What if Assad is telling the truth?

cyberhog

We know the SNC has falsely accused Assad of committing previous atrocities so shouldn't we be treating the oppositions latest accusations with a little more scepticism? Suppose Assad is right and terrorists do in fact bare most of the responsibililty for the civilian massacre, and it turns out that they killed those children in the hope it would trigger a NATO intervention then I think it would be unconscionable if the West continued to support the anti-government side because it would be virtually impossible to prevent that support from reaching those terrorists aswell.

tricky D

The truth went out the window very early on in the Arab Spring. So has decent analysis as a result. While there is no doubt that many atrocities have been carried out, the black and white notion that it's all Gaddafi's or Assad's fault and at their hand, is simply untrue. It's a lot more complicated than the version we are being sold in the media. As you allude to, there is a significant body of evidence of less than true allegations. (There was the one of Assad's forces killing babies in incubators which was quickly dropped due to it having so many holes in what was a very similar copy of the false baby killing allegations made when Iraq invaded Kuwait)

In the cases of both Libya and Syria you have many factions which were held down by secular dictators who are now out for blood. These are many and various factions including Al Qaeda and other Islamist extremists. There's also been a lot of instability created as a result with a revolution in Tunisia (which isn't such a bad thing) and a break up of Mali as a direct result of what happened in Libya (a bad thing). Stratfor predicted this one quite well.

It seems to me that it will get a lot worse before and if it gets better. What exactly the western interests are doing in promoting more instability is a bit puzzling after all they had just got Gaddafi 'onside', then pull the rug out leaving a lot of unpredictability and volatility in the void.

The one sure thing is that it's going to be a very dirty affair.

Jonny7

Dictatorship 101 - step down... or massacre your own people long enough so that those you claim caused it come into existence

Einhard

cyberhog wrote: »

I think it would be unconscionable if the West continued to support the anti-government side because it would be virtually impossible to prevent that support from reaching those terrorists aswell.

I think so too. But given as that is not the case, and that the only people claiming that it is the case is Assad and his regime, why even raise the issue?

Jaafa

The whole situation under which the massacre took place makes zero sense. Initially we were told that the people were killed under heavy shelling. A report released today by the UN monitors showed most the people were killed by what they described as executions. So now the rebels are claiming the army had come in and personally executed almost 100 people. Not unheard of as massacres go.

But note what I said above, UN monitors were let into the area to inspect the bodies.

Why in the name of all that makes sense would the army commit this massacre only to let in UN monitors into the area hours later to confirm it? Especially seeing as they had no problem doing so in early cases such as in Homs, amidst cries of massacres (which turned out to be false btw), the army prevented anyone from entering the area for days on the basis it was still unsafe to do so.

I've heard only one possible answer to this, and that is that the government wanted to send a message to the rebels, to scare them into submission. So lets analyse that idea.

The regime thought it would be a good idea to massacre a close to 100 people, with the hope that it would scare the battle hardened opposition, who have already witnessed thousands of deaths in the country, and all the while willing to accept the international backlash that has indeed now occurred, and also risk the only thing that can topple the regime; international military intervention. (which the SNC has called for today in a press conference)

Does that really make sense to anyone here?

And lets not forget this all took place just before Annan was due for talks with the government, perfect welcoming gift for him too.

I don't support the regime, the clock has struck for them, and it's time for Syria to transition to democracy, but there is no proof at all so far the regime carried this massacre out.

Nodin

The other notion is that as the village is Sunni in a Shia area, local elements took it upon themselves to attack them, either working towards the regime, or using that as cover for their own motives. 68 of the dead are apparently from the one extended family.

tricky D

There's indeed some truth in that Nodin. The rebels aren't one single force but many factions with many agendas and scores to settle.

gurramok

Jaafa wrote: »

Does that really make sense to anyone here?

Looks as if the killings were outsourced to the pro-government Shabiha militia rather than the actual army. Nice way of absolving responsibility by Assad.

cyberhog

A former MI6 officer believes the methods used in the slaughter in Houla implicate "Al-Qaeda like groups"

“This type of killing, beheadings, slitting of throats (of children too), and of this mutilation of bodies, has been a characteristic not of Levantine Islam, not of Syria, not of Lebanon, but what happened in the Anbar province of Iraq. And so it seems to point very much in the direction of groups that have been associated with the war in Iraq against the United States who have perhaps returned to Syria, or perhaps Iraqis who have come up from Anbar to take part in it,” he says.

“I think the attack is more close to Musab al-Zarqawi [who declared an all out war on Shia in Iraq], than Al-Qaeda as we know it, in the sense that Zarqawi and Iraq gave birth to this very strong, bigoted, anti-Shia, anti-Iranian rhetoric. Much of that came into Syria when fighters from Anbar returned to their homes around Homs and Hama.

“So yes, we’re talking about Al-Qaeda like groups that are at the very end of the spectrum of the opposition. They may be a minority in terms of the numbers of the overall opposition, but they are defining the war,”

http://www.rt.com/news/houla-massacre-executed-militia-480/

JustinDee

Russian government owned and run media outlet bends over backwards to absolve the Syrian regime that the Russian government still continues to prop up.
Wow. So surprising . . .

Jaafa

gurramok wrote: »

Looks as if the killings were outsourced to the pro-government Shabiha militia rather than the actual army. Nice way of absolving responsibility by Assad.

According to who?

