pieces representing different views about
the incident and the parties that are to blame, which is why I will, in
this short article, focus on the benefits and disadvantages of carrying
out such an attack for Al-Assad and his allies.
First, we need to
have an understanding of the place where the chemical attack took place
(there are many who argue whether or not it really happened but I will
not dedicate time to that discussion) and its situation.
Douma was
until just days ago the last bastion of the rebels and it was under the
control of a combination of FSA and jihadi-related groups like Jaysh
al-Islam. At the time of the attack —7th April— the Syrian Army and allies had fully surrounded Douma and were already beginning to storm the city.
The
Syrian forces had the clear advantage and it was just a matter of time
that this rebel bastion would also fall under the government´s forces
control. Also the militants in Douma were cut off from the outside world
and posed no immediate threat to the Syrian forces.
All of this
brings us to the question that why would Al-Assad want to gas his own
people knowing the severe repercussions that it would have for him? Does
it actually make any sense for the Syrian “regime” to carry out a
highly controversial (and indiscriminate) attack against the very same
people he is achieving military victory against?
One could argue
that the Syrian government wanted to make an example of the rebels left
in Douma in order to scare their comrades in Idlib and Daraa into
submission. This argument makes little sense since there are many, many
more ways to intimidate the enemy than launching a chemical attack that
would turn the whole world against you while you are on the verge of
victory.
So would there be any benefit for Al-Assad in launching a
chemical attack on Douma in these circumstances? No. But then it begs
the questions that, if the attack really did take place, then, who did
it and what parties are to benefit the most from it?
Sadly, these
are questions that, at the very least, we haven´t seen a lot in the
media and, even worse, among the many people that are commenting on the
issue on the different social media networks.
exactly ... it's why Peter Ford is more and more irritable in interviews ... people aren't thinking critically about this ...
but ultimately what is most troubling to me is that people don't care enough to at least consider the possibility that the rhetoric is false ... i've posted numerous links and articles and no one is really countering any of this ... hopefully, as with Iraq - the truth will eventually come out and people will be more critical of the information they get and not just assume it's true because it's what they want to believe ...
You stated that there were no international reporting coming from within Syria I sad Richard Engle has done some extensive reporting but you don’t believe it you say he’s not trustworthy I don’t agree with your assessment of him ....so that’s the crux of it and I’m not going to believe Assad is a good guy sorry but I ain’t swallowing that pill ...
These past few days have been filled with accusations against Bashar
Al-Assad´s government that blame it for the chemical attack that took
place in Douma, near Damascus, the Syrian capital.
There are a
large number of articles and pieces representing different views about
the incident and the parties that are to blame, which is why I will, in
this short article, focus on the benefits and disadvantages of carrying
out such an attack for Al-Assad and his allies.
First, we need to
have an understanding of the place where the chemical attack took place
(there are many who argue whether or not it really happened but I will
not dedicate time to that discussion) and its situation.
Douma was
until just days ago the last bastion of the rebels and it was under the
control of a combination of FSA and jihadi-related groups like Jaysh
al-Islam. At the time of the attack —7th April— the Syrian Army and allies had fully surrounded Douma and were already beginning to storm the city.
The
Syrian forces had the clear advantage and it was just a matter of time
that this rebel bastion would also fall under the government´s forces
control. Also the militants in Douma were cut off from the outside world
and posed no immediate threat to the Syrian forces.
All of this
brings us to the question that why would Al-Assad want to gas his own
people knowing the severe repercussions that it would have for him? Does
it actually make any sense for the Syrian “regime” to carry out a
highly controversial (and indiscriminate) attack against the very same
people he is achieving military victory against?
One could argue
that the Syrian government wanted to make an example of the rebels left
in Douma in order to scare their comrades in Idlib and Daraa into
submission. This argument makes little sense since there are many, many
more ways to intimidate the enemy than launching a chemical attack that
would turn the whole world against you while you are on the verge of
victory.
