Monday, August 26, 2013

Tagged under: ,

Making a Bad Situation Worse

Guest writer Mick Hall who blogs at Organized Rage with some thoughts on the Syrian conflict and the type of loyalties it engenders.

I hope none of us need to be reminded of what side we will be on if NATO forces go into yet another war. However that does not mean we have to be blind or become struck dumb.

Yes, the Palestinian refugee community had enjoyed full integration into Syrian society, and enjoyed the same rights and benefits as many of the Syrians. One of which was to be arrested if Palestinians opposed, or even differed with the Assad regime.

Was that a right worth having? Of course not.

After the USA realised it could not control the Arab awakening, it decided to crash it by encouraging armed struggle. Their aim was to either create a disorganised state made up of armed and warring factions; or where possible a pliable military dictatorship which relied on the USA for weaponry and  finance. I believe this is still their aim in Syria, hence the early desertions by high profile military figures. It has to be said the younger Assad's regime has had firmer foundations than most analysts first thought. (The rise of Al-qaeda affiliates has acted like quick drying cement here).

Basically the US/NATO strategy boils down to a repeat of the type of militarisation which took place in Central and South America in the last century. It is worth noting this rarely meant large numbers of US military boots on the ground. It has to be said Libya, Syria and Iraq were all dominoes waiting to fall, so let’s not be blind to where part of the blame lays. The peoples of these states had suffered under the regimes of Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi  and Hafez al-Assad's, and then to expect them to put up with their wretched sons' rule in the future was too much for some of them to bear, and who can blame them?

We must not forget that the offspring of all of these dictators had been snarled in the neo liberal web. Christ it was not that long ago the young Assads and Gaddafis were all over the US and UK media with positive coverage. 

Slowly, slowly catch the monkey as the saying goes.

What this meant in reality, was if and when they came to power the peoples of these nations could say goodbye to the type of welfare state, free education, job security, etc, which their fathers had established, and which just about made life bearable for the majority of Libyans, Syrians  etc. (Looking back it must seem like a golden age for many of them).

We should oppose military intervention in Syria not because the young Assad is a good guy who deserves to run his country because he does not, but because it will make a bad situation worse.

Most British and US citizens oppose intervention for that reason and they are right. As to the argument the Assad regime is a bulwark against Israel, it is plain wrong, bordering on fantasy. That Regime has sat silent for decades whilst Israel has massacred Palestinians, and stolen ever more of  their land. They even tried to use Operation Cast Lead as an opportunity to regain the Heights.

There is more than enough arguments to oppose more US and UK military interventions in Syria. Amongst them the cost: at a time of austerity how can government justify the cost of yet another war? It would inflame Lebanon and Jordon, and as I have already said it will make a bad situation  worse.

I will oppose intervention because I believe it is the duty of socialist to oppose the main enemy which, given I live in England, is at home.


AM said...


thanks for agreeing this to go forward as an article rather than a comment. I think it brings a nuanced approach to the matter which in no way compromises your opposition to any attempted invasion of the country.

michaelhenry said...

Looks like the war is going to go ahead no matter about the cost in peoples lifes or in hard cash-no new money for nurses but plenty for cruise missiles-

John Kerry has said tonight that they the Americans now have the proof that chemical weapons were used against the people in Syria-but he has yet to say which side used the mustard gas-plenty of familys are going to be bombed to kingdom come by the peace pilots-under unders from their praying leaders of doom-

sean bres said...

You can sit on the fence Mick, wouldn't expect anything less from an English leftie - providing I haven't designated you wrongly here. YOUR country is the terrorist here, YOUR country has committed unimaginable crimes against humanity, crimes neither Bashar al-Assad or even his brutal father have ever visited on anyone. Just ask the families of the 1million in Iraq - 1 MILLION! The same number genocided by the English right here in my own country in the 19th century.

Chemical weapons? MI5 were probably behind it - just as they were behind the bombing in Omagh. Chemical weapons? What about the suffering people of Fallujah were the contamination is so bad the gene-pool has been so altered that ALL women have been advised NOT to have children. A full society of people will disappear. If this is what the West has to offer then THAT is what we should oppose rather than a non-existent brutal dictatorship. Given that at least 75 percent of people in Syria openly back the regime well, I think that tells its own story. And who says Qaddafi was not wanted by his people? Bullshit propaganda.

To say that Syria is not a bulwark against the Zionist regime is in my opinion not only ridiculous it's preposterous! Why do you think the World Order agenda is to smash this state into pieces then? Also, you mention the Syrian Golan as though they had no right to try and reclaim it - it belongs to Syria! Why should the Zionist usurp the land and resources of another state?

There's a lot in what you say I can go along with and obviously you are very learned on the subject in hand but my analysis of the causes of the situation differs sharply from your own. Even the Springs were a manipulation is how I'm reading things, crazy as that may sound. In the final analysis I go along with what Anwat said last night when interviewed by Russia Today. "They are our monsters and we will replace them". Britain and America are the most dangerous regimes on this planet, it would fit US better to concern ourselves with OUR own monsters.