And even if that was the case my point still stands. Your saying the killing was outsourced to these militias who have a known connection to the regime, why would the regime order them to kill these people, then invite UN monitors in to inspect the damage? Knowing such claims would be made against them?

cyberhog

Jaafa wrote: »

According to who?

I believe that accusation came from the U.N. peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous.

He said that the army and "shabbiha" militia supporting Assad were "probably" responsible for massacring 108 people with artillery, tanks, small arms and knives.

Despite his "strong suspicions", he said the evidence was less clear about the shabbiha militia's involvement in the close-range killings with knives and small arms. By saying that, he did not definitively clear the rebels of blame.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/30/us-syria-un-idUSBRE84S1AT20120530

So, while it is possible shabbiha are involved ,at this point, it is nothing more than conjecture.

Suff

Again, this is not a matter of black or white.

I am Syrian, and I do support a regime change in Syria, it is long over due but it has to be done correctly and not by armed interventions. You cannot clean blood with blood.

There are different groups running havoc in Syria, committing all sorts of atrocities in order to flare up the already blazed emotions of Syrians. Yes, we have issues with the Ba'ath regime and have suffered 40 years of it. But we don't want to see the country fall into a state of civil war due to schemes plotted by foreign players, which are using this notion to achieve their goals in the region.

Remember back in 2006, when the world watched Israel destroy Gaza and southern Lebanon, did we see Israeli officials and diplomats being given 72 hours to exit Western countries?? ...we know why, but when it comes to Syria, it is a different subject apparently.


As for what happened in Houla; we may never know the truth.

Jonny7

Suff wrote: »

As for what happened in Houla; we may never know the truth.

Most countries would stop asking that question after their leadership repeatedly shelled population centers with live artillery..

Maybe the Russians will sell him some fuel-air bombs a la Grozny because the situation is "complex" and "because terrorists".

BlaasForRafa

Jaafa wrote: »

According to who?

And even if that was the case my point still stands. Your saying the killing was outsourced to these militias who have a known connection to the regime, why would the regime order them to kill these people, then invite UN monitors in to inspect the damage? Knowing such claims would be made against them?

There are a couple of possibilities.

1. The regime may not have ordered the killings, it may have been a purely sectarian act.

2. The regime may have ordered/requested the militia to attack but did not tell the militia exactly what to do.

What the op and others seem to be trying to imply, that some anti-assad faction carried out the massacre in order to implicate the regime is a bit too conspiracy-theory for me, not that I'd completely rule it out but it seems like a pretty unlikely possibility. Until more evidence comes out the most likely possibility is that the militia did it.

Jaafa

Jonny7 wrote: »

Most countries would stop asking that question after their leadership repeatedly shelled population centers with live artillery..

Maybe the Russians will sell him some fuel-air bombs a la Grozny because the situation is "complex" and "because terrorists".

Population centers held by rebel forces.

You'll find the majority of people tend to leave an area once the fighting starts. Just like in Homs, there were cries of indiscriminate civilian killing by shelling, afterwards it emerged most civilians had left the neighborhoods by the time the heavy fighting started and the majority of those left were armed rebels.

@BlassforRaffa

I'd tend to lean towards the first option there, I would say gangs from both sides are taking this opportunity to sort out some long standing feuds. The fact that most of the killed came from the one extended family as Nodin pointed out would back this up. It strikes me as very similar to the types of killings we see in Mexico and the gang-warfare there.

Nodin

There was some reportage from the village today on CH4, and the locals are saying it was men from specific nearby villages, not the army.

Eggy Baby!

Maybe the Russians will sell him some fuel-air bombs a la Grozny because the situation is "complex" and "because terrorists".

Or perhaps the Americans will send him a National Chaos Kit, a la Iraq.

Also, why take a dig at the Russians? Chechnya was ages ago, and was totally different. Plus Yeltsin was in charge of Russia. Need I stipulate how stupid that man was?

cyberhog

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

What the op and others seem to be trying to imply, that some anti-assad faction carried out the massacre in order to implicate the regime is a bit too conspiracy-theory for me, not that I'd completely rule it out but it seems like a pretty unlikely possibility.

You've slightly misconstrued the argument. Terrorists thrive on instability and they would like nothing more than to draw the West into the conflict, and cutting the throats of children is a good way to get the West riled up.

Then we have the SNC who have a history of trying to implicate the regime in terrorist massacres. Only a few weeks ago the Al-Nusra Front killed 55 and wounded hundreds in Damacsus however the SNC immediately accused Assad of orchestrating the attacks. It wasn't until some days after the bombings that the real culprits claimed responsiblity.


This is what the SNC said at the time.

"In orchestrating such acts, the regime seeks to prove its claims of the existence of 'armed terrorist gangs' in the country that are hindering its so-called 'efforts of political reform.'"

...

The SNC said that the regime staged these explosions "to spur chaos, disrupt the work of the international observers, and divert attention away from other crimes being committed by its forces elsewhere."

http://www.syriancouncil.org/en/news/item/669-damascus-explosions-implicate-regime.html

I think it's clear from that statement who the conspiracy nuts are. They even criticised Assad for being quick to blame terrorists.

As has been the case with other previous explosions that took place in Syria, the regime was quick to blame al-Qaeda for the attacks without providing evidence to back up its claim.

And the SNC was not quick to blame Assad for the terrorists attacks in Damacsus? and now the Houla massacre?

The truth is, whenever terrorists strike the SNC always try to implicate Assad because they naively think it will bolster their demands for foreign military intervention. They might fool some gullible Westerners with that poppycock but if they think Russia is going to change its stance on the UNSC then they are even dumber than I already know them to be.