So would there be any benefit for Al-Assad in launching a
chemical attack on Douma in these circumstances? No. But then it begs
the questions that, if the attack really did take place, then, who did
it and what parties are to benefit the most from it?
Sadly, these
are questions that, at the very least, we haven´t seen a lot in the
media and, even worse, among the many people that are commenting on the
issue on the different social media networks.
exactly ... it's why Peter Ford is more and more irritable in interviews ... people aren't thinking critically about this ...
but ultimately what is most troubling to me is that people don't care enough to at least consider the possibility that the rhetoric is false ... i've posted numerous links and articles and no one is really countering any of this ... hopefully, as with Iraq - the truth will eventually come out and people will be more critical of the information they get and not just assume it's true because it's what they want to believe ...
Whats most amazing to me is that people act like Iraq and Libya never happened! Do the "dictators" Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi ring any bells? You think Assad forgets what happened to those guys? For 20years the US has pushed for regime change all the way from W neocons and Project New Century to now with Bolton and Haley You've done a good job in this thread, props.
I say pull all American troops from Syria and let them deal with the situation let the good guy Assad bring peace to his own country let’s see how that goes ...
that would be great because Assad with the help of the Russians are beginning to win this war ... the only way he would lose is if US/UK intervene ... which is what is happening ...
1. The resilience and
perseverance of the Syrian people enduring sustained and intense suffering.
2. The widespread
existence of many initiatives by Government and local communities to address
problems of war and poverty (e.g. Government and churches' initiatives to
support IDPs and the provision of free health care).
3. Many Reconciliation
initiatives at local and Government levels with that have positive outcomes for
whole communities - for example, in enabling cease fires. The Minister for
Reconciliation told us that there are Reconciliation initiatives in 70 cities,
towns and villages involving 4.5 million citizens.
4. The devastating impact
for all Syrian people of sanctions and the massive destruction and theft of the
industrial infrastructure by armed groups.
5. The group has heard
the consistent cry of Christians and Muslims for their places of worship to be
respected and preserved and for a sympathetic response and engagement from
their counterparts in the West.
6. The consistently
positive working relations between Christians and Muslims in Government
controlled areas in Syria.
7. Important and
significant people with genuine voices of peace and reform are being prevented
from visiting the UK and engaging with the British government and people.
8. The coverage by some
media of the situation in Syria is not an accurate representation of many of
the realities we have observed. ((For example, see the post on the Doctors
Council in Aleppo).
9. The acute polarisation
inherent in protracted war has all but destroyed the existing movement to
implement greater democracy within the country. The majority of the city's
population are profoundly impacted by the refusal of the international
community to engage with Government-held areas of the city.
10. Many media narratives
in the UK are refuted and disputed by the vast majority of people whom we have
met.
11. Many people whom we
met believe that the partisanship of many Western media narratives with the
exclusion of most moderate voices will lead to the destruction of civil society
and its replacement by violence, terrorism and another failed State as well as
increased terrorism in other countries, including the UK.
12. Widespread concern
was strongly conveyed over the UK's military support for Opposition forces
which we are repeatedly told are not ' Moderate' but virtually
indistinguishable from those fighting for the ideologies of ISIS and Al Nusra.
13. People are deeply
concerned that the fundamental principle of End User Accountability is not
being applied to all military support by the UK with disastrous results.
14. Without exception,
every person we met believes that current UK and international policies of
commitment to ‘Regime Change’ will destroy the pluralistic and diverse society
which has existed for hundreds of years. They also passionately believe that
Syrians should have the right to determine their own future and elect their own
leadership.
15. While almost all
media coverage in the West focuses on the devastating effects of military
offensives by Government forces, in just one day during our visit (September
5th) the following attacks by the armed Opposition inflicting indiscriminate
death and injury included:
Four car bombs at Homs
with 12 killed and 30 injured; in Tartus 45 killed and 100 wounded; in the
Damascus countryside, 3 killed and 12 wounded; in Hasaka, 6 killed and 20
wounded.