Full, unhesitant support to Syria in the face of this callous and murderous onslaught fomented, funded and backed to the last by the lying, terrorist cowards in London and Washington in violation of all international law, morals and standards

Feel te love said...

Was listenning to te wireless this morning and there was a story about protests surrounding the badger cull now taking place within parts of the UK. Couldn't help wondering how can the world be so docile/accepting of the Arab/Muslim cull going on around the world.

AM said...

Sean Bres,

This seems something of a gratuitously nasty comment thrown at Mick because he doesn’t subscribe to your take on something.

Mick is from the English Left. It has been a pain in the butt to many people including him. He has held to his views throughout all its twists and turns. Far from sitting on the fence he has opposed every single military intervention by the West and has been critical on this blog of those from the Left who have tried to justify such interventions: people like Christopher Hitchens and Fred Halliday.

He has never been found wanting in offering support to progressive ideas. As a member of the English left he stood wholly in support of ourselves while the self styled Irish republican Left were ostracising us in defence of the GFA, a British declaration of intent to stay. Many of those willing today to say we called it right were among the ostracisers while Mick was giving solid and much needed support.

Rather than sitting on the fence he takes the stand that in my view is the only one the left should take: opposition to any US/NATO expansionism that infringes on Syrian sovereignty; solidarity with the victims of Bashar al-Assad’s crimes against humanity. Sitting on the fence is a when one fails to distinguish the regime from the sovereignty question.

He knows what the government of his country does and has steadfastly opposed it on every issue where it oppresses other people and has backed it on none.

You set up this erroneous position to attack when Mick nor anybody else that I can see is defending. He has never defended a war crime committed by the British state and has denounced them all without exception.

More than 75% of people backed the Argentine military after the coup in March 1976, seeing it a vast relief from the chaos that had prevailed. That hardly justified any progressive defending it. Bashar al-Assad is a war criminal. Nothing will ever change that. It doesn’t matter who invades Syria, that fact does not change. It does not matter if his crimes against humanity pale besides his invaders, he is a war criminal and should be pilloried not lauded.

That does not remove the obligation to defend Syria or any other country from US expansionism. Breaches of sovereignty are justifiable if it makes the human rights situation better – apart from Tanzania invading Uganda and Vietnam invading Kampuchea, there are probably few other examples that spring to mind. Defending sovereignty against naked aggression should never be reduced to defending despots. I think progressives need to make that distinction very clear otherwise I fear we will never progress very far.

sean bres said...

As far as I'm concerned you can't have one without the other, nor can you have it both ways. It may allow us to feel morally correct but it doesn't make a blind difference to the situation on the ground. Either the Assad regime or the London-Washington-Tel Aviv axis will prevail - that's the only option going which is why I side with the ruling power. Because the fate not only of the Syrian people is at stake but that of the entire region, perhaps even the wider world itself depending on how things pan out. Not in my name I tell ye.

The Syrian regime will likely reform when all this is said and done - providing it can stay in power. That's the only realistic route I see to progress here. Perhaps this is what the greatest fear of the West is - God forbid that the people of the Middle East would ever be allowed to determine their own sovereign destiny. No, they would rather have absolute chaos and a broken state such as what now exists in post-Qaddafi Libya because that allows them to continue the imperialist plunder

By the way I don't subscribe or never have subscribed to war crime. As for accusing me of "gratuitous attack" I'm not even going to address that except to say you're way off the mark, what joy or satisfaction we are supposed to get out of a heated debate such as this I'd love to know. Good luck with this conversation, it's the last time I'll be commenting on it

larry hughes said...

Sean Bres

Very passionate response there and to be fair no wonder. NATO is a front for USA/GB global terrorism and with their control of the media people are either swallowing the shit they belt out or are numbed to the point of refusing to watch it any more. As for the UK public, 100,000 marched against the Iraq war then immediately voted Blair in again. Give my head fucking peace!! Sure Thatcher was the most unpopular PM in UK history, then she instigated the Falklands war and presto, she won a landslide election victory. British public? British 'pubic' more like.

It is all predictable, make a claim and fix the 'evidence' to suite. It all smacks of the Iraq invasion where there was simply nothing going to prevent it from happening and it was based on a foundation of lie after blatant lie and the planet knew it and those who committed the war crime knew we all knew it.

The shamelessness of them knows no bounds, but that goes with a 100% control of their medias and the UN. They can say black is white then shoot you for having the audacity to even question it. More or less what they are up to.

USA/GB are a poor imitation of the Nazis (in 2nd gear). The world united against the Nazis, eventually, I pray the Arabs, or some of them get it together and give these criminals the kick in the balls they need. These countries go across the globe to seek out 'dangers' to defend themselves against.

North Korea, Iran? Nothing on the West. We are fed the equivalent of photographic 'negatives' of world reality and we just get on with life.

I wonder will there be any non-combatants killed in the up-coming missile attacks? No ground troops I imagine, every UK and USA town has enough legless and armless reminders of recent wars for now. But not Cameron or Obama's kids huh?

larry hughes said...

