UN Report Blasts Syria

[TAE]

After all the criticism of the west supporting authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, its high time we work together to kill one of the nastiest.

I'm sure this has been said before, but ...

There is something in-between "Lets actively support them (eg. supply their army)" and "Lets replace their government with one that WE like".

It's not just one or the other.

 

[scott_forester]

So you believe the US and EU should strive for strong relations with the Assad government, correct?

We suck up to much much worst.

 

[vimto]

edit: you've got the wrong horse there V, I'm a committed anarchist, far as I'm concerned God is about as likely as there being gold at the end of the rainbow .

Yeah I did reach that concluson dear Sir...I was just joshing with you mate

 

[mears]

Yeah but it's not that choice though, because western armies can't hold power in middle eastern countries. They can take it, but there's not enough resources, money etc to hold it. The more realistic choice would be:

a) Not interfere, with possibility that the embedded dictatorsgip is toppled by even worse fundamentalist outfit.
b) Interfere, win war easily, then sit around definitely watching the whole place disintegrate as the fundamentalists dig in.

FYI you're talking bollocks saying there is no effective alternative in these countries, they just aren't as well publicised as the mad fundie bastards (I wonder why). We've got someone working on this very subject for a feature in Freedom as it happens.

edit: you've got the wrong horse there V, I'm a committed anarchist, far as I'm concerned God is about as likely as there being gold at the end of the rainbow .

What are those alternatives?

 

[mears]

What, and Mr Bush doesnt want you thinking like him? You really don't have any sense of self critisism or as usual with Americans, irony. And to make it worse you think its your job to re-order the rest of the world in your own ugly American image.

You'd have thought you'd have learnt your lesson via Iraq but it seems you're just doomed to repeat yourself. Worse still you align yourself to a bunch of crackhead Christian fundamentalists who believe they are doing the work of God.

Its not about America. We in the west have choices. The Liberal Democrats and Tories have different platforms for instance. Republicans and Democrats have different ideas on everything from Artic drilling, pension funding, education vouchers, tort reform, taxes - you name it.

People in the Middle East don't get choices from their government. They are stuck with the same group constantly. They don't have any type of elected Congress or Parliment to curb the powers of the President or King.

I know it would make me angry as hell. But the presidents for life and autocratic ruling families have a card up their sleeves, shift the peoples attention from their corrupt governments and focus their anger on Israel and America.

Because, you know, if Muslim rulers really cared about Palestinians they would treat them with decency and respect in their respective countries.

Instead Arab rulers treat Palestinian refugees like dirt. And most of you are too ignorant to even care.

 

[nino_savatte]

Why the insults? I presented my plan for dealing with Syria going forward, and you attack me? You have nothing concrete to say about Syria?

How do you think the world should now deal with Syria?

What's this? Pretending to be the injured party again? You do far too much of this pretending that you're innocent of the very things you charge others with. The simple truth is, you have nothing to offer that doesn't come from the party handbook; that is to say your 'opinions', for what they are worth, are nothing but the regurgitation of DC policy with the hatred of foreigners added for extra spice.

 

[nino_savatte]

Without sanctions what do you use a stick?

The US military?

So what do you recommend? Invasion? Bombing? Look where it has gotten you or are you too blind to see this?

All America all the crime.

 

[nino_savatte]

You people are so predictable.
Pathetic.

Is this meant to be ironic? Because if this is an attempt at irony, it's pretty shit.

You aren't "predictable"? You're a real joke.

All America all the crime.

 

[nino_savatte]

Isn't it more accurate to say that you're abusing people on this thread for not agreeing with your laughable contentions?

You see, you're now talking about dealing with Assad, but we both know that any policy will impact not only on Assad, but on the population of the country he rules. Some of us find the inevitability of that, with the concomitant future difficulties and animosities it will generate, a good reason to stop, think, and then do as little as will resolve some of the issues, whereas, as usual, you want to get the big stick out.

To repeat what I've said to you previously, you're ignorant, and worse; you're wilfully ignorant.

That's exactly what he does VP: he accuses others - particularly those who rip his 'arguments' to pieces - of being "angry", "emotional" or of being "abusive". But on threads like this we see smears abusing and insulting others. I don't think he is human at all.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Its not about America. We in the west have choices. The Liberal Democrats and Tories have different platforms for instance. Republicans and Democrats have different ideas on everything from Artic drilling, pension funding, education vouchers, tort reform, taxes - you name it.