This is only a part of
the daily toll of death and injury inflicted by Opposition forces on civilians,
such as the shelling of the University in Aleppo by 4 missiles on the day we
were there.
Already, we have been
accused of spouting 'government propaganda'.
No. We travelled to Syria to listen to the voices of Syrian people and
we have met hundreds from across the respective communities in the country.
Personally, this is my fifth visit to the country since April 2014, and the
messages remain consistent and widespread. What we are sharing is not
'government propaganda' at all, but the voices of ordinary Syrians. Anyone who
thinks otherwise is showing their ignorance!
I would repeat the cry of
most Syrians we have met. Come and visit us and see the reality for yourselves.
I have seriously wondered whether the enormous pressure put upon us by both
government and Church figures NOT to visit Syria, is precisely because they do
not want us to see and hear the truth, simply because it does not ally with the
deliberate misrepresentation the international community is conveying to
achieve their own agendas.
I hope and pray that any
ceasefire leads to a true and lasting peace. I also hope and pray that the
international community will adjust their policies to consider the real needs
and wishes of the Syrian people, and that we do not use the 'provision of aid'
as a means of rearming militant factions to further prolong the war. The goal
of everyone should be the restoration of peace; the rebuilding of the country;
the respect of plurality and development of reform; and the reconciliation and
healing of souls, which will be the most difficult task. Enough of fuelling
war. Let us end the policy of violence, and truly seek the path of peace, and
listen first to the voices of the people themselves.
I remember Dennis Rodman having his same take after his visit to North Korea.
1. The resilience and
perseverance of the Syrian people enduring sustained and intense suffering.
2. The widespread
existence of many initiatives by Government and local communities to address
problems of war and poverty (e.g. Government and churches' initiatives to
support IDPs and the provision of free health care).
3. Many Reconciliation
initiatives at local and Government levels with that have positive outcomes for
whole communities - for example, in enabling cease fires. The Minister for
Reconciliation told us that there are Reconciliation initiatives in 70 cities,
towns and villages involving 4.5 million citizens.
4. The devastating impact
for all Syrian people of sanctions and the massive destruction and theft of the
industrial infrastructure by armed groups.
5. The group has heard
the consistent cry of Christians and Muslims for their places of worship to be
respected and preserved and for a sympathetic response and engagement from
their counterparts in the West.
6. The consistently
positive working relations between Christians and Muslims in Government
controlled areas in Syria.
7. Important and
significant people with genuine voices of peace and reform are being prevented
from visiting the UK and engaging with the British government and people.
8. The coverage by some
media of the situation in Syria is not an accurate representation of many of
the realities we have observed. ((For example, see the post on the Doctors
Council in Aleppo).
9. The acute polarisation
inherent in protracted war has all but destroyed the existing movement to
implement greater democracy within the country. The majority of the city's
population are profoundly impacted by the refusal of the international
community to engage with Government-held areas of the city.
10. Many media narratives
in the UK are refuted and disputed by the vast majority of people whom we have
met.
11. Many people whom we
met believe that the partisanship of many Western media narratives with the
exclusion of most moderate voices will lead to the destruction of civil society
and its replacement by violence, terrorism and another failed State as well as
increased terrorism in other countries, including the UK.
12. Widespread concern
was strongly conveyed over the UK's military support for Opposition forces
which we are repeatedly told are not ' Moderate' but virtually
indistinguishable from those fighting for the ideologies of ISIS and Al Nusra.
13. People are deeply
concerned that the fundamental principle of End User Accountability is not
being applied to all military support by the UK with disastrous results.
14. Without exception,
every person we met believes that current UK and international policies of
commitment to ‘Regime Change’ will destroy the pluralistic and diverse society
which has existed for hundreds of years. They also passionately believe that
Syrians should have the right to determine their own future and elect their own
leadership.
