More on Syria

[Digby]

A very limited response so far from USA, UK and France. Clearly inviting Russia, Iran and Syria not to respond in turn leaving the attack as over, and clearly leaving plenty of options to return with more strikes in the face of an unwanted response

Looks like they're trying to prove a point, save face and possibly destroy the evidence - or lack of. It's all totally in violation of international law, of course, and if any civilians at all are killed they should be held accountable (but won't be, as usual). No doubt these strikes will also enhance the image and popularity of the embattled leaders responsible.

Destroy evidence of chemical attack in Douma by targeting areas in Homs and Central Damascus? Are you sure you are not thinking of Odessa, or maybe Dargaville?

I'd have said a similar thing, but you've have more success saying it to a stone.

[rowan]

It was Can't (have) a Brain who made the irrelevant comment about Odessa.

Meanwhile, Jonathan Cook has written pretty much the same thing about the strikes in his latest column, and he's much more of an authority than a couple of hypocrites endeavoring to derail the discussion with irrelevant drivel:

Jonathan Cook is an award-winning British journalist & author based in Nazareth, Israel, since 2001:

1. The United States, the UK and France launched air strikes on Syria this morning just as inspectors from the UN chemical weapons agency, the OPCW, had arrived to investigate whether a chemical weapons attack – the official justfication for the strikes – had taken place in Douma last week and, if so, who was responsible.

It looks suspiciously like the strikes were timed to pre-empt, and foil, the UN investigation. That has to raise concerns that we are being hoodwinked by our leaders, as we were in Iraq and Libya, as they seek to actively stoke yet another “humanitarian war” whose only beneficiaries will be the west’s military-industrial-security-media elites.

2. Let us not forget, a military attack on a sovereign country without authorisation from the UN Security Council amounts to a war of aggression. That is a crime against humanity – the supreme international crime, in fact – as jurists have repeatedly pointed out.

We have now so inverted the global order that western powers can claim – with a straight face – to attack a country in the name of decency and humanitarianism by breaking the most fundamental tenets of international law, tenets that were developed precisely to prevent last century’s two world wars that laid waste to Europe and beyond.

3. Trump has said: “We are prepared to sustain this response until the Syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents.” Given that he doesn’t know whether Bashar Assad used chemical weapons, or whether Assad’s jihadist opponents in Douma have access to such agents, his statements can only give Islamic extremists of the headchopping variety a huge incentive to carry out (more?) false-flag attacks – or simply mock up phoney attacks – to intensify western violence that will work in their favour.

4. There is precisely nothing humanitarian about western military attacks. They encourage and strengthen the losing side, Islamic extremists, and further drag out an already protracted proxy war in which Syrian civilians have been paying the main price.

They also risk triggering an escalation and a widening of the fighting that could lead to massive death and destruction in the region and beyond (and that without contemplating the dangers of a nuclear confrontation). We are now dependent not on the good sense of our leaders (they have shown they have none), but on the restraint of Russian leader Vladimir Putin. We must hope he refuses to be baited by our own irresponsible governments.

5. This is not Trump’s fault, bad as he is. There is bipartisan support for this madness. Hilary Clinton and the Democratic leadership in the US, and much of the parliamentary Labour party in the UK, are fully on board with these actions. In fact, they have been goading Trump into launching attacks.

It is hard not to notice a political context in both the US and the UK in which those opposed to escalating tensions with Russia – including Trump when he was a presidential candidate – have been vilified as Kremlin agents and Putin-bots.

Doubtless Trump’s shady global business dealings are worthy of investigation, as they were before he became president. But it is the relentless focus on his ties to Russia alone, on Russia’s supposed interference in the last US elections, on Russia’s supposed role in generating so-called “fake news” on social media, on the assumption of Russian involvement in the poisoning of the Skripals in the UK, and much else, that provides Trump with little choice but to go along with the US security and intelligence establishments.

That is the reason why he is instantly feted by the policy establishment every time he attacks Syria. It will take a brave Trump to resist these pressures in the future – and little so far suggests that he possesses that kind of courage.

https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2018 ... nst-syria/

[rowan]

Meanwhile, the UN calls for restraint, while NATO calls for war:

'Countries are obligated to act within the guidelines of the Charter of the United Nations and "international law in general," Antonio Guterres said in a statement on April 14.'