People in the Middle East don't get choices from their government. They are stuck with the same group constantly. They don't have any type of elected Congress or Parliment to curb the powers of the President or King.

I know it would make me angry as hell. But the presidents for life and autocratic ruling families have a card up their sleeves, shift the peoples attention from their corrupt governments and focus their anger on Israel and America.

Because, you know, if Muslim rulers really cared about Palestinians they would treat them with decency and respect in their respective countries.

Instead Arab rulers treat Palestinian refugees like dirt. And most of you are too ignorant to even care.

Oh all of a sudden we have Mears being compassionate - is this the same compassion that sought you to want to bomb Iraq and kill innocent people? You see Mears, you're so attached to your flawed ideology that you can't see past the end of your own nose. Of course its not as if the people of America/UK/France etc... have much say in how they want their foreign policy directed. For instance, if UK MP's had done what they are elected to do and to LISTEN TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS then it might be fair to say that the decision to go to war in Iraq would not have been made. Instead the Labour Party whips went around applying pressure to the MP's who didn't want to vote for war and the ones who were for it didn't even bother to listen to their constituents, instead they just believed Blair and Bush's bullshit like a heard of sheep.

Any decent democracy should have a multitiude of parties who all have the ability to be voted into power. Now you tell me how that can happen when you effectively have two parties persuing near identical goals and coming from a near identical direction in terms of policy. Oh sure, you can point out some differences, but lets not pretend these differences are anything more than a few cracks in the same stone wall.

As for Palestinians - im not expert. I dont have a solution but I know that more violence is not the answer - from either side. What's really needed is for people to stop depending on a few bogus leaders with their own agendas. Sure, you go place sanctions and crucify the people some more - you did it to the Iraqis, so why not the Syrians or the Iranians?

After all only an idiot makes the same mistake twice.

ps you're a fine one to be calling anyone "ignorant" after you chose to ignore all the warnings about what would happen in Iraq. Exactly how many questions did you ask about the US's plans for after the war? Hmmm? None - it never even crossed your mind as you were too busy waving your flag from the end of your dick as usual.

 

[Poi E]

Any decent democracy should have a multitiude of parties who all have the ability to be voted into power. Now you tell me how that can happen when you effectively have two parties persuing near identical goals and coming from a near identical direction in terms of policy. Oh sure, you can point out some differences, but lets not pretend these differences are anything more than a few cracks in the same wall. l.

PR for the UK. Snap the spines of Labour and Conservatives.

 

[ViolentPanda]

PR for the UK. Snap the spines of Labour and Conservatives.

Which is of course why PR will never happen in terms of general and by-elections if the tories or Labour have anything to say about it.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Its not about America. We in the west have choices. The Liberal Democrats and Tories have different platforms for instance. Republicans and Democrats have different ideas on everything from Artic drilling, pension funding, education vouchers, tort reform, taxes - you name it.

Well duh! Of course they have different "ideas", the ideas are shaped to fit national circumstance.
The base ideologies, however, differ little exceptr to take account of a few national idiosyncracies.

People in the Middle East don't get choices from their government. They are stuck with the same group constantly. They don't have any type of elected Congress or Parliment to curb the powers of the President or King.

Which is fine if your idea of government is premised around a basic western "democratic" system, but given that most middle eastern countries haven't transited through the same historical influences that brought about our systems. why do you believe (except perhaps for the access it will give our governments to their resources) that "west is best"?

I know it would make me angry as hell. But the presidents for life and autocratic ruling families have a card up their sleeves, shift the peoples attention from their corrupt governments and focus their anger on Israel and America.

Way too simplistic.
Try factoring in tribalism, clan loyalty and the influence of religious ideologues and you may be getting somewhere.

Because, you know, if Muslim rulers really cared about Palestinians they would treat them with decency and respect in their respective countries.

Again (unsurprisingly) way too simplistic.
One of the reasons that the ruling classes in other Arab countries mistreat or ignore the Palestinians is that they are (rightly in terms of their position) afraid of the grip that "revolutionary" (in terms of reacting against the ruling system) politics have on the Palestinians, and the fear that they may disseminate them, another fear is the basic fear of any (even your and my own) nation-states of immigrant communities, and make no mistake (as you appear to have the mistaken impression that "Arabs" are a homogenous racial group), the Palestinians, for all there is a lot of "grass roots" fellow-feeling", are seen by the ruling classes in most arab states as "immigrants".

