More on Syria

[Digby]

So the truth has been revealed. It was the Assad government who was using chemical weapons on civilians. 27 confirmed instances by the UN investigation team with another 6 incidents where blame cannot be attributed.

Remember all that alt news reporting about how the fault possibly lay with the rebels, how it was just a huge disinformation campaign? Turns out that was just bollocks and the main stream media had it right.

I'd wish them luck with their report but they're making use of facts and expert testimony which is never going to be enough to convince the true of purpose

[Sandydragon]

So the truth has been revealed. It was the Assad government who was using chemical weapons on civilians. 27 confirmed instances by the UN investigation team with another 6 incidents where blame cannot be attributed.

Remember all that alt news reporting about how the fault possibly lay with the rebels, how it was just a huge disinformation campaign? Turns out that was just bollocks and the main stream media had it right.

I'd wish them luck with their report but they're making use of facts and expert testimony which is never going to be enough to convince the true of purpose

Well RT aka Putin is already denouncing it as fake news. To paraphrase a notorious hooker, he would say that.

Evidence isn’t important to those who know they are right.

[rowan]

Mainstream news, like the New York Times, for instance?

ISIS Used Chemical Arms at Least 52 Times in Syria and Iraq, Report Says

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/worl ... d=fb-share

You know nothing about Syria. You're an apologist for imperialism and genocidal wars.

[Stones of granite]

Mainstream news, like the New York Times, for instance?

ISIS Used Chemical Arms at Least 52 Times in Syria and Iraq, Report Says

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/worl ... d=fb-share

You know nothing about Syria. You're an apologist for imperialism and genocidal wars.

Did you miss this bit from the same article?

The Islamic State is not the only actor in Syria to carry out chemical weapons’ strikes: The Syrian government has conducted many more such attacks.

Syrian military helicopters dropped bombs containing chlorine on civilians in at least two attacks over the past two years, a special joint investigation of the United Nations and an international chemical weapons monitor said in August.

[Sandydragon]

Mainstream news, like the New York Times, for instance?

ISIS Used Chemical Arms at Least 52 Times in Syria and Iraq, Report Says

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/worl ... d=fb-share

You know nothing about Syria. You're an apologist for imperialism and genocidal wars.

An independent investigation has just blown the myth that the Assad government wasn't to blame for the use of chemical weapons out of the water. Your sources were wrong.

[rowan]

Mainstream news, like the New York Times, for instance?

ISIS Used Chemical Arms at Least 52 Times in Syria and Iraq, Report Says

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/worl ... d=fb-share

You know nothing about Syria. You're an apologist for imperialism and genocidal wars.

An independent investigation has just blown the myth that the Assad government wasn't to blame for the use of chemical weapons out of the water. Your sources were wrong.

About as independent and impartial as the WOMD claims. Of course, NATO and its allies will work hard to cover their tracks now, having reduced yet another Middle East nation to rubble, and even as they line up their next target.

[Sandydragon]

Mainstream news, like the New York Times, for instance?

ISIS Used Chemical Arms at Least 52 Times in Syria and Iraq, Report Says

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/worl ... d=fb-share

You know nothing about Syria. You're an apologist for imperialism and genocidal wars.

An independent investigation has just blown the myth that the Assad government wasn't to blame for the use of chemical weapons out of the water. Your sources were wrong.

About as independent and impartial as the WOMD claims. Of course, NATO and its allies will work hard to cover their tracks now, having reduced yet another Middle East nation to rubble, and even as they line up their next target.

Did you get that from RT or make it up yourself? Comparing this investigation with the 'dodgy dossier' is pushing the limits of anyone's intelligence.

[rowan]

An independent investigation has just blown the myth that the Assad government wasn't to blame for the use of chemical weapons out of the water. Your sources were wrong.

About as independent and impartial as the WOMD claims. Of course, NATO and its allies will work hard to cover their tracks now, having reduced yet another Middle East nation to rubble, and even as they line up their next target.

Did you get that from RT or make it up yourself? Comparing this investigation with the 'dodgy dossier' is pushing the limits of anyone's intelligence.

I don't read RT, and theindependent sources you mention are no more neutral than they are. I do, however, live in the region concerned, both read & watch the news in the local language and have even had articles published in the international press about the conflict on occasions myself. You're an old school imperialist defending yet another US invasion in the Middle East and referring to it as a civil war. That's the epitome of ignorance, I'm afraid.

