[MERGED] Syrian rebellion, troop movement & negotiations

nacho libre wrote: »

He's probably referring to this article:
http://wsws.org/articles/2012/jun2012/houl-j16.shtml

Which, if true, indicates the rebels aren't the clean cut heroes some people here like to make them out to be

People seem out to "prove" that the rebels are not clean-cut, case in point - this thread.

The "rebels" are made up of everyone from extremists, to blue collar workers, to defected military - how they act is generally being judged not on its own merit but by what is happening on a grand scale in Syria.

Taken on it's own and isolated, the allied bombing of Dresden was an absolute tragedy, yet within the context of the war it has generally not been seen as such.

Context.

I am pretty damn sure elements within the umbrella of "rebels" in Syria are capable of their own violent reprisals.

OP has a long history of creating similar topics along a similar vein.

Jonny7 wrote: »

People seem out to "prove" that the rebels are not clean-cut, case in point - this thread.

The "rebels" are made up of everyone from extremists, to blue collar workers, to defected military - how they act is generally being judged not on its own merit but by what is happening on a grand scale in Syria.

I am pretty damn sure elements within the umbrella of "rebels" in Syria are capable of their own violent reprisals.

OP has a long history of creating similar topics along a similar vein.

Whether or not the OP's long history conforms to other posters mores is a moot point,I do hope this does not infer that a person possessing an opposing viewpoint is somehow to be denied the opportunity to express it ?

Far from attempting to "prove" anything about either side in this latest conflict,I continue to be wary of any deluge of pro or anti coverage from mainstream media sources of whatever hue.

It is,for me,a matter of attempting to get a "sense" of a different country,culture and people from as diverse a set of observations as possible.

In coverage of the Libyan conflict I tended to be far more taken by the appearance and lack of enthusiasm of many people sitting in the background of TV footage rather than the hordes of youthful AK wielding,All Ua Akhbar screaming rebels who dominated the TV footage each night....

Similarly in Syria,whilst there is readily obvious savagery and butchery being perpetrated on innocents,I'm not rolling in behind the simplistic notion that Al Assad the younger is 100% the problem and his removal/excution is,therefore,100% the answer.

Not a chance IMO.

With the United States taking a somewhat more overtly restrained role in the destabilization of Libya,I am therefore concerned that we now see reports of the "Agency's" involvement in solving stuff for the Syrian "Rebels"....

America,no more than Russia,does not have a great track-record of considered intervention in other countries internal problems,with the likes of the CIA,NSA and various US Military Intelligence agencies getting it wrong far more times than might be considered healthy for the greater good.

There appears to be an somewhat unhealthy focus on abandoning all sense of objectivity in these matters,with a recurring need to see all strong leaderships in a negative and regressive light.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Very strange view..

So you feel dictatorships are misrepresented?

Take for example Saudi and Bahrain,do you think there is some sort of need and lack of objectivity to see the governance of those countries in a negative light? what would define that need?

I strongly suspect I know what the scapegoat will be

Suspicions are good,all evidence of a healthy productive mind and I'd generally be supportive of the process.

Do I feel Dictatorships are misrepresented ?

Yes,some indeed are.

The very use of the term Dictator,with all it's Chaplinesque connotations,serves to mark out the field of play which will then guide any debate on the "Dictator" concerned.

The generally accepted belief appears to be that all things being equal,human beings can exist in peaceful harmony without the need for external rules or societal mores being imposed upon them.

It is indeed a worthwhile theory,as it points to a World inhabited totally by sensible,pensive,considerate peoples who will happily co-exist in perpetuity.

My own view,is that throughout the history of Mankind's development on this wee planet,there have been few examples of large-scale working societal groupings who actually managed this.

Human Nature,in all of it's thoroughly unpredictable,self-serving and counter productive glory tends to triumph in the end as it's members (US !) revert back to behaviour patterns forged in a crucible of basic survival well beyond the range of our conscious memory.

Just to be clear on the Saudi and Bahraini question,as it appears to be an emerging issue,I am quite confident that large chunks of the principles of governance under which their people live are totally at variance with our native ideals.

However,I am quite comfortable that within these countries,and indeed Libya or Syria,there are currently large numbers of people who are content to simply get on with the basics of living within the boundaries of what they consider their way-of-life.

Making absolute value-calls on the rights and wrongs of these other cultures,is of course par for the course these days,but all I'm saying is that I personally won't row in behind each and every such call,be it on an Individual,such as Gadaffi,or a country and it's people,Syria.

AlekSmart wrote: »

Do I feel Dictatorships are misrepresented ?

Yes,some indeed are.

Which ones and in what way?

However,I am quite comfortable that within these countries,and indeed Libya or Syria,there are currently large numbers of people who are content to simply get on with the basics of living within the boundaries of what they consider their way-of-life.

a) how do you know they are happy or content?

b) what can these people do if they are unhappy?