I do wonder is it merely a matter of time before some or one of these states on the hit-list of the USA/UK 'axis of lying scum' decides not to meekly await its turn but instead to strike a blow first.?

Can't understand why a dirty bomb hasn't already landed as freight into some USA/UK port or other before now.

Maybe that's where all the benefits and pension cuts and bedroom tax money is going, to agents and touts to keep a lid on USA/UK government paranoia of a payback being inevitable.

Also, in the event of just such an attack will those under the influence of USA/UK media be the only ones 'shocked' that it could happen to them or indeed that anyone would possibly want to attack 'us'? Everyone else will likely be wondering what the hell took it so long.

As for collateral damage, ie mass deliberate murder of the innocents, will that be just an inevitability of war and a necessity for all our safety? Will those who consider it as a fact of war be guilty of facilitation? And will it be a different matter entirely when visited upon the perpetrator nations in kind?

AM said...

Sean Bres,

the attack on Mick was ad hominem, playing the man rather than the ball. There was no need for it. You could have made the case you did without introducing that tone. But we don't police discussion, merely comment on it.

You may not support war crimes but you openly endorse war criminals and call for long life to them rather than long life imprisonment for them. You can defend Syrian sovereignty while at the same time calling for justice for thre victims of the regime's war crimes.

What brutal regime ever reforms itself?

I accept that you don't wish to continue the discussion and in that sense I am not seeking the last word but your response failed to address the issues raised.

AM said...


the double standards of the West is legendary by this stage. It will condemn any attack on it and continue to attack those it designates as enemies. It will murder civilians and anybody claiming to be progressive or interested in human rights is duty bound to oppose it.

larry hughes said...

left a few zeros out

larry hughes said...

'It will murder civilians and anybody claiming to be progressive or interested in human rights is duty bound to oppose it'.

That should have a mega impact, NOT!!

AM said...


so we should support it rather than oppose it?

itsjustmacker said...

Today , Secretary of state stated, We have no doubt that the Hassad regime carried out a chemical gas attack on its own People, Britain and France are backing the USA, That's before any official data and proof comes from those Inspectors in Syria.
The opposition has give strike targets to the USA, Have we not been through this before , Iraq = No Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Yet it was bombed and Invaded . What about those high ranking officials who defected to the opposition?, could they not know were the stockpile of Chemical gas is hidden/stored , That is if it is Hidden, To me, Al qaeda is fooling everyone again, Bring the Yanks/british/French in, We will cut them down. What has the west achieved in Iraq/Afghanistan/libya?. Nothing. l Believe that if The Hassad Regime has Comitted this atrocity, they should pay the ultimate price , Not the people of Syria , The locations given by the opposition are in built up areas in damascus. One damn hell of a massacre if you ask me.

AM said...


I don't doubt that Assad would gas his own people but no evidence has been presented that we can believe. And as you remind us we have been down this path before with all the lies about weapons of mass destruction.

larry hughes said...


As an individual we choose to support or oppose such criminal actions.

What I'm trying to highlight here is that after exporting this practice extensively and globally since Adam was a boy and against civilians rather than regimes, will the USA/UK governments have the right to demand that we feign 'shock and bewilderment' if some version of its own 'shock and awe' is eventually directed at their own civilian populations, (US)?

I'm NOT advocating it, but I for one wont act all stunned if it comes to pass.

I find western media reporting and the warmongering cheer-leading behaviour an insult to the most basic levels of intelligence.

I notice already the media are tempering the jingo with an assessment of possible reprisal. A lesson in that?

AM said...


we already have a template. 9/11 shows you how they will react. Then a civilian population was attacked and we have seen the result ever since. US foreign policy under Kissinger was more honest at one level. He didn't pretend to give a fuck about what regimes got up to internally and assessed them by how they fitted into a global strategic framework. The US today pretends to be concerned about human rights and is claiming to introduce democracy into other regions. It no more gives a fuck about human rights in Syria than Assad does.

larry hughes said...


I've had my say and a bit of a tangled wrangle on this blog on the issues out there. Not meaning for my over egged points to reflect badly on the Quill itself by the way.

Appreciate the outlet. Cheers.

itsjustmacker said...

This what its all about.

Global stocks plunge and oil prices shoot up as West moves closer to military action against Syria.

The rich oil barons are laughing all the way to there own banks.

They done exactly the same when Kuwait's Oil Wells were on fire, Reaped in the profits as Petrol/Diesel prices exploded to an extreme unknown since WW2.


I have very grave doubts about 9/11.

Gold bullion being removed from it the day before! , Jewish workers did not turn up for work on that day, So called Plane flying into the pentagon, that hole could only have been made by a cruise missile , The mystery of flight 93?, the Engine from the so called plane which hit the pentagon was not that which was stated by the CIA. The USA doesn't give a fcuk about anyone but themselves, they don't care about there own working class citizens. Its called the NWO= George bushes words after 9/11. War mongering before a bullet was fired.

frankie said...

Larry, we already have a template. 9/11

What a template. The USA have the world (some) believing 19 taliban with boxcutters hijacked a few planes and crashed two into the World Trade, in to one of the most secured airspaces on this rock and crashed it into USA GHQ.

