6 ms·

I have problem with these stories. Mainly because I feel they're coming out in concert to form public opinion into taking military action in Syria. There is a

I have problem with these stories. Mainly because I feel they're coming out in concert to form public opinion into taking military action in Syria. There is a good analysis on Amnesty International faulty reporting on this. [0] [0] https://timhayward.wordpress.com/2017/01/23/amnesty-internationals-war-crimes-in-syria/ https://timhayward.wordpress.com/2017/01/23/amnesty-internat...

M_Grey 10y ago
I'd agree with you, except that the truth is so much more grim and obvious... nobody really gives enough of a shit to go to war. "Red lines" and all of that didn't make people care, the depth of the depravity doesn't even make them want to accept refugees, never mind intervene on their foreign soil. You can relax, Syria is going to remain the hellish proxy war it's always been.
- frozenport 10y ago
  I think it's hard to figure out on whose side to intervene. It's also unclear if the western world should start a military conflict with Russia.
  - finid 10y ago
    By arming the "rebels" (the Syrian govt calls them terrorists), the "western world" has already intervened. These type of "intervention" follows a pattern. 1. First we instigate an uprising by exploiting existing tensions or creating one. 2. Then when the local govt reacts like we expected them to, we cry foul, and say we have to defend helpless civilians from a "brutal and authoritarian" regime. 3. We warn members of that regime's police and military that they'll be guilty of war crimes if they act against the "rebels". This is when you come to see the role the International Criminal Court plays in our efforts at global domination. Key members of the govt military will start getting phone calls to defect. And many will defect. 4. At this point all you'll read in the western press about the local govt are just how bad the regime is. Propaganda all the way. 5. If things are not going according to plan, we rush to the UN for permission to establish a "no fly zone" in the country. We'll get our wish, of course. And that's when cruise missiles start taking our the military infrastructure of the local govt. Dams and other civilian infrastructure are fair game too. Everything goes down hill from there. That was how it played out in Libya. Syria was close to 5 when Russian stepped in. Assad owes Putin big! While this is going on, we in the west (the rest of us not involved in the war effort) are busy with our lives. We don't bother if it's our govt doing it to others. And the beat goes on. Until something happens. But it happened because "they hate our freedom". But the gods are not to blame.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    I think it's clear now, that the time for intervention has long since passed, and given our track record we're unlikely to improve the situation. The problem isn't increased interventionism, it's that we've already intervened by arming and funding people. Far more importantly though, we're the prime architects of how life in the Middle East has proceeded for decades now. We shouldn't make the mistake of intervening in their civil war, but we should take a long hard look at ourselves and plan for the blowback.
    - frozenport 10y ago
      >>we're the prime architects of how life in the Middle East has proceeded This isn't quite true. Iran goaded the US into invading Iraq, perhaps supplying the fake evidence used to link Saddam Hussein to WMDs. This was at least Hussein's opinion, and why he did not take US threats immediately leading up to the war seriously. Saddam's successor, Chalabi, was an Iranian agent [[1]. Bashar Al-Assad aggressively sponsored terrorism and sectarian violence in Iraq. In the early days, most fighters from Iraq were from Syria, or came through Syria. It was not without irony that the conflict later spilled over into his country. The leaders of the Middle East are not without fault, they clumsily used the West's domestic insecurities (and Russia's) for their own military gain. In Syria they unleashed forces they could no longer control. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/world/middleeast/26iht-m26-bahrain-conflict.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/world/middleeast/26iht-m26...
      - anticodon 10y ago
        Oh, now it's Iran that is responsible for Iraq war. How convenient. Maybe US should start bombing Iran now, too? I'm really afraid at how easily it has become to find any pretext to bomb and destroy any country by the US. All of course in the name of "democracy and freedom". It's a pity that whole generations of people living in destroyed countries are either dead or have no democracy and freedom at all. And as it was reported here several weeks ago, sometimes pretext is not even necessary. Just send a bomb or rocket any time - it's a thirld world country, no one care about people living in those countries.
finid 10y ago
I agree with you. These types of reporting will continue until Assad goes the way of Saddam and Muammar Gaddafi. That's been the goal from Day 1. If we really cared about stuff like this, we need to hear about what's going on in Yemen courtesy of our friends over in Saudi Arabia, and in the Gaza strip. Even events in Bahrain deserve attention. But no, it's about how hard the Syrian army's hitting the terrorist we're arming.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  Exactly. It's Afghanistan with the Soviets, all over again... the blowback is going to be ugly and protracted.
- grw_ 10y ago
  Amnesty International works tirelessly to document human rights abuses in all of the other conflicts you mention and has done for many years. What exactly is your point?
  - salimmadjd 10y ago
    Amnesty Internation was duped into false reporting that got us into the first Iraq war. Amnesty later retraced their 84 page report[0]. How is it possible an organization that documents human rights could mislead the world? Any government PR firm, backed by CIA or MI6 can create a list of "witnesses" and have them testify to AI. My point is, just because AI is documenting it, it doesn't mean it's legit. Especially around Syria since there is a lot of documented story fabrication. [0] https://www.democracynow.org/2003/12/2/a_debate_on_one_of_the https://www.democracynow.org/2003/12/2/a_debate_on_one_of_th...
    - grw_ 10y ago
      I think that's a reasonable concern to have. My question was regarding the parent comment's implication that AI themselves are deciding not to publish information on abuses in other areas. The user seems to feel that these things have not been publicised, when in fact there are ongoing awareness campaigns on all of the countries listed.
jim-jim-jim 10y ago
Well said. As alluded to in your article, a lion's share of Western reporting doesn't take place on the ground from within Syria. Journalists and activists are content to take one faction (the Islamists) at their word and pass it off as fact.