I am certainly not saying every single citizen in these nations is deeply unhappy. I am emphasizing the fact that it cannot be gauged properly or fairly under the fear and threat of pressure, imprisonment, torture and death, no opportunity to protest in any form and most importantly no free vote/choice in whom leads them.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Which ones and in what way?

a) how do you know they are happy or content?

b) what can these people do if they are unhappy?

I am certainly not saying every single citizen in these nations is deeply unhappy. I am emphasizing the fact that it cannot be gauged properly or fairly under the fear and threat of pressure, imprisonment, torture and death, no opportunity to protest in any form and most importantly no free vote/choice in whom leads them.

Im uncertain as to whether Jonny7 requires individualized dissection of every non-liberal minded regime currently existing ?

I sure am not going to do such a forensic trawl,as the global situation is constantly changing,and no matter which ones were chosen I rather suspect there would simply be a recurring call for more specifics.

It's apparent that Jonny7 and myself have differing notions on the level of rule required to merit the title Dictatorship so we'll just have to peacefully co-exist on that basis.

As for the a & b questions,they appear somewhat vapourous in a vaguely "When did you stop beating your wife" kinda way.

I have no absolute way of gauging the happiness or otherwise of an entire Nation or Culture and I suggest that many of the so-called freedon-fighters are in the exact same position.

I am equally happy to call my dissatisfaction with the premise being advanced,here and elsewhere,that mere membership of a disaffected group is sufficient to confer Freedom Fighter status on individuals.

It's interesting to speculate on where Libya would be today had King Idris not been deposed in 1969.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/1/newsid_3911000/3911587.stm

Thousands took to the streets to demonstrate their support for the revolution. At the time, the coup was widely welcomed as an Arab nationalist reaction to the humiliating defeat of the Arab armies in the Six Day War with Israel in 1967 and to what were seen as the pro-Western policies and corruption of the monarchy.

Those thousands of supportive Libyans have today somehow magically morphed into Gadaffi Loyalists,no doubt evil to a man.....unless there's another less obvious explaination..?

Gadaffi's following 40 year's of rule is now commonly portrayed as ghastly,oppressive and evil,at least it must be in order to keep us all onside with the UN/NATO mantra.

Gadaffi's major contribution to his own eventual execution was primarily his lack of military spending,which saw his standing Army,Air-Force and Navy being sadly lacking in modern weaponry and tactical leadership.

Similarly in Syria,the Al-Assad leadership did'nt simply come about by a single man saying "Hello,I'm your new Boss"...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2000/jun/15/guardianweekly.guardianweekly1

President Hafez al-Assad, master of Syria since 1979, was a towering figure of Arab politics, respected and feared in his own country and throughout the Middle East. His death, at 69, marks the end of an era.

His achievements were threefold: he gave Syria years of much-needed stability; he turned his relatively small country into a major regional player whose views could not be ignored; and, with patient consistency, he fought to prevent Israel from imposing its will on the Arab world.

Thats Al-Assad the elder for ye....

The young Al-Assad lad had a good start anyway...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/jul/11/israel2?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

With no candidates opposing him Bashar is guaranteed to win, but to some of the 9.5m voters it was not enough to mark "yes" on the ballot papers: they pricked their fingers to seal their votes with blood.

"I love Bashar, I pledged allegiance to him in my blood," a woman farmworker said, waving her bloodstained thumb outside one of the 25 polling stations set up in Lebanon for Syrian expatriates.

Syrian polling stations in Lebanon....there's one for you !

But hold-on a minute,there's more....

In Britain there were three polling stations - in London, Manchester and Sheffield - for the Syrian community, which includes a large number of students.

All suitably oppressive and demonic carry-on from the Al-Assad wing.....no doubt all those supportive UK based Syrian students had a similar Pauline conversion as the 1969 Libyan "rebels",which saw them become suitably evil,oppressive and demonic too...?

Sorry Jonny7,I'm still not willing to partake of the rather sudden burst of regime-change revolutions so actively proposed by M Sarkozy,Frau Merkel,Mr Cameron and S.Berlusconi (and their advisors)....Ill stick with my belief that left to their own devices,the Libyan and Syrian peoples might just not have been quite as full of revolutionary zeal as our media outlets now continually portray them.

Time,as ever,will tell.

Do you not support the right of people to topple dictatorships?

I suppose most people here do not support the right of the USA/its goons to topple dictatorships. Considering it also exercises its "right" to support them as it pleases! The logic of "To topple one dictatorship we must support many" kept from the Cold War is skewed. Basically American foreign policy is a veiled form of containment almost fixated on the Middle East.

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

I suppose most people here do not support the right of the USA/its goons to topple dictatorships. Considering it also exercises its "right" to support them as it pleases! The logic of "To topple one dictatorship we must support many" kept from the Cold War is skewed. Basically American foreign policy is a veiled form of containment almost fixated on the Middle East.