[SerjeantWildgoose]

Do you feck live in the region, you whittering gas-bag. You live at the other end of Turkey and there's at least a half a million fat German package holiday-makers between you and anything like a whiff of chlorine.

For someone who has never been close to the vicious end of war, battle, terrorism or genocide you bandy about your opinions about those of us who have with flagrant disregard for accuracy, credible evidence or respect for any other point of view, regardless of how legitimately it might be held.

You are an internet warrior of so little consequence to the world that it defies logic that any of us here should bother to read a single syllable you regurgitate.

[rowan]

Do you feck live in the region, you whittering gas-bag. You live at the other end of Turkey and there's at least a half a million fat German package holiday-makers between you and anything like a whiff of chlorine.

For someone who has never been close to the vicious end of war, battle, terrorism or genocide you bandy about your opinions about those of us who have with flagrant disregard for accuracy, credible evidence or respect for any other point of view, regardless of how legitimately it might be held.

You are an internet warrior of so little consequence to the world that it defies logic that any of us here should bother to read a single syllable you regurgitate.

The arrogance - and ignorance - of the imperialist mindset

Anyway, I'm not going to waste my time going around in circles with you guys again. People here know more about this conflict than you know about Brexit. Half my neighbours are Syrians these days, in fact. But I'm sure you believe your own perception is superior to theirs...

Most of us here in the region have known about this all along. Even legendary Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who broke the stories on the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam and Abu Ghraib torture center in Iraq, has reported on it. There have been many other sources besides. Former US general Wesley Clark is seen in a widely-circulated Youtube video openly stating Syria was on a hit-list of Islamic nations the US intended to 'take out' after 9/11. Only Iran has been left alone - at this stage. Wikileaks reports CIA correspondence indicated a proxy war in Syria was being discussed fully 2 years before the Arab Spring. & anyone who thought the teachers, students, doctors and so on who participated in the anti-government protests suddenly morphed into machine gun-wielding, head-chopping terrorists is delusional. That was simply the pretext for a war long in the planning. You know about the overthrow of Mosaddegh in 53, presumably. Do you also know that just a few years earlier Kermit Roosevelt & the gang had tried the same stunt in Syria. This drove Damascus into Moscow's arms, where it remained securely until the collapse of the Soviet Union. Hence the presence of a Russian base in Tartus - one of only 3 they have outside of the former USSR. But America, emboldened by its easy victories elsewhere in the region (in as much as they have colonised all those countries militarily, gained control of the leadership and resources, and kept the military industrial complex very busy), thought it might just have a crack at Syria now, despite the Russian alliance. There is, of course, oil in the north of the country, where the US forces are operating, coincidentally enough - and in violation of international law, btw. But I'm not sure this was the main reason to send in the proxies (Saudi-backed Jihadists and mercenaries from around the region. The US and its allies continued to arm them even when they knew their tactics amounted to terrorism. Obama as much as admitted this, and "reining in" the worst elements (who the Western media has given various names such as Al Nusra, Al Sham, etc) became the pretext for direct US involvement and boots on the ground - in violation of international law. This conflict may have been more about the appeasement of regional allies than America's own interests, howeve. Qatar wanted to build a gas pipeline right through Syria to Europe, but Assad rejected this and went with an Iranian project instead. Israel has a territorial dispute with Damascus over the Golan Heights (and the UN has sided against them). Saudi wants to break up the Shia crescent that extends from Iran to the Mediterranean (thanks to the invasion of Iraq), and so on. But after the public outcry over Iraq and Libya, the US appears to have exercised a little more subtlety on this occasion and not just invaded outright. & for this reason they and their regional allies got their butts kicked by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. In fact, the main enemy of the Assad regime is the Muslim Brotherhood. Now, America sends Egypt billions in aid even though the military dictatorship is imprisoning and executing MB leaders in their droves, but Assad is demonised for cracking down on the same organisation. There is little indication of MB involved in the current conflict, however. Meanwhile, this time America has not succeeded and so their propaganda industry is going into Winston Wolfe mode to mop up the mess they made. Idiots will buy it, just as they bought the WOMDs claims and all the lies about Gaddafi. America has simply taken up where the British Empire left off after WWII.

& that's where I'll sign off, because there's no penetrating the little worlds you have built for yourselves, and I know this only too well by now.