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/nato-s ... int-130301

[Digby]

Ah, it's not Trump's fault, it's crooked Hillary's, we should have known. For anyone posting that sort of drivel there is at least it's easy for you to surpass expectations in future given expectations are just so low.

[rowan]

Ah, it's not Trump's fault, it's crooked Hillary's, we should have known. For anyone posting that sort of drivel there is at least it's easy for you to surpass expectations in future given expectations are just so low.

Twisting words again, Digby. That's not what it says.

[canta_brian]

It was Can't (have) a Brain who made the irrelevant comment about Odessa.

Meanwhile, Jonathan Cook has written pretty much the same thing about the strikes in his latest column, and he's much more of an authority than a couple of hypocrites endeavoring to derail the discussion with irrelevant drivel:

Oh no, an ad hominem attack. Colour me devastated. At least now I have been awarded my own witty Rowan nickname. I proudly join "Stones of Cowardice" and "Hapless" in the obviously got to the pompous prick club.

Once again, you utter hypocrite.

Also, my mention of Odessa was not irrelevant. Scroll back a few posts and you will find Rowan unaware that Odessa is not in the Crimean peninsula. My comment was by way of pointing out that Rowan has no idea what he is talking about, again.

Edit; unlike Rowan I have other things to do so will get bored of this. Rowan, when you reply with a load of rubbish, which you inevitably will, you can rest soundly knowing that you are the biggest winner anyone could ever hope to meet.

[rowan]

It was Can't (have) a Brain who made the irrelevant comment about Odessa.

Meanwhile, Jonathan Cook has written pretty much the same thing about the strikes in his latest column, and he's much more of an authority than a couple of hypocrites endeavoring to derail the discussion with irrelevant drivel:

Oh no, an ad hominem attack. Colour me devastated. At least now I have been awarded my own witty Rowan nickname. I proudly join "Stones of Cowardice" and "Hapless" in the obviously got to the pompous prick club.

Once again, you utter hypocrite.

Also, my mention of Odessa was not irrelevant. Scroll back a few posts and you will find Rowan unaware that Odessa is not in the Crimean peninsula. My comment was by way of pointing out that Rowan has no idea what he is talking about, again.

Edit; unlike Rowan I have other things to do so will get bored of this. Rowan, when you reply with a load of rubbish, which you inevitably will, you can rest soundly knowing that you are the biggest winner anyone could ever hope to meet.

I've been there, you clown. Nobody said it had anything to do with the Crimea. That was the connection you made - out of nothing - hence the general confusion.

I actually had a bit of chat with Jonathan Cook on Facebook today. It might not have been the real him, of course, but it was his official page.

[rowan]

Just listening to the American generals talking about (alleged) chemical weapons and the sophisticated weaponry used upon the selected targets takes me right back to 2003. Hideous stuff, for those of us who remember it...

[Zhivago]

Look at the date on this reuters report...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mide ... SKCN1GP0TY

The propaganda is so strong it's unreal.

Here is the former head of the British army in Iraq getting cut off once he veers off the narrative.
https://videopress.com/v/UB1xVbcc

[morepork]

They should put Trump's cunt kids on the front line to, you know, sort out the middle east.

[fivepointer]

A Syrian viewpoint.

"The truth is not that there is no military solution to the war. The truth is that there can be no diplomatic solution to this war without a military component to it. If the international community chooses to continue abrogating its responsibility to protect civilians, then the death toll will continue to rise and children will continue to be slaughtered with barrel bombs and nerve gas until Bashar al-Assad is declared King of the Rubble.