And then we have the British who forced prisoners in Long kesh in the early 70's into a field and gased them..

Somewhere in between 9/11 and the Long kesh gasing..Uncle Sam dropped two nuclear bombs and fcuk knows what in 'nam.

And they (Uncle Sam & the Brits...France aren't far behind) have the cheek to lecture the world on WMD's.

Maybe Assad did. Then again maybe again he didn't. Who knows..I don't, neither does the rest of the world. Apart from those who did. But I do know the Brits, Yanks..NATO or other haven't a clue who did. All they know, like the rest of is . It happened and shouldn't have.

AM said...


the Quill will take the flak it takes. You are as entitled to put forward your views as the rest of us. If people want to have a go at the Quill, tough. Don't let it put you off.

larry hughes said...


'But I do know the Brits, Yanks..NATO or other haven't a clue who did. All they know, like the rest of is . It happened and shouldn't have'.

Unless of course they are doing it, then it's ok.

I don't rule out that possibility here either.

AM said...


I like a dissenting opinion but like it much better when it is credible.

AM said...

Ed Moloney’s view on matters related.

BKeane said...

I was just reading Robert Fisks latest piece and he claims that hezbollah members were hit in the chemical attack but no western media seems to be carrying it.

larry hughes said...

Just read that Maloney article and watched the video.

Lost for words.

Organized Rage said...


I stand over my piece so I am not going to go there bar the following. You wrote in an accusing manner of 'My Country' If you mean England then you clearly have no idea where I am coming from.

I'm not an English patriot, but an international revolutionary socialist and I no more consider England 'my country' than I would outer-Mongolia.

Besides how could England be mine when it is run and owned by shysters, shits and flim flam men, and is a paid franchise of Langley. I would go as far as to say its where I have my home, and where I have had to pay tax etc, but it certainly isn't 'MY Country.'

I follow in the footsteps and tradition of English revolutionaries like Tom Paine and Erskine Childers and internationalists like Jim Connolly and José Buenaventura Durruti.

I believe class trumps national borders, an injury to one is an injury to all, and international solidarity is a sacred duty. But not solidarity with despots and tyrants, wherever they may rule, but those who struggle against them.

Your attempt to blanket slander the English left was understandable, but unworthy nevertheless, whilst we are far from perfect, and sections have often been lacking over Ireland, but no more so than sections of the Irish left, especially since partition.

As I said we have our faults, but in my lifetime the best of the left here have not been found wanting when it came to opposing the policies of the British government overseas. From Suez to Cyprus, Vietnam to the Falklands, Apartheid South Africa to Iraq, etc, etc.

As I have said, Ireland proved more problematic, especially the PIRA insurgency, but there where reasons for this, none of which I shared. My view from the early 1970s onwards was clear, the young workers who mainly made up the ranks of the Provos had every right to kick back against occupation and oppression and as the country we lived in was directly involved, we should do our best to offer them support and solidarity.

I could say a great deal more about the complexity of that situation but this is not the subject of the thread. Maybe I will write on it later.

By the way, If Syria is a bulwark against the Zionist state then may their god help the Palestinians. Syria has not been an important player in the Isreal-Palestinian conflict for years. It being ripped apart has little if anything to do with Palestine and everything to do with the US governments irrational hatred for Iran.

True the Israelis will benefit from the implosion of arab countries. But if Egypt is anything to go by, the USA is confident in the Arab world, dictators are like buses, there will always be another one along willing to replace the Assad's, Mubarak's, etc whom they can buy.

So don't worry comrade, you will still have some murdering scumbag to touch your cap too ;)

Just a quick point about old Muammar, whom I long admired and liked, having much enjoyed how he used to tweak the great satan and British crown's tail, my point was about his sons, who were hated by most Libyans, why the fuck do you think the British security services wasted so much time reeling them in. They new they made him vulnerable and so it proved.


larry hughes said...

Here we go again.

All those 'fleets' sent to the Mediterranean on wrong info'. Oh no, it wasn't wrong, it was just the usual blatant lies.

Wonder who provided the chemical weapons ...

AM said...


that is good stuff. Carla del Ponte is not somebody whose view can be dismissed lightly. I will not be in the slightest surprised.

larry hughes said...


'Your attempt to blanket slander the English left was understandable, but unworthy nevertheless, whilst we are far from perfect, and sections have often been lacking over Ireland, but no more so than sections of the Irish left, especially since partition'.

What Irish left ffs!!

I do often wonder what proportion of the young lads from throughout the UK who came here in the army on a minimum wage were of Irish ancestry at some level or other.

But that's how the Cameron's of this world can invade 49++ countries without losing a nights sleep, it's not their kids losing arms and legs nor committing the murders on falsehoods dressed up as intelligence.

If the UK/USA supplied rebels used these chemical weapons will the tomahawk missiles be redirected at London and Washington? Just a thought. How would the populations there feel about the idea?

sean bres said...

Was trying to stay clear of this but to hell with it...