[SerjeantWildgoose]

From the Spain Thread.

Civil war? You really are clueless. It was a proxy war instigated by NATO and its regional allies, and ultimately ended in defeat at the hands of Assad with support from Russia, Iran and Hezbollah! Flagrant imperialism stopped in its tracks.

I come to this debate a little late but not too late, it seems, to offer an informed view that Rowan is talking out of his opinionated hoop as usual.

I too, shall be starting more threads after this. I had thought of going to Catalonia to join the International Brigade, but it seems they are now all in Aleppo (or was it Chepstow?).

The war was waged by NATO and their regional allies, largely with the use of Saudi-backed Jihadists and mercenaries from around the region. That's not a civil war. It's a proxy war. The internal conflict is between the regime and the Muslim Brotherhood, just as it is in Egypt - which America supports to the tune of 1.5 billion in aid each year, because the dictatorship is under its control.

So stick to discussing Spain, chaps. You seem to at least have some notion of what is going on there. Barcelona is my old stomping ground, btw.

Your view on this - and it is only your view - is as risible as your views on just about everything else and as with everything else is offered as gospel with only disdain for anyone who dares to offer an opposing opinion no matter how legitimate.

It is you, Rowan, who is clueless and yet again you display the unmistakable if deluded certainty of someone who has experienced nothing, but has absorbed an opinion, rote-like, from the ludicrous chunterings of self-important idiots who are exiled to a life on the internet because they can't hold a conversation with real people without being punched.

The civil war in Syria has been raging for generations and if you can't see the continuity between the excesses of Bashar and those of his dad, then perhaps you should move a little closer than the coffee shops of Istanbul and have a look for yourself. NATO played no part in 'instigating' an internal conflict that has been going on since the Ba'ath party came to power and determined to hold onto it no matter what the cost.

As for their later intervention you may not, but ought to be aware of international obligations under the UN-endorsed R2P (Responsibility to Protect) that have provided, since 2005 a legitimate pretext to intervene in an internal conflict when it is determined that an authority has ceased to provide adequate protection for its own citizens. Once Assad started lobbing chemicals into cities, NATO (And everyone else) had an obligation to step in. Russia, who might yet reward your unstinting efforts as one of their most obtuse apologists, while initially intervening under the same pretext has since, illegally, done all that it can to protect Assad and secure the space in which he continues to carry out his internationally criminal activities; flagrant genocide given freedom to continue.

Try sticking to ... er, no on second thoughts stick to feck all, for it is surely all you know about.

[rowan]

From the Spain Thread.

Civil war? You really are clueless. It was a proxy war instigated by NATO and its regional allies, and ultimately ended in defeat at the hands of Assad with support from Russia, Iran and Hezbollah! Flagrant imperialism stopped in its tracks.

I come to this debate a little late but not too late, it seems, to offer an informed view that Rowan is talking out of his opinionated hoop as usual.

I too, shall be starting more threads after this. I had thought of going to Catalonia to join the International Brigade, but it seems they are now all in Aleppo (or was it Chepstow?).

The war was waged by NATO and their regional allies, largely with the use of Saudi-backed Jihadists and mercenaries from around the region. That's not a civil war. It's a proxy war. The internal conflict is between the regime and the Muslim Brotherhood, just as it is in Egypt - which America supports to the tune of 1.5 billion in aid each year, because the dictatorship is under its control.

So stick to discussing Spain, chaps. You seem to at least have some notion of what is going on there. Barcelona is my old stomping ground, btw.

Your view on this - and it is only your view - is as risible as your views on just about everything else and as with everything else is offered as gospel with only disdain for anyone who dares to offer an opposing opinion no matter how legitimate.

It is you, Rowan, who is clueless and yet again you display the unmistakable if deluded certainty of someone who has experienced nothing, but has absorbed an opinion, rote-like, from the ludicrous chunterings of self-important idiots who are exiled to a life on the internet because they can't hold a conversation with real people without being punched.

The civil war in Syria has been raging for generations and if you can't see the continuity between the excesses of Bashar and those of his dad, then perhaps you should move a little closer than the coffee shops of Istanbul and have a look for yourself. NATO played no part in 'instigating' an internal conflict that has been going on since the Ba'ath party came to power and determined to hold onto it no matter what the cost.