15. While almost all
media coverage in the West focuses on the devastating effects of military
offensives by Government forces, in just one day during our visit (September
5th) the following attacks by the armed Opposition inflicting indiscriminate
death and injury included:
Four car bombs at Homs
with 12 killed and 30 injured; in Tartus 45 killed and 100 wounded; in the
Damascus countryside, 3 killed and 12 wounded; in Hasaka, 6 killed and 20
wounded.
This is only a part of
the daily toll of death and injury inflicted by Opposition forces on civilians,
such as the shelling of the University in Aleppo by 4 missiles on the day we
were there.
Already, we have been
accused of spouting 'government propaganda'.
No. We travelled to Syria to listen to the voices of Syrian people and
we have met hundreds from across the respective communities in the country.
Personally, this is my fifth visit to the country since April 2014, and the
messages remain consistent and widespread. What we are sharing is not
'government propaganda' at all, but the voices of ordinary Syrians. Anyone who
thinks otherwise is showing their ignorance!
I would repeat the cry of
most Syrians we have met. Come and visit us and see the reality for yourselves.
I have seriously wondered whether the enormous pressure put upon us by both
government and Church figures NOT to visit Syria, is precisely because they do
not want us to see and hear the truth, simply because it does not ally with the
deliberate misrepresentation the international community is conveying to
achieve their own agendas.
I hope and pray that any
ceasefire leads to a true and lasting peace. I also hope and pray that the
international community will adjust their policies to consider the real needs
and wishes of the Syrian people, and that we do not use the 'provision of aid'
as a means of rearming militant factions to further prolong the war. The goal
of everyone should be the restoration of peace; the rebuilding of the country;
the respect of plurality and development of reform; and the reconciliation and
healing of souls, which will be the most difficult task. Enough of fuelling
war. Let us end the policy of violence, and truly seek the path of peace, and
listen first to the voices of the people themselves.
I remember Dennis Rodman having his same take after his visit to North Korea.
you do not have all the facts about north korea ...
These past few days have been filled with accusations against Bashar
Al-Assad´s government that blame it for the chemical attack that took
place in Douma, near Damascus, the Syrian capital.
There are a
large number of articles and pieces representing different views about
the incident and the parties that are to blame, which is why I will, in
this short article, focus on the benefits and disadvantages of carrying
out such an attack for Al-Assad and his allies.
First, we need to
have an understanding of the place where the chemical attack took place
(there are many who argue whether or not it really happened but I will
not dedicate time to that discussion) and its situation.
Douma was
until just days ago the last bastion of the rebels and it was under the
control of a combination of FSA and jihadi-related groups like Jaysh
al-Islam. At the time of the attack —7th April— the Syrian Army and allies had fully surrounded Douma and were already beginning to storm the city.
The
Syrian forces had the clear advantage and it was just a matter of time
that this rebel bastion would also fall under the government´s forces
control. Also the militants in Douma were cut off from the outside world
and posed no immediate threat to the Syrian forces.
All of this
brings us to the question that why would Al-Assad want to gas his own
people knowing the severe repercussions that it would have for him? Does
it actually make any sense for the Syrian “regime” to carry out a
highly controversial (and indiscriminate) attack against the very same
people he is achieving military victory against?
One could argue
that the Syrian government wanted to make an example of the rebels left
in Douma in order to scare their comrades in Idlib and Daraa into
submission. This argument makes little sense since there are many, many
more ways to intimidate the enemy than launching a chemical attack that
would turn the whole world against you while you are on the verge of
victory.
So would there be any benefit for Al-Assad in launching a
chemical attack on Douma in these circumstances? No. But then it begs
the questions that, if the attack really did take place, then, who did
it and what parties are to benefit the most from it?