JustinDee

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Also, why take a dig at the Russians?

Because they, China and Iran prop up and use the Syrian govt by proxy.
The state of the Middle East and environs is not all down to big bad western devils and 'da jews' you know. It was and for the most part still is, a cold war theatre.

Suff

Few rumours are circulating in Damascus at the moment...well, again, depends on who you talk to; some people are saying "business as usual" while others are saying "a backroom deal is coming up, bloodless (relatively) resolution in 8 - 30 days"... can we hope?

Also, a general strike over the next three days in Damascus like the one earlier this week, which I think is the only way we can hurt the regime, and some people are saying we're coming to the fiery finale... what and how it will be presented no one knows until it happen.

I'm a little worried about the tone of the current general strike, every time they close the street for the marches, "organizers" go around telling people:
"ya bitsekir, ya minkasir!!" = "Either you close or we'll break!!"

And, I heard that the malls were specifically told that the protesters would burn them down and shoot at the workers inside if they didn't close; this is from the "peaceful" side? Again, I know that most of those marching are sincere but the people making the marches possible aren't as sanctified as people make them out to be. I have lived and witnessed the events for 10 months.

As in terms of the political sense, part of me cares who gets into power, but part of me realise that I never had much of a choice in the matter, what's going to change now? I want to see a change, but as always, considering who's putting themselves forward, I'm not overly excited about it, either.

One of my friends was murdered 2 days ago in Homs...
I grieve for his death, and admire his bravery but at the same time, I don't believe that death would help the situation, I much prefer to be actively building the country rather than being used as a symbol to flare the emotions of others. Particularly, because of the ones who's doing the flaring. I realize this has been the case since time immemorial, but the way some people latch onto the deaths of others to fuel their agenda is very disturbing... and I'm talking individuals, not the cause itself.

They seem to promote themselves, really "I'm so sad these people died, I wrote a book about it" or "My series of concerts are dedicated to those who gave their lives to make sure [I continue to have a career]" you get the point.

There's a number of sincere people among those but you can always tell who's just excited because it's their turn to shine.

We have lost tens of thousands of qualified people during the previous 14 months from doctors, engineers and other highly skilled young people to either; Deaths, gone missing or simply migrated into the West or the Gulf states to look for work.

A great effort will be required to rebuild Syria... and our wealth of minds is dwindling.

Nodin

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Or perhaps the Americans will send him a National Chaos Kit, a la Iraq.

Also, why take a dig at the Russians? Chechnya was ages ago, and was totally different. Plus Yeltsin was in charge of Russia. Need I stipulate how stupid that man was?

They went in a second time under Putin in 1999 and are still there now.

laoch na mona

on the bases that he wouldn't give in to basic reforms I doubt he is telling the truth

Jonny7

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Or perhaps the Americans will send him a National Chaos Kit, a la Iraq.

Also, why take a dig at the Russians? Chechnya was ages ago, and was totally different. Plus Yeltsin was in charge of Russia. Need I stipulate how stupid that man was?

Well the Russians are supplying Assad with arms this whole time.

Eggy Baby!

Well the Russians are supplying Assad with arms this whole time.

Has nothing to do with Chechnya. They are supporting Assad with arms because Russian companies have loyal contracts with the Assad government. They have been trading with them for decades. Therefore they would have contacts and storage warehouses over there which they retained after the Soviet Union collapsed. Russia can only sell weapons to countries outside of the West as the western countries primarily buy off the USA or EU countries. If it stopped selling weapons, that would be more or less a weapons embargo. This would be in line with Moscow's neutral stance on the subject.

It doesn't mean that the ebul Russians are going to sell Assad thermobaric weapons to use on Homs a la Grozny.

They went in a second time under Putin in 1999 and are still there now.

The war in Chechnya is over and only a skeleton garrison remains in the Caucasus. The Chechen wars were sparked primarily by both the breakup of the Soviet Union and the belligerence of the Yeltsin regime in trying to pick up the pieces. Putin simply inherited the mess and had to deal with it. (He inherited a lot of crap left over from Yeltsin)

Because they, China and Iran prop up and use the Syrian govt by proxy.

First of all, Iran doesn't prop up Syria. Syria is a predominantly Sunni secular Ba'athist nation. Iran is a Shia theocracy. Russia doesn't prop up Syria. It simply sells weapons to them, as it had for decades, so why should it stop? Is America propping up the UK by selling Javelin missiles to them? China does nothing aside from represent Assad loosely on the UNSC.

Plus, just because these countries are vetoing the (very vaguely worded) potential resolutions doesn't mean that they support Assad, but rather that they reject western meddling in the Syrian conflict.

The state of the Middle East and environs is not all down to big bad western devils and 'da jews' you know. It was and for the most part still is, a cold war theatre.

So you say that "western devils" have nothing to do with the state of the Middle East, but then you turn around and say it was and is a cold war theatre? That's self-contradictory, considering "western devils" were "combatants" in the cold war. And I didn't say it was "da jews".

What the hell does this have to do with what I said? The cold war is over too, although clearly not for you, taking into account your digs at the Russians for things an unelected moron did with their armed forces almost 20 years ago.

I think this is a potential turning point in the paradigm of world politics. I think Russia and China will emerge from this more powerful and more confident.

Few rumours are circulating in Damascus at the moment...well, again, depends on who you talk to; some people are saying "business as usual" while others are saying "a backroom deal is coming up, bloodless (relatively) resolution in 8 - 30 days"... can we hope?