As for their later intervention you may not, but ought to be aware of international obligations under the UN-endorsed R2P (Responsibility to Protect) that have provided, since 2005 a legitimate pretext to intervene in an internal conflict when it is determined that an authority has ceased to provide adequate protection for its own citizens. Once Assad started lobbing chemicals into cities, NATO (And everyone else) had an obligation to step in. Russia, who might yet reward your unstinting efforts as one of their most obtuse apologists, while initially intervening under the same pretext has since, illegally, done all that it can to protect Assad and secure the space in which he continues to carry out his internationally criminal activities; flagrant genocide given freedom to continue.

Try sticking to ... er, no on second thoughts stick to feck all, for it is surely all you know about.

That's about the most delusional load of imperialist propaganda I've ever read, Sarge. As stated, you know absolutely nothing about this conflict.

[morepork]

Ewe no nuffink.

[Sandydragon]

From the Spain Thread.

Civil war? You really are clueless. It was a proxy war instigated by NATO and its regional allies, and ultimately ended in defeat at the hands of Assad with support from Russia, Iran and Hezbollah! Flagrant imperialism stopped in its tracks.

I come to this debate a little late but not too late, it seems, to offer an informed view that Rowan is talking out of his opinionated hoop as usual.

I too, shall be starting more threads after this. I had thought of going to Catalonia to join the International Brigade, but it seems they are now all in Aleppo (or was it Chepstow?).

The war was waged by NATO and their regional allies, largely with the use of Saudi-backed Jihadists and mercenaries from around the region. That's not a civil war. It's a proxy war. The internal conflict is between the regime and the Muslim Brotherhood, just as it is in Egypt - which America supports to the tune of 1.5 billion in aid each year, because the dictatorship is under its control.

So stick to discussing Spain, chaps. You seem to at least have some notion of what is going on there. Barcelona is my old stomping ground, btw.

Your view on this - and it is only your view - is as risible as your views on just about everything else and as with everything else is offered as gospel with only disdain for anyone who dares to offer an opposing opinion no matter how legitimate.

It is you, Rowan, who is clueless and yet again you display the unmistakable if deluded certainty of someone who has experienced nothing, but has absorbed an opinion, rote-like, from the ludicrous chunterings of self-important idiots who are exiled to a life on the internet because they can't hold a conversation with real people without being punched.

The civil war in Syria has been raging for generations and if you can't see the continuity between the excesses of Bashar and those of his dad, then perhaps you should move a little closer than the coffee shops of Istanbul and have a look for yourself. NATO played no part in 'instigating' an internal conflict that has been going on since the Ba'ath party came to power and determined to hold onto it no matter what the cost.

As for their later intervention you may not, but ought to be aware of international obligations under the UN-endorsed R2P (Responsibility to Protect) that have provided, since 2005 a legitimate pretext to intervene in an internal conflict when it is determined that an authority has ceased to provide adequate protection for its own citizens. Once Assad started lobbing chemicals into cities, NATO (And everyone else) had an obligation to step in. Russia, who might yet reward your unstinting efforts as one of their most obtuse apologists, while initially intervening under the same pretext has since, illegally, done all that it can to protect Assad and secure the space in which he continues to carry out his internationally criminal activities; flagrant genocide given freedom to continue.

Try sticking to ... er, no on second thoughts stick to feck all, for it is surely all you know about.

And thats before any environmental issues such as a famine are taken into account.

[rowan]

The arrogance - and ignorance - of the imperialist mindset

Anyway, I'm not going to waste my time going around in circles with you guys again. People here know more about this conflict than you know about Brexit. Half my neighbours are Syrians these days, in fact. But I'm sure you believe your own perception is superior to theirs...