Mick if you believe the people of Libya or now again Syria actually rose up against their government I'm sorry but I don't go along with that at all. The entire thing is the work of provocateurs, orchestrated then manipulated by British and American Intelligence - starting with their roof-top snipers murdering in cold blood to antagonise, get people on the streets, then manipulate the thing again to cause even more chaos... Finishing with external mercenaries being brought in, armed, funded, given logistical support and encouraged in every way to create extreme havoc and terrorise the decent law-abiding people of Syria, ultimately ending up with this false-flag chemical attack planned and perpetrated by the Brits and Americans themselves in conjunction with their Al Qaeda proxies. Thank you very much but I choose Assad over that any day, no matter what's gone on in the past.

I said you're sitting on the fence not because you're British but because like Mackers you're trying to argue that we can't support the regime in Syria and maintain our integrity. Or maybe I picked that up wrong. Mackers just cannot get it into his head that if you want the Syrian people to prevail then Assad has to prevail. There's no in between, morality will not come into it when Syria ends up a basket case like Iraq and Libya. Whatever Assad has been accused of in the past will be irrelevant and many, many years of horrible internecine, sectarian conflict will be in store for those poor people. Fuck that, I'm not gonna sit back and say we can't support Assad because of his father or whatever else if that's how it's all going to end. When all's said and done the Syrian people will demand reform and I will support them one hundred percent - as I've said all along (this argument's been going on for months). Indeed the regime has promised reform and the reintroduction of constitutional protections.

Did I really play the man that badly? Wasn't intending that but rather to address how the 'lefties' want it both ways without having to make a serious decision. You either go with Assad or the opposition - the middle-ground yourself and Tony are trying to stand on simply does not exist as I see it. Anyway it was quite heated on my part so for the sake of public decency I've absolutely no problem in publicly apologising. The debate about Israel's role in this I would have thought was self-evident but it'll have to do 'til again - you seem to think it's not related citing the Iranian connection (which of course exists but I don't regard them as mutually exclusive)

AM said...

Its irresistable Sean. We knew you would come back!

sean bres said...

It is indeed difficult not to re-engage in the discussion Anthony because it's one very much worth having given the seriousness of the situation as it now stands. The insight of those who contribute to this blog, not least among them yourself and Mick, although we don't see perfectly eye to eye here, is difficult to find on other forums so yes indeed it is irresistible, I couldn't stay away - in fact I've been following all along and biting my tongue!

itsjustmacker said...


I agree with you 100% Re-Assad.

No one needs a degree to see what is happening throughout the Arab/Muslim world. We just have to look at the horrific Murdering and maiming in Iraq and Afghanistan today, Backed up bu UK/USA Money and weapons, We all know what The British done in our own Land, Armed Loyalists and agents , with RUC to shoot to kill, Murder and maim was there aim. I would be surprised if Britain got the vote through to Bomb Sites in Syria, because people don't forget the Iraq Fiasco, But , on the other hand, It would be illegal, They all need UN "YES VOTE", Russia and China will Veto that. Iraq and Jordan have refused western forces to use their air space to bomb Syria, Now is that not a kick in the teeth for Cameron and Obama. Who is to know if USA Special Forces and UK SAS are not already on the ground in Syria. We know what dirty tricks they play, Bags full of $ to hand out freely, They can mingle in with the crowds.

sean bres said...


Congratulations for to the Statue of Liberty and for Lincoln who freed the slaves, and congratulations to the United Nations of Ban Ki Moon. All these lies Inculcated to children at schools by the Western Establishment now will surface again . It is in Syria that these lies are surfacing again, in Syria where the truth will be told by dead journalists, by killed

newsmen and women shot dead at the hands of thugs armed by the Saudi king and by the prince of Qatar and organized by the UN and by Obama and Cameron. You have to listen to Syria and to watch Syria so that you know the truth for this is from where truth is coming, don't listen to anything else if you are a truth seeker, just watch. Get to know the people who are ruling you, get to know and get acquainted with what they do and how they kill.
From Syria you can know all, how they kill helpless people and how they kill journalists. Get acquainted with the killers, the killers of women and children and of so many others. Get acquainted with the monsters who are ruling you, the monsters of this world, get to know Obama the killer and Cameron the killer and Sarkozy or Hollande, get to know Ban Ki Moon the killer. Columbus Get to know the killer, and George Washington the killer is and the queen of England, get to know all these killers descendents of killers and who will bear killers in their turn.
Forget about their great discoveries and their cities and their cartels, forget about the great inventions and great theories, forget about their scientific progress and technological achievements, forget about their letters and about their art and music, forget about their great innovations, forget the space and the moon and the satellites, forget about their spaceships and space probes . Forget about all this. Just look at how they kill and who they kill and why they kill, just look at this. This is not only the Saudi king or the prince of Qatar or mediocre Erdugan. This is the dynasty of killers that has started hundreds of years ago in Europe and then in the States.
The dynasty of killers is now performing in Syria art works of Slaughters and massacres. It is creating masterpieces that they have the guts to accuse others of committing. They have the guts to accuse Kaddhafi or al Assad or whoever of their own massacres. Previously they killed using Zionist Jews, they killed and killed and killed and are still killing, now they are killing through Muslim Sunni fanatics and they kill and kill and kill and tomorrow they will still be killing for this is their daily bread, this is what they have been doing and what they will still be doing.
As you buy your loaf of bread they go out in the early morning and start killing, from the White House and the Congress and L'Elysee, from Downing Street they start killing and from Buckingham Palace and the Vatican, they organize meetings for the whole week, they meet and decide whom to kill this week and how are they going to kill, and it goes from week to week.
Who are they? They are the rulers of this world, They are the al Qa'ida if you're not aware. The rulers of this world are the terrorists of this world, or did you think al Qa'ida is made ​​only of the few poor people recruited in some camps or some poor neighborhood, given some money and some weapons and explosives to tie to someone waste and then off to paradise? Did you think really that al Qa'ida is only constituted of these poor credulous people with beards and beeds, of ambitious blind mediocre believers? Not at all, for Al Qa'ida is Obama, is Ban Ki Moon, is Sarkozy and Cameron and Bush and her Majesty the queen of England and his eminence the pope. This is the al Qa'ida, this is the first rank of al Qa'ida and the others are subordinates, the Netenyahu and Peres and Hamad and Abdullah are nothing but subordinates, they carry on the orders of the first rank, It is al Qa'ida that is ruling you and it is time for you to know .."