Instead Arab rulers treat Palestinian refugees like dirt. And most of you are too ignorant to even care.

You're laughable in your ignorance, and in the assumptions you make. You pontificate and castigate, but have you ever done anything about this situation you appear so exercised about (although I have little doubt you actually care not a jot and a re merely using the issue as a convenient attempt at point-scoring)?
Some of us have done the little we can, I doubt you're one of them.

 

[bigfish]

Syria: Old whine, new bottle

http://www.williambowles.info/ini/ini-0371.html

The UN ‘report’ on the assassination of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese PM, bears all the hallmarks of yet another set-up, no doubt ‘inspired’ by US pressure as part of the build-up to yet another Middle Eastern ‘adventure’.

Even less remarkable is the uncritical, indeed blind acceptance by the Western media of the Report’s conclusions concerning those allegedly behind the assassination.

But before we dissect the abysmal failure of the Western media to accurately report the findings of the UN Report, let’s take a look at its conclusions.

First of all, the Report offers no concrete evidence that any of the people or institutions it claims were involved in Hariri’s assassination were indeed the culprits. Instead, its assertions rely largely on three elements:

*The testimony of an unnamed witness, but who is undoubtedly Zuheir al-Siddiq, a convicted felon, whose testimony lacks any material basis aside from his assertions (see below).

*Zuhir Ibn Mohamed Said Saddik, later charged with involvement in the assassination and again whose testimony lacks any material basis other than self-incrimination, which is used by the Report to add credibility to his testimony.

*A lot of information on the use of cellphones but which reveal nothing about who was behind the assassination, merely that a lot of individuals phoned each other an awful lot.

 

[Dhimmi]

At least those in charge are Muslims and we are not faced with a situation like in Israel where you have a racist government ruling of Muslim land.

When you spit your propaganda do you expect others to swallow?

Bit tifi wela bit tibla'ee?

 

[warren]

I believe that this UN report was done to appease the Americans. It is much more likely that Mossad agents assassinated Harari. This was done so blame could be placed on Syria and as a pretext for invasion by the US.

 

[Khaleed]

Friend, I don't mean to sound rude but you should not rely on vimto to speak for you.

Playing the victim will not improve the lives of ordinary Muslims. Blaming Israel and America is the way Middle Eastern dictators shift the anger of their people. When you blame America and Israel for everything, you play right into their hands. The Presidents for life, the hereditary autocracies, the joke of a government in Iran or the bloated currupt ruling family in Saudi Arabia.

All these governments want their people to think exactly like you.

Mr Mears, I believe you are judging me unfairly.

I never blammed everything on israel and the USA.

The conflict in Israel was casued by the mass jewish colonial migration but in the past Muslims have done bad things to jews like riots against Jews in north africa in the late 1940s and early 1950s.

I was asking you something and stating something about Republicans. You complain about others being biased and anti-american, but i have found that Right-Wing Americans are just are one-sided and biased as some of the Islamic Extremists. Republicans like Bill O'Reilly acutally constantly play the victim card while at the same time talking about how strong and brave the USA is.

 

[mears]

Mr Mears, I believe you are judging me unfairly.

I never blammed everything on israel and the USA.

The conflict in Israel was casued by the mass jewish colonial migration but in the past Muslims have done bad things to jews like riots against Jews in north africa in the late 1940s and early 1950s.

I was asking you something and stating something about Republicans. You complain about others being biased and anti-american, but i have found that Right-Wing Americans are just are one-sided and biased as some of the Islamic Extremists. Republicans like Bill O'Reilly acutally constantly play the victim card while at the same time talking about how strong and brave the USA is.

Yes, there are radicals alll over the place, no doubt.

I believe Israel is guilty for many acts, like building in the West bank or bombing Islamic radicals without paying enough attention to collateral damage.

But I also put blame on the Palestinians for their corrput leaders and suicidal tendencies. I believe other Arab countries profit from the Palestinians issue.

I believe there is enough blame to go around.

Can you agree with that?

 

[Khaleed]

Mears, I agree with every word you just wrote.

 

[mears]

Mears, I agree with every word you just wrote.

Great. I has hoping we could find common ground

 

[bigfish]

... I believe Israel is guilty for many acts, like ... bombing Islamic radicals without paying enough attention to collateral damage.