Most of us here in the region have known about this all along. Even legendary Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who broke the stories on the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam and Abu Ghraib torture center in Iraq, has reported on it. There have been many other sources besides. Former US general Wesley Clark is seen in a widely-circulated Youtube video openly stating Syria was on a hit-list of Islamic nations the US intended to 'take out' after 9/11. Only Iran has been left alone - at this stage. Wikileaks reports CIA correspondence indicated a proxy war in Syria was being discussed fully 2 years before the Arab Spring. & anyone who thought the teachers, students, doctors and so on who participated in the anti-government protests suddenly morphed into machine gun-wielding, head-chopping terrorists is delusional. That was simply the pretext for a war long in the planning. You know about the overthrow of Mosaddegh in 53, presumably. Do you also know that just a few years earlier Kermit Roosevelt & the gang had tried the same stunt in Syria. This drove Damascus into Moscow's arms, where it remained securely until the collapse of the Soviet Union. Hence the presence of a Russian base in Tartus - one of only 3 they have outside of the former USSR. But America, emboldened by its easy victories elsewhere in the region (in as much as they have colonised all those countries militarily, gained control of the leadership and resources, and kept the military industrial complex very busy), thought it might just have a crack at Syria now, despite the Russian alliance. There is, of course, oil in the north of the country, where the US forces are operating, coincidentally enough - and in violation of international law, btw. But I'm not sure this was the main reason to send in the proxies (Saudi-backed Jihadists and mercenaries from around the region. The US and its allies continued to arm them even when they knew their tactics amounted to terrorism. Obama as much as admitted this, and "reining in" the worst elements (who the Western media has given various names such as Al Nusra, Al Sham, etc) became the pretext for direct US involvement and boots on the ground - in violation of international law. This conflict may have been more about the appeasement of regional allies than America's own interests, howeve. Qatar wanted to build a gas pipeline right through Syria to Europe, but Assad rejected this and went with an Iranian project instead. Israel has a territorial dispute with Damascus over the Golan Heights (and the UN has sided against them). Saudi wants to break up the Shia crescent that extends from Iran to the Mediterranean (thanks to the invasion of Iraq), and so on. But after the public outcry over Iraq and Libya, the US appears to have exercised a little more subtlety on this occasion and not just invaded outright. & for this reason they and their regional allies got their butts kicked by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. In fact, the main enemy of the Assad regime is the Muslim Brotherhood. Now, America sends Egypt billions in aid even though the military dictatorship is imprisoning and executing MB leaders in their droves, but Assad is demonised for cracking down on the same organisation. There is little indication of MB involved in the current conflict, however. Meanwhile, this time America has not succeeded and so their propaganda industry is going into Winston Wolfe mode to mop up the mess they made. Idiots will buy it, just as they bought the WOMDs claims and all the lies about Gaddafi. America has simply taken up where the British Empire left off after WWII.

& that's where I'll sign off, because there's no penetrating the little worlds you have built for yourselves, and I know this only too well by now.

Hurts, don't it

[SerjeantWildgoose]

That's about the most delusional load of imperialist propaganda I've ever read, Sarge. As stated, you know absolutely nothing about this conflict.

Your view on this - and it is only your view - is as risible as your views on just about everything else and as with everything else is offered as gospel with only disdain for anyone who dares to offer an opposing opinion no matter how legitimate.

It is you, Rowan, who is clueless and yet again you display the unmistakable if deluded certainty of someone who has experienced nothing, but has absorbed an opinion, rote-like, from the ludicrous chunterings of self-important idiots who are exiled to a life on the internet because they can't hold a conversation with real people without being punched.

Wow this is useful.I might keep it.

[Sandydragon]

The arrogance - and ignorance - of the imperialist mindset

Anyway, I'm not going to waste my time going around in circles with you guys again. People here know more about this conflict than you know about Brexit. Half my neighbours are Syrians these days, in fact. But I'm sure you believe your own perception is superior to theirs...