sean bres said...

A friend of mine from Beirut who rights his own blog sent me this a few months ago - it's more relevant now than ever and if I'm not out of turn in sharing it here I think it's worth including in the discussion...

Also, just watching Crosstalk here on RT as we write - well worth a watch for those who can get a look at it, probably get it on their Youtube channel. I'd link it but don't know how

michaelhenry said...

Going by the latest news it looks like the brits have sh1t themselves and will now not take part in this attack-Labour has found a set of balls from somewhere
and they are now sounding like they will not support the war in Syria-Ian Dale a leading tory commentator has said that he supported the wars in Iraq-Afganistan and Libya but he wont support a war in Syria-according to him there are a few torys feeling that way-maybe the brits are getting tired of being beat-tired of the lies-

sean bres said...

President Assad: "Syria will win any war launched against Syria and we are happy to see the face of our true enemy."

AM said...


it is invariably the way with these types of discussion.

But you remain on the fence if you refues to stand in solidarity of some sort with the victims of Assad's crimes against humanity. All you really offer is a choice between war criminals.

What Mick is offering is a clear defence of the democratic and progressive substance in Syria. If Assad has embedded himself in that for his own ends, it does not mean people should stand back and fail to defend in whatever tiny way they can Syrian sovreignty. But the old Marrxist maxim of 'state what is' is clearly in need of being practiced. In siding with Syrian sovereignty it should be stated clearly that it cannot be reduced to a defence of Assad. Brutal tyrants don't represent freedom and progress even when they hitch their barbarous wagon to the concept and paint the slogans on the side. Long life to Syria (in terms of its sovereignty) is laudable in a way that long life to the war criminal that heads the regime is not.

And if Assad did gas civilians (and I am by no means convinced he did) any support for him from places like here will probably prevent wider support emerging against the threat on Syrian sovereignty. This is one practical reason for separating the issues.

People should not be holding back their support for Syria's right not to be attacked but nor should they hold back their tongue on the war crimes of the Assad regime.

And if morality does not matter, then it follows that it doesn't matter what the outcome is because there is no right or wrong. Might is right and nothing else.

That is a very Kissingerian perspective: not a view I am in the least inclined to subscribe to.

In the conflict between Assad and his victims we cannot in my view sit on the fence.

But I guess like most talk on the internet when all is said and done more will be said than done. Because up to now I have done nothing other than discuss it here. I don't know about anybody else. Which is a shame because as Ronan Marron pointed out on Facebook and it hit me up the face, we are moving closer to WW3. If Putin attacks the Saudis who knows what we are in for?

larry hughes said...

'Which is a shame because as Ronan Marron pointed out on Facebook and it hit me up the face, we are moving closer to WW3. If Putin attacks the Saudis who knows what we are in for'?

That was beginning to occur to me. The USA/GB relentless global menace has got to the stage something needs done about it.

Their use and abuse of the UN has rendered it a disgrace. Do these buffoons truly believe their own propaganda and are they confident in their own media control to such an extent they are convinced their own populations hang on their every lie?

Wars have been good for political careers in the UK/USA for a long time. Surely it is time for a change. 'Ouch', heard that before somewhere recently!!

Recon michaelhenry the MPs in the UK have realised the Iraq episode is still fresh on the taste buds and extremely foul at that. It is more a realisation that this war if persued on such obvious deception may not enhance their popularity at home but do it severe damage. That more than any moral or logistical consideration is likely behind what has resulted in the hesitation you mention.

But if endless wars waged on pure lies is the only business GB/USA have to offer whilst their own populations endure bedroom taxes and criminal banks etc, then I for one am open to the idea of a new world order. Bring it on Russia and China. A change is as good as a rest.

sean bres said...