Your fixation is with the US (hypocrisy), not with what Assad is doing. We get the message.

AlekSmart wrote: »

Yup,simple & straightforward,which appears to be how Jonny7 considers much of the ongoing regime change processes dubbed the Arab Spring.

I am asking you direct questions, you cannot seem to provide answers, there just appears to be a lot of musing and meandering on the subject.

I don't subscribe to the simple,simple,simple theory at all,particularly when it relates to rebellions which far from being widespread and "popular" to begin with,required significant outside asistance before taking flight.

Alex that's a big claim, you have to provide us with proof of what you deem to be "significant outside assistance" in early 2011 for the Syrian uprising.

I'm afraid,the "page of waffle" is all yer going to get from me Jonny7,but it's entirely up to yourself as to whether you consider it worth reading or not.

Regretfully I do read it sometimes.

Whilst I do understand the popular need for things to be condensed into byte-sized morsels in order to facilitate easier quicker understanding,I believe that some stuff just does'nt condense,leaving you with the requirement to take a far broader and less certain approach.

I don't know what this is, filler?

It's all becoming Monty Pythonesque at this stage,but yes,perhaps,a "Great Middle Class,Great Roads and a Large Water Project" don't actually count for much,but there are sufficient beneficiaries of these things to suggest otherwise.

Monty Pythonesque? to be fair that's lending far too much credibility to your theory on the matter.

If Merkel had protesters machine-gunned in downtown Berlin tomorrow I somehow very much doubt you'd be here arguing that maybe she is "misrepresented" and offering up a bizarre excuse list of "good" things she's done for Germany. She'd be out of power instantly.

I wouldn't say the USA is a dictatorship now....

zom wrote: »

It's not so far from dictatorship. Dictatorship doesn't have to be one person rule - there can be small group of peoples pulling the strings of marionette president or government. Just like USA.

HMmmm....you mean kinda like the Bilderberg Group...?

http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/index.php

Thread goes in usual direction.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Thread goes in usual direction.

I was simply replying to a comment left by zom. If the thread has gone in the "usual direction" as you ruefully put it, then why do you continue to comment?

Gulf of Tonkin Mark 2.

lagente wrote: »

Looks like the Brigade from Libya (with a good few Irish in it) that went to Syria are getting militant. Why does there have to be so much religion in what they are saying, considering Syria, (as backward as it is) is relatively secular? What kind of solution could they possibly bring to the region that borders Iraq for 600 km? None that's what.

Good point Lagente,and one which often flies straight over the heads of many "experts" on the regions politics.

The Allah-Ua-Akhbar chanting folk were always possessed of a particular ire for those leaders or regimes who were not bowing deeply enough in the direction of their particular mecca.....To many of these "Martyrs Brigade" types the problem of strong secular leaders is a particularly hard nut to crack.

However,with the assistance of agencies such as UN/NATO in Libya,the "Freedom Fighters" now see a new avenue to be explored.

If we could only deliver on a No-Fly Zone over Syria,this "popular" rebellion might well deliver on its promise ?

lagente wrote: »

Looks like the Brigade from Libya (with a good few Irish in it) that went to Syria are getting militant. Why does there have to be so much religion in what they are saying, considering Syria, (as backward as it is) is relatively secular? What kind of solution could they possibly bring to the region that borders Iraq for 600 km? None that's what.

According to your original post there was an Irish brigade that fought in Libya consisting of a high number of Irish (100's I believe you claimed)

Is this what you are referring to?

or are you getting confused with this

The situation will not be 'solved' just moved into another phase, hopefully a more peaceful one.

This will either be via international means, via Assad stepping down, or via Assad being ousted/killed by the opposition.

Assad stepping down and holding free and fair elections (internationally monitored) at the beginning of this conflict would have been relatively the most successful and peaceful means of securing the transition.

However, even if he does this at this point in time, the country will still be in chaos, albeit a lower level, but would expect a large amount of reprisals and revenge killings.

If the international community steps in via UN plan, unified pressure, peacekeepers, etc then the violence should drop but the main problem will remain. I doubt there will be international military action unless the situation escalates or there are unexpected events, that's a whole different kettle of fish.

Finally, if the rebels do oust him, there will still be a lot of violence, again the form of retribution, revenge. Also armed groups, different factions, militants all of varying motives will find their way easier into positions of power.

When the country does reach the stage of holding elections I expect a similar situation to Egypt, e.g; the old guard in a new guise trying to retain power, and then Islamic brotherhood style parties vying for power.

I would not expect moderates to intially do well after 1.5 years of serious civil strife and violence.

If democracy can survive the first decade or so, then there is a hope the country can be on its way towards peace and normality.

If any sort of dictatorship or military coup occurs, then back to square one, rinse repeat.