Most of us here in the region have known about this all along. Even legendary Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who broke the stories on the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam and Abu Ghraib torture center in Iraq, has reported on it. There have been many other sources besides. Former US general Wesley Clark is seen in a widely-circulated Youtube video openly stating Syria was on a hit-list of Islamic nations the US intended to 'take out' after 9/11. Only Iran has been left alone - at this stage. Wikileaks reports CIA correspondence indicated a proxy war in Syria was being discussed fully 2 years before the Arab Spring. & anyone who thought the teachers, students, doctors and so on who participated in the anti-government protests suddenly morphed into machine gun-wielding, head-chopping terrorists is delusional. That was simply the pretext for a war long in the planning. You know about the overthrow of Mosaddegh in 53, presumably. Do you also know that just a few years earlier Kermit Roosevelt & the gang had tried the same stunt in Syria. This drove Damascus into Moscow's arms, where it remained securely until the collapse of the Soviet Union. Hence the presence of a Russian base in Tartus - one of only 3 they have outside of the former USSR. But America, emboldened by its easy victories elsewhere in the region (in as much as they have colonised all those countries militarily, gained control of the leadership and resources, and kept the military industrial complex very busy), thought it might just have a crack at Syria now, despite the Russian alliance. There is, of course, oil in the north of the country, where the US forces are operating, coincidentally enough - and in violation of international law, btw. But I'm not sure this was the main reason to send in the proxies (Saudi-backed Jihadists and mercenaries from around the region. The US and its allies continued to arm them even when they knew their tactics amounted to terrorism. Obama as much as admitted this, and "reining in" the worst elements (who the Western media has given various names such as Al Nusra, Al Sham, etc) became the pretext for direct US involvement and boots on the ground - in violation of international law. This conflict may have been more about the appeasement of regional allies than America's own interests, howeve. Qatar wanted to build a gas pipeline right through Syria to Europe, but Assad rejected this and went with an Iranian project instead. Israel has a territorial dispute with Damascus over the Golan Heights (and the UN has sided against them). Saudi wants to break up the Shia crescent that extends from Iran to the Mediterranean (thanks to the invasion of Iraq), and so on. But after the public outcry over Iraq and Libya, the US appears to have exercised a little more subtlety on this occasion and not just invaded outright. & for this reason they and their regional allies got their butts kicked by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. In fact, the main enemy of the Assad regime is the Muslim Brotherhood. Now, America sends Egypt billions in aid even though the military dictatorship is imprisoning and executing MB leaders in their droves, but Assad is demonised for cracking down on the same organisation. There is little indication of MB involved in the current conflict, however. Meanwhile, this time America has not succeeded and so their propaganda industry is going into Winston Wolfe mode to mop up the mess they made. Idiots will buy it, just as they bought the WOMDs claims and all the lies about Gaddafi. America has simply taken up where the British Empire left off after WWII.

& that's where I'll sign off, because there's no penetrating the little worlds you have built for yourselves, and I know this only too well by now.

Hurts, don't it

Ah, Seymour Hersh. I wonder how happy he is at the UN findings. No doubt beavering away on some excuse or other. Don't worry folk, the normal cal of our alt news friends will be restored since someone writes something they can cut and paste.

[kk67]

The civil war in Syria has been raging for generations and if you can't see the continuity between the excesses of Bashar and those of his dad, then perhaps you should move a little closer than the coffee shops of Istanbul and have a look for yourself. NATO played no part in 'instigating' an internal conflict that has been going on since the Ba'ath party came to power and determined to hold onto it no matter what the cost.

As for their later intervention you may not, but ought to be aware of international obligations under the UN-endorsed R2P (Responsibility to Protect) that have provided, since 2005 a legitimate pretext to intervene in an internal conflict when it is determined that an authority has ceased to provide adequate protection for its own citizens. Once Assad started lobbing chemicals into cities, NATO (And everyone else) had an obligation to step in.

I'm happy to accept all of that is true but there are market forces that have deliberately ramped up this conflict.
And it is Tel Aviv's stated aim to fractionalize countries on their borders.

[Sandydragon]

The civil war in Syria has been raging for generations and if you can't see the continuity between the excesses of Bashar and those of his dad, then perhaps you should move a little closer than the coffee shops of Istanbul and have a look for yourself. NATO played no part in 'instigating' an internal conflict that has been going on since the Ba'ath party came to power and determined to hold onto it no matter what the cost.

As for their later intervention you may not, but ought to be aware of international obligations under the UN-endorsed R2P (Responsibility to Protect) that have provided, since 2005 a legitimate pretext to intervene in an internal conflict when it is determined that an authority has ceased to provide adequate protection for its own citizens. Once Assad started lobbing chemicals into cities, NATO (And everyone else) had an obligation to step in.

I'm happy to accept all of that is true but there are market forces that have deliberately ramped up this conflict.
And it is Tel Aviv's stated aim to fractionalize countries on their borders.

Outside forces haven’t helped. But it’s important to recognise the roots of this conflict were internal.

I’m not sure Tel Aviv want ISIS as a neighbour though. I don’t think Netanyahu and Assad exchange birthday cards but better the devil you know who isn’t bat shit mental.

[kk67]

The civil war in Syria has been raging for generations and if you can't see the continuity between the excesses of Bashar and those of his dad, then perhaps you should move a little closer than the coffee shops of Istanbul and have a look for yourself. NATO played no part in 'instigating' an internal conflict that has been going on since the Ba'ath party came to power and determined to hold onto it no matter what the cost.