The other option is that the international community finally acts to bring the Assad regime to heal and force it to the negotiation table, which it cannot do without a show of force. There can be no diplomacy without leverage. These are the only two options available to the world, and both of them involve a military action, and both options will likely end with human blood on our collective consciences"

http://www.newsweek.com/syrians-want-we ... ion-885127

[rowan]

Yes, that's the mainstream corporate US propaganda machine at work for you. It played a vital role in paving the way for the Iraq and Libyan wars as well, and many, many others, going right back to the US Maine 140 years ago. In fact, this scenario is now so familiar, so redolent of those disastrous wars, that it is beyond amazing anybody continues to swallow it up. Of course, many don't, probably the majority even in the countries which have taken it upon themselves to play world cop and drop bombs on suspicion (while ignoring the clearly factual crimes of their allies Israel, Saudi and Myanmar.) The problem is these are not democratic decisions. Neither is it any coincidence that those three nations are white Christian dominated, and their victims are Arab Muslim dominated, nor that the victims they have ignored in Gaza, Yemen and Rakhine State are also Muslims. In fact, that article embodies practically everything that's wrong with this latest in a long series of war crimes America, Britain and France have carried out in the Middle East - the arrogance, the racism, the hypocrisy and the malice.

& this quite apart from the fact that America itself instigated the 7-year war in Syria, and it was practically over, with the government giving the terrorists free passage out, and on the point of victory.

[rowan]

Meanwhile, big pro-Assad, anti-American demonstrations were held on the streets of Damascus today.

Same thing happened after Aleppo was liberated from the terrorists.

[WaspInWales]

Anyone read the report released by France?

[rowan]

So far definitely looks like the bombing was about saving face in defeat, making a point and demonizing Assad once again, and perhaps showing Russia who's boss. & I must say the Russians have shown remarkable restraint. The US certainly wouldn't stand by while the Russians bombed one of their allies. Might makes Right! Hopefully now it'll all fizzle out and the Syrians can get on with life, as they clearly want to.

Or cue the next insanely-timed suspected chemical weapons attack on small children . . . ?

[rowan]

An Aussie view:

Moral obligations

The justification for Western escalation was couched as preventing/punishing Assad for using chemical weapons.

Australia has a moral interest in seeking to dissuade potential future use of chemical weapons, given the threat they pose to civilians during conflict and given we seek to uphold international law which prohibits their use.

Despite mainstream media confidence in Assad's culpability, US Defence Secretary James Mattis, when testifying before Congress, stated "we're still looking for the actual evidence".

Attacking Syria prior to any Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons investigation means that in future, rather than refrain from using chemical weapons due to fear of reprisal, states may accept that they are at risk of reprisal regardless of whether they actually use the weapons or not, altering their calculations in favour of using them.

The forces facing off in Syria

The world's most powerful military has attacked Syria again, but this time the stakes are much higher, Andrew Greene writes.
Rebel groups themselves have been accused of possessing and using chemical weapons in the past.

The Army of Islam rebel faction which accused Assad's forces of the attack in Douma was itself alleged to have admitted using chemical weapons against the Kurds in 2016.

Next door, Saudi Arabia has been accused of using US-supplied white phosphorous in Yemen.

If undertaking military action against those who use chemical weapons is in our interests, then we would need to broaden our sights.

The underlying tone of the West's justification was, however, more moral than legal. Australia has a moral interest in protecting the human rights of citizens globally.

The Douma attack was reported to have killed over 40 civilians. The Syrian war has killed over half a million people, almost all by conventional weapons.

The violation of the Right to Life is a violation regardless of whether it is done with chemical, conventional or nuclear weapons.

Furthermore, any escalation against the Syrian Government on behalf of the almost-defeated rebels will likely prolong the conflict, killing thousands more.

The conflict in Iraq resulted in deaths estimated from 100,000 to a million. Libya resulted in transforming the country which had the best social development indicators in Africa into a haven for open-air slave markets.

More ominous still is the threat, however small, of global nuclear war given the involvement of Great Powers, regional powers and alliance networks — a moral weight carried by any leaders who contribute to the growth of this risk.

More here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-15/a ... ia/9660358

[rowan]

Even the Qatari state-sponsored Al Jazeera network is all but singing Assad's praises now, having been to the fore of propaganda assault earlier in the piece. That might have a lot to do with the natural gas wars I wrote about earlier.

4. Internal support

Despite widespread opposition to his rule, Assad continues to maintain significant levels of support within Syria.