A new world order is exactly what we need Lar but one based on independence, assistive cooperation and ultimately brotherly love and humanity. Despite the negative opinion some have on here of Syria I think that country and that regime are much, much closer to this modus operandi than most others

sean bres said...

Sorry Anthony I meant to say there's a rally on O'Connell Street against this war on Saturday at 12 o'clock

AM said...


there is no negative attitude that I can see here towards Syria. There is a very hostile attitude towards the regime of the war criminal that is in charge of the place. It is an attitude that should be shared in all progressive circles. How can progressive sentiment not be hostile to those responsible for crimes against humanity? Or is it ony some war crimes that such sentiment should oppose?

Assad is close to brotherly love and humanity? Even when out of my tree on the beer that notion would never have occured to me. Assad, Kissinger, Bagasora, Sharon, Saddam, Pinochet, Videla - there is not a lot to choose between.

The danger of promoting this thug, even setting aside the ethical question, is that it will in my view undermine attempts to not only win support for opposition to the war but in maintaining it.

Had the USSR invaded Chile in 73 in breach of its sovereignty to overthrow Pinochet, do you imagine any voice other than the reactionary would be describing the thug in positive terms.

The question is academic of course. We know too much about the egregious Soviet attitude to Argentina and its regime of war criminals to expect it to invade in order to overthrow a brute like Pinochet.

larry hughes said...


Are you for 'invasion' in certain circumstances then?

I see some UK citizens conditionally supporting UK attacking Syria on humanitarian grounds. If there is any truth in this position have those opposed to UK global antics misjudged their intentions?

sean bres said...

On the fence is where you are a chara. I'm not tipping the cap to a dictator but standing with the Syrian people against this unwarranted imperialist aggression. The comparison between the generals in Chile and Assad doesn't stand up in my opinion, in fact Assad has shown remarkable RESTRAINT in the face of intense provocation and war crimes inflicted on his people by those who allied themselves to the murderers of Rene Schneider and Salvador Allende all those years ago. This illegal aggression against the sovereign Syrian Arab Republic is merely the opening phase of a greater regional war with the ultimate target being the Islamic Republic of Iran, a country that hasn't attacked another in over 500 years. What will you say then? What will you say for the people of Syria when they are killed, maimed and displaced by the million? Will you say don't worry we still support your democratic rights? Get off that fence because the only democratic right they will receive if Assad falls is the right to die

AM said...


this conflict seems to have been kicked off, if Fisk is right, when Assad's people tortured a teenager to death. Assad's record against his own population is much worse than Pinochet's. Not that this says anything good about Pinochet: he met considerable opposition from the Catholic Church otherwise his role would probbaly have been as bad as Argentina's.

What will I say if this war starts? The same as I have said all along, the same as you are saying in opposition to it with the one crucial proviso - that Assad is a war criminal.

We will cut to the chase. Do you accept that Assad is a war criminal? Do you feel solidarity with the victims of Assad's war crimes? Hostility towards them? Or are you sitting on the fence?

The answer will determine everything, from your intellectual honesty to the nature of your own politics - is Assad guilty of crimes against humanity?

AM said...


good question. Yes I am in favour of invasion in some circumstances. I think a case can be made in defence of the invasion of Uganda by Tanzania and that Kampuchea by Vietnam. There are more criticisms that can be made of the latter given Vietnam's desire to be a regional power player. I think the UN were spineless and wrong not to put a halt to the genocide in Rwanda. It is estimated that they didn't even need to put in ground troops to reduce the killings by half - all was needed was the bombing of the radio station that organised the killings.

This is what sickens me about these so called acts of humanitarian intervention - the countries that needed them most never received them.

And I agree with the USSR and allies launching a ground invasion of Germany towards the end of WW2.

I suppose not being much of a nationalist I don't view national sovereignty as the card that trumps all else. People are sovereign and it is for them to decide how they exercise that sovereignty.

But in the case of Syria it is crystal clear to me that the question of sovereignty has been decided and settled and now it is in danger of being violated by aggressive war. But I don't buy into the nationalist rhetoric that the nation is one and indivisible and that the leader is the supreme national being. That is old reactionary nationalism, with nothing progressive about it. Politics either has a liberationist impulse or a repressive one, and sometimes both. It is pretty clear that Assad's politics are repressive and any defence of Syria by him means a defence of the power and privilege he has within Syria. Syria needs defended but we should be under no illusion about the type of people who hope to benefit from that defence in a way that is anything but national.

Alec had a very sober assessment on his Facebook page, which we would all do well to read. If I can find it again I will post it here.

larry hughes said...

Unfortunately UK global history from opium wars to massacres in Malaya, India, Ireland and Iraq hardly leaves them with a leg to stand on in the human rights and morality game.

I'll not even go into their prison history from S. Africa, Ireland to Iraq.

Who elected those tyrants global judge and jury? The UN has failed. It's every man/nation for themselves.

sean bres said...