As for their later intervention you may not, but ought to be aware of international obligations under the UN-endorsed R2P (Responsibility to Protect) that have provided, since 2005 a legitimate pretext to intervene in an internal conflict when it is determined that an authority has ceased to provide adequate protection for its own citizens. Once Assad started lobbing chemicals into cities, NATO (And everyone else) had an obligation to step in.

I'm happy to accept all of that is true but there are market forces that have deliberately ramped up this conflict.
And it is Tel Aviv's stated aim to fractionalize countries on their borders.

Outside forces haven’t helped. But it’s important to recognise the roots of this conflict were internal.

I’m not sure Tel Aviv want ISIS as a neighbour though. I don’t think Netanyahu and Assad exchange birthday cards but better the devil you know who isn’t bat shit mental.

You'd be amazed at what money can buy.

[Digby]

Russia vetoes an extended international inquiry into the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

Russia did offer to extend the inquiry, but only if they could change panel members, and only if the inquiry into chemical weapons attacks would ignore some chemical weapons attacks such as the killings at Khan Sheikhoun

[Sandydragon]

Russia vetoes an extended international inquiry into the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

Russia did offer to extend the inquiry, but only if they could change panel members, and only if the inquiry into chemical weapons attacks would ignore some chemical weapons attacks such as the killings at Khan Sheikhoun

Syrian AirPower again in the news with indiscriminate bombing are rebel held areas resulting in civilian deaths. I wonder how the alt news lot can keep peddling their nonsense that Assad isn’t a war criminal with a straight face?

[Digby]

Russia vetoes an extended international inquiry into the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

Russia did offer to extend the inquiry, but only if they could change panel members, and only if the inquiry into chemical weapons attacks would ignore some chemical weapons attacks such as the killings at Khan Sheikhoun

Syrian AirPower again in the news with indiscriminate bombing are rebel held areas resulting in civilian deaths. I wonder how the alt news lot can keep peddling their nonsense that Assad isn’t a war criminal with a straight face?

Hillary sent an email

[rowan]

Excellent article, covers the issue well.

Years ago there was a plan, A Clean Break: Project for the New American Century (PNAC), to wreck the Oslo peace accords between Israel and the Palestinians and to re-mold the Middle East. It first involved destroying Iraq or in the discredited words of Paul Wolfowitz, “The road to peace in the Middle East goes through Baghdad.”

Destroying Syria was to be next. And then Iran. In 2006, columnist Taki Theodoracopulos warned in The American Conservative of the “Clean Break” plan “to aggressively remake the strategic environments of Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. As they say in boxing circles, three down, two to go.” Core promoters of the PNAC plan signed an open letter to then President Clinton calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein. They were Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, Elliot Abrams, Donald Rumsfeld, Robert Zoellick and John Bolton, all solid members of the Neoconservative project.

In a short one minute video former NATO commander General Wesley Clark criticizes the plan as hatched to remake the Middle East. Equally, it is important to remember that the chaos in Iraq (and Syria) was not unforeseen by those who promoted the American invasion. I reported in TAC in 2010 of neoconservative David Wurmser (subsequently Vice President Cheney’s principal advisor) forecasting “if Saddam Hussein were driven from power, Iraq would be ‘ripped apart by the politics of warlords, tribes, clans, sects, and key families,’ and out of the ‘coming chaos in Iraq and most probably in Syria,’ the United States and her principal allies, namely Israel and Jordan, could redraw the region’s map.” See American Prospect, “The Apprentice.”

Of course, all this was years ago, but the plan remains, supported by many powerful American war interests. To find out who, just follow the money. It’s always a useful rule.

Trump has declared that Iran is violating its nuclear agreement although all the other signatories state that it is in compliance. Undermining the Iran nuclear accord, first with Washington imposing tighter economic sanctions to bring about a pretext for attacking Iran, is now on the table as Washington’s next Middle East project.

However, the world is different from 20 years ago when the neocon plan was first hatched. Firstly there is Iran’s agreement to dismantle its nuclear program. A Cato Institute report details all the ways Iran has complied with the agreement including giving up its stockpile of enriched uranium, dismantling two thirds of its uranium enrichment centrifuges, allowing international surveillance and other measures limiting its actions for the next 10 to 25 years.