Sadly, these
are questions that, at the very least, we haven´t seen a lot in the
media and, even worse, among the many people that are commenting on the
issue on the different social media networks.
exactly ... it's why Peter Ford is more and more irritable in interviews ... people aren't thinking critically about this ...
but ultimately what is most troubling to me is that people don't care enough to at least consider the possibility that the rhetoric is false ... i've posted numerous links and articles and no one is really countering any of this ... hopefully, as with Iraq - the truth will eventually come out and people will be more critical of the information they get and not just assume it's true because it's what they want to believe ...
You stated that there were no international reporting coming from within Syria I sad Richard Engle has done some extensive reporting but you don’t believe it you say he’s not trustworthy I don’t agree with your assessment of him ....so that’s the crux of it and I’m not going to believe Assad is a good guy sorry but I ain’t swallowing that pill ...
again ... if he's using footage by the white helmets ... who also were responsible for the latest footage of the alleged chemical attack ... then it's not trustworthy ... granted I just watched what someone posted ... if I see the white helmets logo on the footage - i know that the news agency did not film nor produce the images ..
still ... the crux of this is whether you want to believe the mainstream media ... a corporately owned entity that has already been shown to manipulate information ... see sinclair group ..
you don't want to believe Assad is a good guy ... that's fine ... all i've ever asked int his thread is that people see all sides before passing judgement ... instead of just hearing the same things from one side ... a side that is known to have already lied about other countries in order to push the war agenda ...
1. The resilience and
perseverance of the Syrian people enduring sustained and intense suffering.
2. The widespread
existence of many initiatives by Government and local communities to address
problems of war and poverty (e.g. Government and churches' initiatives to
support IDPs and the provision of free health care).
3. Many Reconciliation
initiatives at local and Government levels with that have positive outcomes for
whole communities - for example, in enabling cease fires. The Minister for
Reconciliation told us that there are Reconciliation initiatives in 70 cities,
towns and villages involving 4.5 million citizens.
4. The devastating impact
for all Syrian people of sanctions and the massive destruction and theft of the
industrial infrastructure by armed groups.
5. The group has heard
the consistent cry of Christians and Muslims for their places of worship to be
respected and preserved and for a sympathetic response and engagement from
their counterparts in the West.
6. The consistently
positive working relations between Christians and Muslims in Government
controlled areas in Syria.
7. Important and
significant people with genuine voices of peace and reform are being prevented
from visiting the UK and engaging with the British government and people.
8. The coverage by some
media of the situation in Syria is not an accurate representation of many of
the realities we have observed. ((For example, see the post on the Doctors
Council in Aleppo).
9. The acute polarisation
inherent in protracted war has all but destroyed the existing movement to
implement greater democracy within the country. The majority of the city's
population are profoundly impacted by the refusal of the international
community to engage with Government-held areas of the city.
10. Many media narratives
in the UK are refuted and disputed by the vast majority of people whom we have
met.
11. Many people whom we
met believe that the partisanship of many Western media narratives with the
exclusion of most moderate voices will lead to the destruction of civil society
and its replacement by violence, terrorism and another failed State as well as
increased terrorism in other countries, including the UK.
12. Widespread concern
was strongly conveyed over the UK's military support for Opposition forces
which we are repeatedly told are not ' Moderate' but virtually
indistinguishable from those fighting for the ideologies of ISIS and Al Nusra.
13. People are deeply
concerned that the fundamental principle of End User Accountability is not
being applied to all military support by the UK with disastrous results.
14. Without exception,
every person we met believes that current UK and international policies of
commitment to ‘Regime Change’ will destroy the pluralistic and diverse society
which has existed for hundreds of years. They also passionately believe that
Syrians should have the right to determine their own future and elect their own
leadership.
15. While almost all
media coverage in the West focuses on the devastating effects of military
offensives by Government forces, in just one day during our visit (September
5th) the following attacks by the armed Opposition inflicting indiscriminate
death and injury included:
Four car bombs at Homs
with 12 killed and 30 injured; in Tartus 45 killed and 100 wounded; in the
Damascus countryside, 3 killed and 12 wounded; in Hasaka, 6 killed and 20
wounded.