Hi Suff. Who do you believe is primarily to blame for all of this chaos?

Suff

[QUOTE/]
Hi Suff. Who do you believe is primarily to blame for all of this chaos?[/QUOTE]

Well, to be honest, I believe there are four sides:

1 - The regime is desperately trying to maintain control of the country, they're using what they know best, brute force. Also to state, that I believe that Assad is only used as a frontman, he's not in charge nor has power over the Ba'ath regime.


2 - The Syrian opposition is a group of 'known' exiles who have, or had benefited from the regime at some stage in the past. They are known, and have no support within Syria.They turned against the regime in an attempt to attract attention that might result in favourable political outcome. This group has full backing from the US and the Arab Gulf States.

Some of its members have full support of the gulf states (so called friends of Syria), who have provide them with funds, weapons and sat channels to insight hate towards other sects within Syria; the likes of Adnan Ar'Our; who have declare that shi'ats, Alwayats and other minorities must be slaughtered. This is total outrage! but sadly there are people who do listen to such statements.

Watch and judge for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3lhyT3602Y

3 - Foreign players/ Terrorists groups who had entered the country to declare jihad against the regime. The have funding from the US and Arab Gulf States.

"Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, said that humanitarian aid to Syria was "not enough" and that arming the Syrian rebels was an "excellent idea." Soon afterward, an unnamed official commented in the state-controlled Saudi press that Riyadh sought to provide the Syrian opposition with the "means to achieve stability and peace and to allow it the right to choose its own representatives." Meanwhile, Saudi clerics are now openly calling for jihad in Syria and scorning those who wait for Western intervention. One prominent unsanctioned cleric, Aidh al-Qarni, openly calls for Assad's death."

Link:


4 - Syrian People. The ones caught, killed, manipulated by the Three above.



At this point for many Syrians, myself included; its quite clear that Assad himself is not the problem. Even if he does step down, the chaos will remain, and the fighting will continue among the three to claim Syria.


Sigh...

Eggy Baby!

The Syrian opposition is a group of 'known' exiles who have, or had benefited from the regime at some stage in the past. They are known, and have no support within Syria.They turned against the regime in an attempt to attract attention that might result in favourable political outcome. This group has full backing from the US and the Arab Gulf States.

Funnily enough, that's a lot like the Russian opposition (Gary Kasparov and Berezovsky)

Min

http://rt.com/politics/us-russia-iran-syria-missile-defense-opposition-688/

RT the Russian news channel beleive lies are being told in that the west wants Syria removed from the equation because the bigger picture is Iran.
Syria is seen as a country that would cause trouble if and more likely when Iran is attacked.

The same TV channel also showed an auction taking part in Saudi Arabia, a father was auctioning off his son. His son was going to Syria to blow himself up and to kill people alligned with Assad.

The truth is it is hard to believe anything one hears, it suits the west to blame Assad for everything, when this is not the full story.

It is similar to Iraq and the WMD.

loldog

Russia Today has got zero credibility. Their brief is to drag out every crank and crackpot they can find, call them a "journalist" or a "researcher" and let them spew demented conspiracies.

Putin is very keen to destabilize and weaken western countries, and promoting disinformation and baseless conspiracies is one good method.

Here's an example, this lady is presented as "a physicist". Check this out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UAeSsvHhTg

Eggy Baby!

loldog wrote: »

Russia Today has got zero credibility. Their brief is to drag out every crank and crackpot they can find, call them a "journalist" or a "researcher" and let them spew demented conspiracies.

....Here's an example, this lady is presented as "a physicist". Check this out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UAeSsvHhTg

In all honesty, the reporter didn't seem to be taking that person too seriously.

Nothing wrong with a bit of harmless conspiracies. And the thing was hardly political. Its a bit like how the Late Late Show sometimes bring on a woman who claims to see "angels" looking over everybody's shoulder. Does that mean they are a front for religious fanaticism?

Putin is very keen to destabilize and weaken western countries, and promoting disinformation and baseless conspiracies is one good method.

Well considering the west is fighting a war of information with him, it makes a lot of sense to resist..

I dunno how Putin (through his clearly evil RT network of spies, KGB agents and MVD Colonel/Oligarchs) is trying to destabilise the West by airing harmless nuts who say they come from aliens who shoot down US missiles for no reason whatsoever. That sly fox! The devil is in that man!

And who are you to say she isn't telling the truth....! 0.0

If you were trying to reveal RTs "systemic bias" and "zero credibility" or whatever,
1/10 my friend.

plasmaguy

if Assad has nothing to hide, then why not let in Investigators from any country in the world, even a neutral county.

Let in UN human rights experts.

Let in the media.

Let anyone in who wants to investigate.

Have a court case where those accused can defend themselves.

Of course he will let in none of these people and won't have a court case, because Assad is 100% guilty of this crime, everyone knows this, even the Russians, Chinese and Kofi Annan.

It's blatently obvious Assad forces committed this massacre and all the the other massacres.

plasmaguy

Min wrote: »

http://rt.com/politics/us-russia-iran-syria-missile-defense-opposition-688/

RT the Russian news channel beleive lies are being told in that the west wants Syria removed from the equation because the bigger picture is Iran.
Syria is seen as a country that would cause trouble if and more likely when Iran is attacked.

The same TV channel also showed an auction taking part in Saudi Arabia, a father was auctioning off his son. His son was going to Syria to blow himself up and to kill people alligned with Assad.

The truth is it is hard to believe anything one hears, it suits the west to blame Assad for everything, when this is not the full story.