Such support extends beyond his own Alawite community, and also includes members of the Sunni community who have benefited financially during his rule and have little interest in changing the status quo.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/04/ ... 04833.html

[rowan]

More viewpoints:

RAIA - Researching the American-Israeli Alliance:

Regardless of whether you support the attack on Syria or not, some things should be said: the main beneficiary of the night is-(as always-) the American Military-Industrial Complex, specifically 'Raytheon', the manufacturer of the Tomahawk missiles *and* President Trump and his family who own's stock in Raytheon (supposedly).

Each one of the Tomahawk missiles fired by the US, by order of Trump, cost somewhere between $800,000 and $1.4 million,(just for comparison estimated cost to replace Flint's pipes- $55M).

Tonight Raytheon's stock goes up but the Syrian suffering is nowhere near end. More refugees need shelter and that President Trump can crate, but it will not benefit his bank account. Of course, the US has been bombing Syria for years and the Left was not vocal enough in the demand to Divest from War then. but regardless of whether you agree with the attack or think it was a cynical move, we always have to ask: who profits?

George Galloway:

If we just bombed “Chemical weapons factories” in Syria: 1) why was the existence of such “factories” never reported before - to the UN, the OPCW or the public? 2) Why are there not dead people from the chemicals thus dispersed for a thousand miles ( including in Israel)?

[rowan]

99% sure now that it was a facing-saving measure. In fact, they couldn't have been more careful not to piss off the Russians, apart from the fact that they bombed at all, of course. No Syrian casualties reported, either military or civilian. That's a tribute to the care and precision involved in the strikes, but I suspect that had more to do with the desire to avoid confrontation with their major nuclear rival than any humanitarian concerns, given their track record in the latter department. Hopefully this is the case. Just a week or two ago it looked like the end was finally in sight. Only another bogus chemical weapons attack or some similar chicanery could prolong this any further now.

[Digby]

(a) their record on the humanitarian front is far superior to Syria's and Russia's and (b) of course they bombed small leaving open the opportunity to bomb big(ly) if they took any backlash they really didn't like

there is our legal justification is a bit slim, and I find it odd we've focused what claims we might have on the humanitarian front. always a muddy picture given international law is a right old mess if it even exists

[rowan]

Really? Syria has killed over 20 million people since WWII? Syria has killed several million Muslims since the start of the 1990s? Syria destroyed Irak in an illegal, genocidal war then followed up by destroying Africa's most prosperous nation, allowing its leader to be tortured to death? Does Syria also support Israel's ethnic cleansing of the native Palestinians? Does it support Saudi's bombing of civilian targets in Yemen? & did it send terrorist proxies into its own country to torture, rape and behead? If so, that would put it on a par with America, yes.

If America bombs bigly it will lead to nuclear war with Russia. Trump has clearly shied off that. It may gratify you to imagine the self-appointed world cop can bomb willy-nilly without possibility of repercussion. But, in reality, that is not the case. The world cop can bomb only those nations which both lack nukes themselves and don't have any friends with nukes to defend them. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia and Yemen et al obviously fit that description.

[rowan]

America's record on the humanitarian front:

[Stones of granite]

I've tried not to,.... but you ain't making it easy.

Well, before you make yourself look even more stupid, let me suggest that you go and do some research. Focus on storage problems. Sorry to sound like a patronising git, but you “aim’t making it easy”.

I understand the storage problems. Even with a huge storage capacity the UK would still be reliant on reliable supply.
Do you understand share prices..?.

Of course the U.K. is reliant on a reliable supply. It has a reliable supply, more now than ever thanks to the start of shipments of LNG from the US. The problems during extended periods of cold weather lie with the recent reduction in storage capacity.

You have already adequately demonstrated in previous discussions that you don’t understand share prices, so I don’t really see the point in developing this line of discussion.

[rowan]

Britain itself probably isn't in it for the gas. It's in it because its weapons trade is hugely profitable. The more wars the merrier. Death and destruction are good for business. & It's in it, also, because it is America's poodle, but likes to imagine it remains a super power in its own right - hence its condescending attitude toward the Russians (and practically everyone else on the planet).

[Digby]

Russia proving humanitarian aid to their 'own'