This is only a part of
the daily toll of death and injury inflicted by Opposition forces on civilians,
such as the shelling of the University in Aleppo by 4 missiles on the day we
were there.
Already, we have been
accused of spouting 'government propaganda'.
No. We travelled to Syria to listen to the voices of Syrian people and
we have met hundreds from across the respective communities in the country.
Personally, this is my fifth visit to the country since April 2014, and the
messages remain consistent and widespread. What we are sharing is not
'government propaganda' at all, but the voices of ordinary Syrians. Anyone who
thinks otherwise is showing their ignorance!
I would repeat the cry of
most Syrians we have met. Come and visit us and see the reality for yourselves.
I have seriously wondered whether the enormous pressure put upon us by both
government and Church figures NOT to visit Syria, is precisely because they do
not want us to see and hear the truth, simply because it does not ally with the
deliberate misrepresentation the international community is conveying to
achieve their own agendas.
I hope and pray that any
ceasefire leads to a true and lasting peace. I also hope and pray that the
international community will adjust their policies to consider the real needs
and wishes of the Syrian people, and that we do not use the 'provision of aid'
as a means of rearming militant factions to further prolong the war. The goal
of everyone should be the restoration of peace; the rebuilding of the country;
the respect of plurality and development of reform; and the reconciliation and
healing of souls, which will be the most difficult task. Enough of fuelling
war. Let us end the policy of violence, and truly seek the path of peace, and
listen first to the voices of the people themselves.
I remember Dennis Rodman having his same take after his visit to North Korea.
i will however at least acknowledge that you read something ...
The mainstream media, American government, Russian government, Syrian government, and Daesh, all have vested interests in pushing their agendas. All of them have acted in disingenuous ways and have shown efforts to complicate the way situations would be perceived in their immediate pasts. Because of this, Occam's Razor can't guide a course of action because all players can be presumed to be consciously complicating, confusing, and conflating the reality.
Depending on who's correct in their published position, bombing campaigns will have different outcomes. I would really love to hear one single rational explanation for how external parties' bombings of Syria will amount to improvements to the livelihoods of Syrians, how it is determined whose position is correct, and what risks reside if source information is proven invalid after the fact (meaning the wrong source is assumed correct). If these cannot be reasonably expressed, what right do any external parties have to be the global police force?
I've read, and it really feels like in the battle for Syria's future, everything except Syrians get considered.
Occam's Razor most definitely applies. We can still logically look to see who stands to gain from what action.
And if bombing facilities stops the use of chemical weapons then it surely is worth it. Not saying that is what is actually happening but turning a blind eye to atrocities against civilians is not the answer. We should have learned that lesson from WWII.
As a qualifier, I marched against the war in Iraq and the people comparing this situation to that situation have a poor memory.
dignin - you're right about Occam's Razor. I guess what I'm trying to say is that since most or all involved parties seem to have a precedence for misleading the public and hiding true motives (to the best of their abilities) and actually pursuing to make situations seem more complicated than they are, with false or partial information how do we in the public actually make valid opinions about what should be done?
I would never advocate turning a blind eye to atrocities (though there are a wealth of situations that could be defined as 'atrocities' that America either participates in making them worse, or staying uninvolved - Gaza and Yemen are two that immediately come to mind). As for the bombing - I agree, so long as the facilities are actually proven to house chemical weapons beyond reasonable doubt., but I do believe in apprehension before military actions, and pivoting those first steps towards acquiring substantial evidence first. Given that this represents foreign intervention - I feel that's the least owed to Americans and Syrians alike.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Comments
every time i ask people who are against assad here a rational question - no one wants to answer:
why launch a chemical attack just before winning a war?
why not wait one more day for the OPCW?
no one has any rational explanations here and have avoided the question since page 1
we are complicit as is the CBC and all mainstream media outlets in Canada
Correct.