It is similar to Iraq and the WMD.

When you quote RT in support of your argument, you lose credibility immediately. No-one takes RT seriously, not even RT takes themselves seriously. It's a propaganda outlet, its job is to peddle lies.

Eggy Baby!

No-one takes RT seriously

i.e You.

if Assad has nothing to hide, then why not let in Investigators from any country in the world, even a neutral county.

Actually observers from the Arab League were let in.

Let in the media.

I've seen Russia Today in Damascus.

Have a court case where those accused can defend themselves.

Unfortunately law and order is thrown out the window in a rebellion. Some crimes are just lost forever, or found long after the perpetrators are dead and gone.

Also note that Syria is a particularly oppressive and undemocratic dictatorship. If any trials were to be held then they would most likely be staged.

It's blatently obvious Assad forces committed this massacre and all the the other massacres.

Its blatantly obvious to you despite there being no media "let in" as you said earlier. How are you so sure if there's been according to you no media present at anything that happened?

because Assad is 100% guilty of this crime, everyone knows this, even the Russians, Chinese and Kofi Annan.

Actually the Russians are pursuing a very neutral viewpoint. They are no even pro-Assad. Technically they are just wary of what the west will do with resolutions, as seen in Libya, when the resolution by the UN was wholeheartedly abused by NATO beyond its mandate.

Added to this, Russia simply has the legal right to veto any resolution because its on the Security Council. But I'm guessing the evil Russians are up to their dirty tricks again, and stunting Freedom and Democracy from being spread all over Syria?

Oh yeah, name me a credible news source then plasmaguy (what you would regard as a credible news source).

gurramok

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Actually observers from the Arab League were let in.

Under severe pressure. Feck all journo's are allowed to report what really is going on, the ones that do are snook into the country.

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Actually the Russians are pursuing a very neutral viewpoint. They are no even pro-Assad. Technically they are just wary of what the west will do with resolutions, as seen in Libya, when the resolution by the UN was wholeheartedly abused by NATO beyond its mandate.

Laughable. Russia has a military base in Syria and Syria buys arms from them, thats why they veto the UN resolutions.

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Added to this, Russia simply has the legal right to veto any resolution because its on the Security Council. But I'm guessing the evil Russians are up to their dirty tricks again, and stunting Freedom and Democracy from being spread all over Syria?

The Security Council should be reformed, veto's are based on who won WWII. Its dated and does not reflect the modern makeup of the world.

plasmaguy

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

i.e You.



Actually observers from the Arab League were let in.



I've seen Russia Today in Damascus.



Unfortunately law and order is thrown out the window in a rebellion. Some crimes are just lost forever, or found long after the perpetrators are dead and gone.

Also note that Syria is a particularly oppressive and undemocratic dictatorship. If any trials were to be held then they would most likely be staged.



Its blatantly obvious to you despite there being no media "let in" as you said earlier. How are you so sure if there's been according to you no media present at anything that happened?



Actually the Russians are pursuing a very neutral viewpoint. They are no even pro-Assad. Technically they are just wary of what the west will do with resolutions, as seen in Libya, when the resolution by the UN was wholeheartedly abused by NATO beyond its mandate.

Added to this, Russia simply has the legal right to veto any resolution because its on the Security Council. But I'm guessing the evil Russians are up to their dirty tricks again, and stunting Freedom and Democracy from being spread all over Syria?

Oh yeah, name me a credible news source then plasmaguy (what you would regard as a credible news source).

Where is the evidence so the FSA killed all these people in Houla?

It's blatently clear it was pro Assad forces, no-one seriously doubts this. This is not my opinion by the way, so please save yourself the personal attacks on me. This is the world opinion save for pro Assad allies in Russia and Russia Today.

Russia Today is pro Assad, they don't count as independent media, so you will have to come up with a better source than pro Assad media such as SANA and RT.

Eggy Baby!

Laughable. Russia has a military base in Syria and Syria buys arms from them, thats why they veto the UN resolutions.

Russia has been selling arms to Syria for decades. Syria is more of an acquaintance to Russia than a friend. They do not sign alliances or non-aggression pacts and Syria is not a member of the SCO. To be honest, Russia will sell arms to anybody that is willing to buy them. Yes it has a military base in Syria, but it also has a military base in Ukraine and that does not make them friends.

From Wikipedia: Tartus (in Syria) hosts a Soviet-era naval supply and maintenance base, under a 1971 agreement with Syria, which is still staffed by Russian naval personnel. The base was established during the Cold War to support the Soviet Navy fleet in the Mediterranean Sea.

Notice "Soviet-era". It is an old naval base from Soviet times which the Russian decided to retain.

Syria is as much an ally of Russia as Israel is to the USA (and Israel isn't that big of an ally of the USA).

Feck all journo's are allowed to report what really is going on, the ones that do are snook into the country.

Hence why we should approach this thing with caution, due to the lack of certainty about, well, everything.

Where is the evidence so the FSA killed all these people in Houla?

The funny thing is that the massacre only just happened. There is no evidence or formal investigation as to the perpetrators. There is no evidence, on the other hand, that Assad was responsible (the only people who have said so are the Americans and other western governments, and the opposition-all of which have vested interests in seeing Assad go!).

It's blatently clear it was pro Assad forces, no-one seriously doubts this. This is not my opinion by the way, so please save yourself the personal attacks on me. This is the world opinion save for pro Assad allies in Russia and Russia Today.