Washington is now finding it harder to force the Europeans to go along with re-imposing sanctions. China is much stronger and might take up the trade and giant oil investments which Washington could force European companies to forego. Iran has a vastly stronger missile program to retaliate against the U.S. Navy and nearby American air bases. Iran is three times as large as Iraq and far less subject to fractional internal ethnic divisions. The pro-Israel lobby is divided although big money American donors still want Iran’s destruction. North Korea’s nuclear and new missile technology make it harder for Washington to demand concessions, while at the same time reneging on its past commitments. America’s trustworthiness is already suspect from having attacked Libya after Libya gave up its nuclear program. And even in Washington there is new congressional resistance to the President’s ability to start new wars.

The Cato report linked above, The Risks of Confrontation with Iran, explains the four confrontation options. These are:

— New, tighter economic sanctions

–Challenging Iranian influence in the region

–Regime change from within

–Starting a war

Referencing the first option, Cato argues that European cooperation including agreement to embargo Iranian oil exports would not be agreed to again. It concludes that “European and Asian governments are likely to push back strongly against new U.S. barriers to trade and investment and on the excessive extraterritorial application of existing U.S. sanctions.”

Reference challenging Iranian influence in the region, the paper points out “previous U.S. efforts to create regional coalitions to fight terror groups have been largely unsuccessful” and is “likely to pull the U.S. more deeply into variety of regional conflicts and increase the risks of blowback to U.S. troops in the region.” Also it is questionable today that the American people can be sold on starting more wars once soldiers’ deaths start being reported in the news, nor want to pay more tens of billions of dollars to support them.

In reference option three, the major problem is “that foreign-imposed regime change generally does not improve relations between interveners and targets; rather, it often makes them worse.” In many nations Washington’s goals are so suspect that its support for local groups is more like a kiss of death. Further, Iran’s ethnic minorities are far smaller that Iraq’s large groups. In Iran, Kurds are only 10%, Baluchis 2%, Arabs 2% and Azeri Turks 16%. In fact the New York Times recently reported on the surging nationalism in Iran in response to Saudi and U.S. pressures, in particular all the advanced weaponry Trump promised for the Saudis.

Option four of starting a war with bombing runs against Iran “would make escalation inevitable.” U.S. “forward deployed bases (and war ships)…are within range of Iranian missiles and it is easy to imagine the vast oil facilities in the Persian Gulf being targeted as war passions would grow. This would paralyze oil exports to Europe and Asia and bring on a world economic crisis. A new American started war would also likely exacerbate America’s terrorism problems and “most likely produce profoundly negative consequences for regional security and American interests,” warns the Cato study.

One should also note that war professionals are far less enthusiastic for wars than parts of the pro-Israel Lobby for which wars and chaos help their fundraising. For example, the Huffington Post reports how much of Israel’s intelligence establishment supports the Iran agreement. The Cato report quotes an Israeli official, Carmi Gillon, that “the majority of my colleagues in the Israeli military and intelligence communities supported the deal.”

The Cato conclusion is that America’s best policy option would be for further engagement with Iran to strengthen its more moderate political factions and weaken its hardliners. America used to be widely popular among younger Iranians who want peace and prosperity, not mullahs and wars. The greater threat is Washington’s military-industrial-Congress complex which so benefits from unending wars.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... iran-next/

[rowan]

Robert Parry, the fine investigative journalist who unearthed many of the details of the the Iran-Contra scandal during the Reagan presidency, has died.

Here is what he had to say about Syria last month in what would turn out to be his final article:'

That is why many of us who exposed major government wrongdoing in the past have ended up late in our careers as outcasts and pariahs. Legendary investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, who helped expose major crimes of state from the My Lai massacre to the CIA’s abuses against American citizens, including illegal spying and LSD testing on unsuspecting subjects, has literally had to take his investigative journalism abroad because he uncovered inconvenient evidence that implicated Western-backed jihadists in staging chemical weapons attacks in Syria so the atrocities would be blamed on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The anti-Assad group think is so intense in the West that even strong evidence of staged events, such as the first patients arriving at hospitals before government planes could have delivered the sarin, was brushed aside or ignored. The Western media and the bulk of international agencies and NGOs were committed to gin up another case for “regime change” and any skeptics were decried as “Assad apologists” or “conspiracy theorists,” the actual facts be damned.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/12/31/a ... planation/