And regarding the Trudeau comments... he's developing as a weakling. As much hope as I had for him... I'm losing faith in him. The campaign slogan against him was 'he's just not ready'. The slogan might have been true.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
And if bombing facilities stops the use of chemical weapons then it surely is worth it. Not saying that is what is actually happening but turning a blind eye to atrocities against civilians is not the answer. We should have learned that lesson from WWII.
As a qualifier, I marched against the war in Iraq and the people comparing this situation to that situation have a poor memory.
These past few days have been filled with accusations against Bashar Al-Assad´s government that blame it for the chemical attack that took place in Douma, near Damascus, the Syrian capital.
There are a large number of articles and pieces representing different views about the incident and the parties that are to blame, which is why I will, in this short article, focus on the benefits and disadvantages of carrying out such an attack for Al-Assad and his allies.
First, we need to have an understanding of the place where the chemical attack took place (there are many who argue whether or not it really happened but I will not dedicate time to that discussion) and its situation.
Douma was until just days ago the last bastion of the rebels and it was under the control of a combination of FSA and jihadi-related groups like Jaysh al-Islam. At the time of the attack —7th April— the Syrian Army and allies had fully surrounded Douma and were already beginning to storm the city.
The Syrian forces had the clear advantage and it was just a matter of time that this rebel bastion would also fall under the government´s forces control. Also the militants in Douma were cut off from the outside world and posed no immediate threat to the Syrian forces.
All of this brings us to the question that why would Al-Assad want to gas his own people knowing the severe repercussions that it would have for him? Does it actually make any sense for the Syrian “regime” to carry out a highly controversial (and indiscriminate) attack against the very same people he is achieving military victory against?
One could argue that the Syrian government wanted to make an example of the rebels left in Douma in order to scare their comrades in Idlib and Daraa into submission. This argument makes little sense since there are many, many more ways to intimidate the enemy than launching a chemical attack that would turn the whole world against you while you are on the verge of victory.
So would there be any benefit for Al-Assad in launching a chemical attack on Douma in these circumstances? No. But then it begs the questions that, if the attack really did take place, then, who did it and what parties are to benefit the most from it?
Sadly, these are questions that, at the very least, we haven´t seen a lot in the media and, even worse, among the many people that are commenting on the issue on the different social media networks.
https://southfront.org/accusations-against-syria-a-logical-take-on-douma-chemical-attack-allegations/
https://www.alternet.org/world/inside-shadowy-pr-firm-thats-driving-western-opinion-towards-regime-change-syria
Inside the Shadowy PR Firm That’s Lobbying for Regime Change in Syria
but ultimately what is most troubling to me is that people don't care enough to at least consider the possibility that the rhetoric is false ... i've posted numerous links and articles and no one is really countering any of this ... hopefully, as with Iraq - the truth will eventually come out and people will be more critical of the information they get and not just assume it's true because it's what they want to believe ...
Do the "dictators" Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi ring any bells? You think Assad forgets what happened to those guys?
For 20years the US has pushed for regime change all the way from W neocons and Project New Century to now with Bolton and Haley
You've done a good job in this thread, props.
https://twitter.com/OPCW
still ... the crux of this is whether you want to believe the mainstream media ... a corporately owned entity that has already been shown to manipulate information ... see sinclair group ..
you don't want to believe Assad is a good guy ... that's fine ... all i've ever asked int his thread is that people see all sides before passing judgement ... instead of just hearing the same things from one side ... a side that is known to have already lied about other countries in order to push the war agenda ...
I would never advocate turning a blind eye to atrocities (though there are a wealth of situations that could be defined as 'atrocities' that America either participates in making them worse, or staying uninvolved - Gaza and Yemen are two that immediately come to mind). As for the bombing - I agree, so long as the facilities are actually proven to house chemical weapons beyond reasonable doubt., but I do believe in apprehension before military actions, and pivoting those first steps towards acquiring substantial evidence first. Given that this represents foreign intervention - I feel that's the least owed to Americans and Syrians alike.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1