The west says it so it must be true! Remember these are the people who lied about the WMDs in Iraq and are trying to dupe us all into another confrontation with Iran.

Let me explain this a little bit simpler:

There is a broad spectrum of opinions on Syria. On one end is the "Military intervention! Sanctions! Assad is responsible for every bullet fired and every child killed!" crowd, represented by the USA, the UK, Israel and various western media outlets. On the other end is the "We must prevent imperialist intervention in Syria! All deaths are caused by armed terrorist gangs and Al-Qaeda!" crowd, represented by SANA, Assad himself and his Ba'athist supporters. Both of these opinions are extremely wrong. Both are trying to outdo the other with propaganda and disinformation, as both have a vested interest in this conflict- Assad wants to stay in power and the Americans (and all their followers) want him out.

I would regard myself in the middle- as I believe neither Assad nor "armed terrorist groups" are individually solely to blame for this carnage. Blame should fall on both sides. The sad thing is, is that if Assad falls, and a new government is formed, then the likely crimes of the rebels and armed militias will likely be whitewashed and their actions painted as glorious.

(P.S I wasn't making personal attacks at you, so don't try and vindicate my argument by saying that I was)

The Security Council should be reformed, veto's are based on who won WWII. Its dated and does not reflect the modern makeup of the world.

The security council should be disbanded, more like it. Why should any country be able to exercise veto over another? No matter how strong. But for the time being, Russia is allowed to exercise its veto legally. Unfortunately we have to get used to it.

Russia Today is pro Assad, they don't count as independent media

Because they even slightly disagree with you, they are pro-Assad? Please.

They're not even close to the pro-Assad camp.

Have a look at the book Manufacturing Consent for a look at how western independent media operates. Greater people than I have written about this.

Under severe pressure.

But they were let in nonetheless.

JustinDee

Quoting a Russia govt-owned megaphone and wikipedia is almost as naive and laughable as stating that "Russia is more of an acquaintance than an ally".

Nodin

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

............


Actually the Russians are pursuing a very neutral viewpoint. They are no even pro-Assad. Technically they are just wary of what the west will do with resolutions, as seen in Libya, when the resolution by the UN was wholeheartedly abused by NATO beyond its mandate.

Added to this, Russia simply has the legal right to veto any resolution because its on the Security Council. But I'm guessing the evil Russians are up to their dirty tricks again, and stunting Freedom and Democracy from being spread all over Syria?

Oh yeah, name me a credible news source then plasmaguy (what you would regard as a credible news source).

The Russians are protecting an ally. They're doing it in the same fashion as the US etc and in almost a mocking way betimes.

Eggy Baby!

Quoting a Russia govt-owned megaphone and wikipedia is almost as naive and laughable as stating that "Russia is more of an acquaintance than an ally".

Genetic fallacy. So a small paragraph from Wikipedia about Tartus has been highjacked by Assad and Putin? Whatever.

And yeah, they were an ally during Soviet times, but that has diminished somewhat.

An "alliance" denotes something mutual. If anything, the Russians are looking to use Syria. Nothing mutual about that.

superluck

plasmaguy wrote: »

When you quote RT in support of your argument, you lose credibility immediately. No-one takes RT seriously, not even RT takes themselves seriously. It's a propaganda outlet, its job is to peddle lies.

All news outlets peddle lies and push their own agenda.

The only news outlets that don't peddle lies are independently funded by their viewers.

I said in another thread that if the US/EU are so concerned about humanity suffering, why don't they try feeding the 25,000 people that starve to death every day?

Why not try resolve problems in your own country instead of creating them in places like Syria through funding thugs to murder women and children and place the blame on Assad forces?

UK/US/Israel have an agenda of their own and don't care about Syrian people.

Eggy Baby!

All news outlets peddle lies and push their own agenda.

Agreed. All news stations have a slant.

plasmaguy

When a government refuses to allow in international journalists to interview people on the ground then they are hiding something.

I would consider someone like Robert Fisk for example to be a fairly neutral, independent journalist as he has no problem attacking the West as anyone else. There are quite a few others of similar stance in every country. Also Seymour Hersh is also as lightly to criticise the west and would be neutral enough. Even someone like Michael Moore should be allowed in. These would be the kind of independent people who should be let in and there are thousands more journalists like them who have no bias towards one side or the other but who would investigate the issues and who are not simple headed propagandists like SANA and RT.

Of course Assad won't allow in such indepndent journalists, which means he has something to hide. Assad is a thug and a mass murderer, he has committed hundreds of massacres just like Houla now, but for some Houla is the last straw, and rightly so. He's a thug who keeps tested the will and patience of the international community and its almost a game for him now, as it always is with these tin pot dictators. It almost seems like they want to see how far they can push it and he will keep murdering innocent civilians to show he can do what he likes. The guy is a maniac, far worse than Gadaffi, and worse even than Milosevic.

There will be many more massacres, the day after Houla almost 100 people died across the country in more shelling and massacres and it almost went unnoticed.

JustinDee

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Genetic fallacy. So a small paragraph from Wikipedia about Tartus has been highjacked by Assad and Putin? Whatever.

And yeah, they were an ally during Soviet times, but that has diminished somewhat.

An "alliance" denotes something mutual. If anything, the Russians are looking to use Syria. Nothing mutual about that.

Are you being deliberately obtuse and contrary? The above is far too misguided to be taken as fair comment. The middle east has been and continues to be the central theatre of operations between two alliances for decades now. There is absolutely NO change in who benefits who by proxy in the region.
Enough with the naive anti-west pamphletic diatribe and accompanying wiki-wagging.