M_Grey 10y ago

I'd agree with you, except that the truth is so much more grim and obvious... nobody really gives enough of a shit to go to war. "Red lines" and all of that didn't make people care, the depth of the depravity doesn't even make them want to accept refugees, never mind intervene on their foreign soil. You can relax, Syria is going to remain the hellish proxy war it's always been.

frozenport 10y ago
I think it's hard to figure out on whose side to intervene. It's also unclear if the western world should start a military conflict with Russia.
- finid 10y ago
  By arming the "rebels" (the Syrian govt calls them terrorists), the "western world" has already intervened. These type of "intervention" follows a pattern. 1. First we instigate an uprising by exploiting existing tensions or creating one. 2. Then when the local govt reacts like we expected them to, we cry foul, and say we have to defend helpless civilians from a "brutal and authoritarian" regime. 3. We warn members of that regime's police and military that they'll be guilty of war crimes if they act against the "rebels". This is when you come to see the role the International Criminal Court plays in our efforts at global domination. Key members of the govt military will start getting phone calls to defect. And many will defect. 4. At this point all you'll read in the western press about the local govt are just how bad the regime is. Propaganda all the way. 5. If things are not going according to plan, we rush to the UN for permission to establish a "no fly zone" in the country. We'll get our wish, of course. And that's when cruise missiles start taking our the military infrastructure of the local govt. Dams and other civilian infrastructure are fair game too. Everything goes down hill from there. That was how it played out in Libya. Syria was close to 5 when Russian stepped in. Assad owes Putin big! While this is going on, we in the west (the rest of us not involved in the war effort) are busy with our lives. We don't bother if it's our govt doing it to others. And the beat goes on. Until something happens. But it happened because "they hate our freedom". But the gods are not to blame.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  I think it's clear now, that the time for intervention has long since passed, and given our track record we're unlikely to improve the situation. The problem isn't increased interventionism, it's that we've already intervened by arming and funding people. Far more importantly though, we're the prime architects of how life in the Middle East has proceeded for decades now. We shouldn't make the mistake of intervening in their civil war, but we should take a long hard look at ourselves and plan for the blowback.
  - frozenport 10y ago
    >>we're the prime architects of how life in the Middle East has proceeded This isn't quite true. Iran goaded the US into invading Iraq, perhaps supplying the fake evidence used to link Saddam Hussein to WMDs. This was at least Hussein's opinion, and why he did not take US threats immediately leading up to the war seriously. Saddam's successor, Chalabi, was an Iranian agent [[1]. Bashar Al-Assad aggressively sponsored terrorism and sectarian violence in Iraq. In the early days, most fighters from Iraq were from Syria, or came through Syria. It was not without irony that the conflict later spilled over into his country. The leaders of the Middle East are not without fault, they clumsily used the West's domestic insecurities (and Russia's) for their own military gain. In Syria they unleashed forces they could no longer control. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/world/middleeast/26iht-m26-bahrain-conflict.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/world/middleeast/26iht-m26...
    - anticodon 10y ago
      Oh, now it's Iran that is responsible for Iraq war. How convenient. Maybe US should start bombing Iran now, too? I'm really afraid at how easily it has become to find any pretext to bomb and destroy any country by the US. All of course in the name of "democracy and freedom". It's a pity that whole generations of people living in destroyed countries are either dead or have no democracy and freedom at all. And as it was reported here several weeks ago, sometimes pretext is not even necessary. Just send a bomb or rocket any time - it's a thirld world country, no one care about people living in those countries.

finid 10y ago

I agree with you. These types of reporting will continue until Assad goes the way of Saddam and Muammar Gaddafi. That's been the goal from Day 1. If we really cared about stuff like this, we need to hear about what's going on in Yemen courtesy of our friends over in Saudi Arabia, and in the Gaza strip. Even events in Bahrain deserve attention. But no, it's about how hard the Syrian army's hitting the terrorist we're arming.

M_Grey 10y ago
Exactly. It's Afghanistan with the Soviets, all over again... the blowback is going to be ugly and protracted.
grw_ 10y ago
Amnesty International works tirelessly to document human rights abuses in all of the other conflicts you mention and has done for many years. What exactly is your point?
- salimmadjd 10y ago
  Amnesty Internation was duped into false reporting that got us into the first Iraq war. Amnesty later retraced their 84 page report[0]. How is it possible an organization that documents human rights could mislead the world? Any government PR firm, backed by CIA or MI6 can create a list of "witnesses" and have them testify to AI. My point is, just because AI is documenting it, it doesn't mean it's legit. Especially around Syria since there is a lot of documented story fabrication. [0] https://www.democracynow.org/2003/12/2/a_debate_on_one_of_the https://www.democracynow.org/2003/12/2/a_debate_on_one_of_th...
  - grw_ 10y ago
    I think that's a reasonable concern to have. My question was regarding the parent comment's implication that AI themselves are deciding not to publish information on abuses in other areas. The user seems to feel that these things have not been publicised, when in fact there are ongoing awareness campaigns on all of the countries listed.

jim-jim-jim 10y ago

Well said. As alluded to in your article, a lion's share of Western reporting doesn't take place on the ground from within Syria. Journalists and activists are content to take one faction (the Islamists) at their word and pass it off as fact.