So what you're saying then mears, in effect, is that if only Israel were to pay more attention to the detail of its work and cut-out "collateral damage," then the assassination of Islamic radicals would, in and of itself, be okay with you... is that about it?

 

[mears]

So what you're saying then mears, in effect, is that if only Israel were to pay more attention to the detail of its work and cut-out "collateral damage," then the assassination of Islamic radicals would, in and of itself, be okay with you... is that about it?

Some Islamic radicals are responsible for enabling suicide bombers to kill innocent Israeli citizens. So in that instance Israel has a right to defend itself and kill the leaders of these suicide factories.

Now let me ask you a question. Do you believe Israel is soley responsible for their conflict with the Palestinians?

 

[dum dum]

I believe that this UN report was done to appease the Americans. It is much more likely that Mossad agents assassinated Harari. This was done so blame could be placed on Syria and as a pretext for invasion by the US.

Yep i would agree.The securing of israels borders seems the real motivation behind all of this.I reckon an international force will soon be in the south of Lebanon taking care of the militias,sanctions put in place against Syria than after a couple of years of hammering hezbollah and setting up bases in the south a full invasion of syria is probably on the cards.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I imagine there would be limited enthusiasm on the part of most nations for trying to occupy Hizbollah territory in South Lebanon. What might induce anyone to want to do something like that? It's bound to be very unpleasant.

 

[slaar]

There's one tiny little problem with the mossad story (which, incidentally is the official position of the Syrian government). There is not one scrap of evidence, and a wealth pointing towards Damascus, as the report makes clear in very plain and unambiguous terms. The Syrian government is a bunch of crooks looking to make money, nothing else, and Hariri was getting in their way. That's a much more plausible story than a pretext for US action.

 

[dum dum]

I imagine there would be limited enthusiasm on the part of most nations for trying to occupy Hizbollah territory in South Lebanon. What might induce anyone to want to do something like that?It's bound to be very unpleasant.

I imagine there would be an awful lot of enthusiam for it unfortunately.Hizbollah boasts of 4000 surface to air missiles ready for israel alone would be enough exuse/motivation for the u.s,international community.

When has an unpleasant situation ever stop action in the middle east?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I imagine there would be an awful lot of enthusiam for it unfortunately.Hizbollah boasts of 4000 surface to air missiles ready for israel alone would be enough exuse/motivation for the u.s,international community.

When has an unpleasant situation ever stop action in the middle east?

Sure, but who would do the occupying? The US has its hands full. Israel tried it once already and decided it Hezbollah was too much fucking trouble. In those circumstances, I don't see a big queue of other nations forming to take on the job.

 

[Poi E]

When has an unpleasant situation ever stop action in the middle east?

Hezbollah blowing up the US barracks in Lebanon in 1983 made the US move offshore and then leave altogether in 1984...

 

[dum dum]

Hezbollah blowing up the US barracks in Lebanon in 1983 made the US move offshore and then leave altogether in 1984...

And that was the end of "unpleasant" behaviour in Lebanon, and the U.S never meddled in Lebanese affairs again.

 

[bigfish]

There's one tiny little problem with the mossad story (which, incidentally is the official position of the Syrian government). There is not one scrap of evidence, and a wealth pointing towards Damascus, as the report makes clear in very plain and unambiguous terms.

Bullshit!

As pointed out in post 74, "the Report offers no concrete evidence that any of the people or institutions it claims were involved in Hariri’s assassination were indeed the culprits. Instead, its assertions rely largely on three elements:

*The testimony of an unnamed witness, but who is undoubtedly Zuheir al-Siddiq, a convicted felon, whose testimony lacks any material basis aside from his assertions.

*Zuhir Ibn Mohamed Said Saddik, later charged with involvement in the assassination and again whose testimony lacks any material basis other than self-incrimination, which is used by the Report to add credibility to his testimony.

*A lot of information on the use of cellphones but which reveal nothing about who was behind the assassination, merely that a lot of individuals phoned each other an awful lot."

The Syrian government is a bunch of crooks looking to make money, nothing else, and Hariri was getting in their way. That's a much more plausible story than a pretext for US action.

"More plausible" to an unabashed apologists for US imperial and Zionist expansion, perhaps. But outside of that narrow circle of lickspittle, it's very much a different story.