Jonny7

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Because they even slightly disagree with you, they are pro-Assad? Please.

They're not even close to the pro-Assad camp.

Have a look at the book Manufacturing Consent for a look at how western independent media operates. Greater people than I have written about this.

You bring up "Manufacturing Consent", yet you use state-run TV as a source... that makes no sense.

Min

plasmaguy wrote: »

When a government refuses to allow in international journalists to interview people on the ground then they are hiding something.

I would consider someone like Robert Fisk for example to be a fairly neutral, independent journalist as he has no problem attacking the West as anyone else. There are quite a few others of similar stance in every country. Also Seymour Hersh is also as lightly to criticise the west and would be neutral enough. Even someone like Michael Moore should be allowed in. These would be the kind of independent people who should be let in and there are thousands more journalists like them who have no bias towards one side or the other but who would investigate the issues and who are not simple headed propagandists like SANA and RT.

Of course Assad won't allow in such indepndent journalists, which means he has something to hide. Assad is a thug and a mass murderer, he has committed hundreds of massacres just like Houla now, but for some Houla is the last straw, and rightly so. He's a thug who keeps tested the will and patience of the international community and its almost a game for him now, as it always is with these tin pot dictators. It almost seems like they want to see how far they can push it and he will keep murdering innocent civilians to show he can do what he likes. The guy is a maniac, far worse than Gadaffi, and worse even than Milosevic.

There will be many more massacres, the day after Houla almost 100 people died across the country in more shelling and massacres and it almost went unnoticed.

How do we know Assad is responsible for Houla?

This is possibly another WMD type story, unknown facts reported as truth.

The western report where they blame the government, you don't see the western media reporting on the rebels who are able to kill as well as anyone, thanks to the weapons supplied by other nations to make sure Syria is a bloodbath.

Countries like Saudi Arabia support a war within the borders of Syria, they do this by sending in weapons and suicide bombers, but that is ok by the western media, better to have terrorism and suicide bombers in Syria than to have those Saudi suicide bombers that we had on 9/11.

Eggy Baby!

You bring up "Manufacturing Consent", yet you use state-run TV as a source... that makes no sense.

Um no I didn't bring up RT as a source. If you go back through the thread it was actually Min.

What I'm saying is is that indie media usually has some sort of reliance on government sources. Therefore they tend to reiterate the government's view. Plus they often bring on so-called "experts" who are very often from the government. Its a long book and I'm not going to repeat everything that was in it.

And have you ever watched Russia Today? Its hardly Pravda-style lie-peddling. I'll admit though that it does choose its stories very carefully. It agrees with me too much, as I said in another thread, and that makes me suspicious.

Even someone like Michael Moore should be allowed in.

I am a liberal but that guy is a moron.

Enough with the naive anti-west pamphletic diatribe and accompanying wiki-wagging.

What a load of pretentious crap. Clearly you are staunchly pro-west. Its impossible to argue with someone who believes that the Americans et al are here to bring the Syrian people freedom and liberty and gummy bears. Not because they actually present valid points, but because they constantly ad hominem you or your sources. Or accuse you of "wiki-wagging" when you quote one paragraph from an article on Tartus for reference.

(P.S I typed in "pamphletic diatribe" into google to see what the hell it meant, and the first result that came back was your post in this very thread. So clearly you are the first to use that precocious phrase on the internet. Good job!)

The guy is a maniac, far worse than Gadaffi, and worse even than Milosevic.

Funnily enough, there are a lot of parallels between Assad and Milosevic. Although Milosevic was responsible for awful massacres and atrocities, he wasn't entirely to blame for the chaos in the Balkans. A lot of casualties were caused by Muslims and Croats and other ethnic militias too. But it was convenient for western nations to present Milosevic as the sole culprit, as their sole scapegoat. Also note the "success" of the bombing of Serbia.

Jonny7

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Um no I didn't bring up RT as a source. If you go back through the thread it was actually Min.

Sorry my bad.

What I'm saying is is that indie media usually has some sort of reliance on government sources. Therefore they tend to reiterate the government's view. Plus they often bring on so-called "experts" who are very often from the government. Its a long book and I'm not going to repeat everything that was in it.

I've read Chomsky. Manufacturing Consent (which I lapped up at the time) is very hypothetical and full of gaping flaws and inconsistencies.

And have you ever watched Russia Today? Its hardly Pravda-style lie-peddling. I'll admit though that it does choose its stories very carefully. It agrees with me too much, as I said in another thread, and that makes me suspicious.

RT won't run any report that is critical of the Kremlin, if they did its high likely they wouldn't be on air.

What a load of pretentious crap. Clearly you are staunchly pro-west.

This is directed at someone else, but many if not most threads concerning different international situations/events get hijacked and turned into generic blame-fests aimed at specific countries.

Personally I blame .. *spins wheel*.. CLACK CLACK CLACK.. Greenland. Have they spoken out against what is happening in Syria? no. Therefore they are tacitly supporting the regime, yadda, yadda

Elmer Blooker

The Syrian conflict is probably too complex for us westerners to understand, it appears to be as sectarian as the fighting between Sunnis and Alawites in Tripoli, Lebanon the other day showed. If Assad is removed what then? Another Iraq? It's actually very similar to Iraq - another western "solution" after the break up of the Ottoman Empire in 1918.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alawite_State

plasmaguy

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Um no I didn't bring up RT as a source. If you go back through the thread it was actually Min.

What I'm saying is is that indie media usually has some sort of reliance on government sources. Therefore they tend to reiterate the government's view. Plus they often bring on so-called "experts" who are very often from the government. Its a long book and I'm not going to repeat everything that was in it.

And have you ever watched Russia Today? Its hardly Pravda-style lie-peddling. I'll admit though that it does choose its stories very carefully. It agrees with me too much, as I said in another thread, and that makes me suspicious.



I am a liberal but that guy is a moron.



What a load of pretentious crap. Clearly you are staunchly pro-west. Its impossible to argue with someone who believes that the Americans et al are here to bring the Syrian people freedom and liberty and gummy bears. Not because they actually present valid points, but because they constantly ad hominem you or your sources. Or accuse you of "wiki-wagging" when you quote one paragraph from an article on Tartus for reference.

(P.S I typed in "pamphletic diatribe" into google to see what the hell it meant, and the first result that came back was your post in this very thread. So clearly you are the first to use that precocious phrase on the internet. Good job!)



Funnily enough, there are a lot of parallels between Assad and Milosevic. Although Milosevic was responsible for awful massacres and atrocities, he wasn't entirely to blame for the chaos in the Balkans. A lot of casualties were caused by Muslims and Croats and other ethnic militias too. But it was convenient for western nations to present Milosevic as the sole culprit, as their sole scapegoat. Also note the "success" of the bombing of Serbia.

You are sounding increasingly like an Assad apologist to me.

I would like to see you condemn Assad unconditionally and without qualification.

The guy is a mass murdering thug, there are no ifs, ands, maybes and buts about it. The buck stops with him. He is giving the orders, he orders the shelling, he orders the torture, the exections, the lot.

This is not a case of a leader out of touch with the apparatus of terror and people doing things without his knowledge. He knows full well what has gone on. In most countries where executions take place, even democracies, its usually a president, head of state or some similar high official who signs death warrants, and I've no doubt Assad has done the same.

He is 100% to blame for everything, there is no getting away from that. He was given a chance under the Annan deal to order his tanks back to barracks, and he refused to issue such an order. No-one else in Syria has the power to issue such an order than Assad.

Let's put the blame where the blame lies, ie Assad.

And I really wish you'd stop saying "funnily enough". There's nothing at all funny about this situation.

You also lose credibility when you accuse people of being pro west. What is happening in Syria has nothing to do with being pro or anti west. Its a mass murdering thug murdering his people.

Eggy Baby!

You are sounding increasingly like an Assad apologist to me.

I would like to see you condemn Assad unconditionally and without qualification.

I was waiting to be condemned as an Assad apologist.

Al-Assad (and his dad was even worse) is the worst secular dictator in the Middle East (The Saud family are worse). Syria is one of the most oppressive regimes in the region. His dad killed more people in a crackdown in Homs than Assad junior has so far in this uprising.
Basically he's like Saddam. A secular, oppressive Ba'athist who blames everything on "terrorists". He puts pictures of himself up everywhere and suppresses dissent with the only thing he is familiar with (force).

BUT take into account everything that is happening in Syria and who it borders. It borders Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and Israel. We have seen sectarian chaos spreading into Lebanon and Israel. Turkey is being swarmed with refugees. It already has problems with Kurds in the east. Not to mention how shitty Iraq is now. If Syria fails, it will be like an appendix exploding in this region. I'm not trying to justify Assad and his actions. Simply put, the Syrian people would most likely prefer Assad's regime to anarchy, chaos, and sectarian exterminations. The Russians want Assad to stay but to enact broad reforms. IMO, that would be the best course of action.

RT won't run any report that is critical of the Kremlin, if they did its high likely they wouldn't be on air.

Like I said- they choose their stories carefully. They present Putin et al in a favourable light, but don't worship them. You are right that they generally ignore reports that are critical of the Kremlin.

And I really wish you'd stop saying "funnily enough". There's nothing at all funny about this situation.

I was being sarcastic.

You also lose credibility when you accuse people of being pro west. What is happening in Syria has nothing to do with being pro or anti west. Its a mass murdering thug murdering his people.

Well clearly you won't accept that Assad is not 100% to blame. You also lose credibility when you call me an Assad apologist. I was replying to JustinDee, who accused me of some "anti-west pamphlogltic diarrhoea" or something fancy. I wasn't accusing JustinDee of being pro-west, I was simply stating it, based on empirical evidence such as him posting ardently in favour of western governments in other threads. I realise this is not a pro-west, anti-west issue- my reply to Justin was just an aside.

The guy is a mass murdering thug

Agreed. I do not support people who say "it was armed terrorist gangs!" and you are associating me with the wrong crowd. I'm simply asking for a logical approach to this crisis. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

AND I disagree with the title of the thread- "What if Assad is telling the truth?" The guy is a dictator. He doesn't tell the truth.

hatrickpatrick

Here's a thought:
What if the massacre is indeed being committed by Assad's forces, or by militias which support him, but he himself hasn't authorized it or been made aware of it?
Or, what if it was done by rogue army members who aren't even sanctioned by military command?

I still reckon it's probably a state ordered thing, but it's only healthy to question the media instead of blindly accepting everything we're told...

EDIT: In case anyone uses my above musing to accuse me of in any way supporting Assad's regime, I absolutely detest all dictators in any and all areas of life and I still think the guy's scum regardless of his complicity in this particular massacre. Just look at my other posts on these forums if you doubt my belief in democracy.

I still say it's important to question "facts" in the media one way or another.