So now I'm being accused of being dishonest? I don't need to answer that question as I've already done so several times over the last few months and you know it. But to be clear once again I do not support war crime. I find it bordering on despicable that you'd suggest I have no solidarity or empathy with those who experienced repression - from any quarter. But let me ask you something, saying as we now seem to be attempting to corner each other for the sake of intellect. Is your support for the Irish republican armed struggle mutually exclusive from your opposition to war crime? Or are you suggesting we can't support the wars fought by the Irish Republican Army because elements of it engaged in activities that can be said to match the defining criteria of 'war crime'? I'm on the record as saying needs must in this zero-sum Syrian instance. That may be intolerable to yourself, which is fine with me but I'd rather not play silly boogers

sean bres said...

I'm confident in the eventual triumph of the Syrian people when all this is said and done. The internal dynamics of the civil war suggest that the regime will emerge victorious and having preserved its independence. I see a national healing process following from this, hand-in-hand with a programme of reform capable of satisfying the just demands of the Syrian people. This is what the World Order fears more than anything, more than the survival of Assad himself. Independent development - especially successful independent development - is to be barred at all costs

AM said...

Sean Bres,

don't go waxing all offended on us now.

You are not being accused of being dishonest at all. If you were to deny that Assad is a war criminal, which I don’t believe you would, then it would call your intellectual honesty into question, just as it would were you to tell me you believe Gerry Adams was never in the IRA.

In fact I think you are very honest.

So, again for the purpose of clarity and to leave no one in any doubt – is Assad a war criminal?

Nor have I suggested that you do not have empathy with the victims of atrocity, no more than you have suggested the same for me in relation to victims of Western atrocities?

So, rather than deflect the question, answer it and leave no one in any doubt. Do you offer solidarity to the victims of Assad’s atrocities?

You can only feel cornered by a certain logic – your own. I am merely following through on your reasoning and the questions asked are based on that. Assad is either a war criminal or he is not – what is it to be?

If by your own admission – if it is not a slip of the tongue - you are trying to corner me (I have conceded no such thing even if you feel justified in thinking that I am) I don’t mind. It is part of discussion. We can’t be touchy to being out-argued and stand on a foolish belief that we are right all the time. And I guess I am wrong on lots of things but that’s life, no gods, no gurus, we make do with what we have. And I will not deflect your question but answer it head on.

Is your support for the Irish republican armed struggle mutually exclusive from your opposition to war crime?

I don’t support armed struggle. I used to. Now I think it was a waste of life, strategically unproductive but it was not criminal.

Or are you suggesting we can't support the wars fought by the Irish Republican Army because elements of it engaged in activities that can be said to match the defining criteria of 'war crime'?

We can support wars if they are fought to promote a just cause and the methods used are just. We can continue to support them even when as you say some of those fighting them commit war crimes. Take the Soviet invasion of Germany for example. Was it correct? I believe it was. Were war crimes carried out in the course of it? If 2 million German women raped is not a war crime of horrendoue proportions I don't know what is.

But we should not support the war crime. We should not deny that the people responsible are war criminals. And unlike you I have made more than enough excuses for – and agreed with - war crimes in my day so it is not that I am immune to flak on these matters. So you can probably claim a morally higher, ground but that isn’t the point of the discussion.

What is ‘needs must’? Does this apply to war crimes? Does it apply to crimes against humanity? Do ends justify means or does process legitimise outcome?

larry hughes said...

Sean Bres

national healing in Syria after this war is utopian dreaming I fear. Looking at the state of the gaff I recon Asad will wipe-out any remnants of rebels like the Black Watch did in Scotland.

On the bright side, similar to Christchurch in NZ just now, there's huge potential for the dormant Irish construction industry out there in Syria once the shooting stops.

Every cloud.

sean bres said...

This war could soon become about hegemony or survival, to borrow the title of Noam Chomsky's best-seller. Iran has said this will be a human catastrophe - not just a Muslim one. "Needs must", as I've stated before, is that the future of Syria is the same as the future of Assad - either they both stay or they both go. It's nothing to do with supporting a war criminal, it's about the future of the Syrian men and women who are ultimately our brothers in humanity. The future of Syria could well indeed be about the future of us all - 'cause no-one knows where this ends. In my opinion, like Iraq, it is zero-sum. Just look at the state of that place - 86 dead yesterday in sectarian bombings. I've spoken before of how they left Iraq, with a million dead, 5 million displaced, the health and education systems in a state of collapse, raw sewage running the streets, prolonged electrical blackouts common, children kidnapped on their way to school, women afraid to walk the streets at night, water-borne disease rife, sectarian murder day and daily, all while the oil and the dollars flow. Thankyou very much UK-USA! Even when we look only at the vile massacres that have already taken place in Syria and place them in their proper context, in terms of who is orchestrating the violence and why, we can see there are bigger issues than whether or not Assad is or is not a tyrant. Tell us all you want how we can't prioritise one thing over another for the sake of this intellect, when there's nothing left to talk about - when there's nothing left - priorities will not matter then. That is the stark reality of Syria and that is why I wish success to Bashar al-Assad, because Assad and the Syrian people are inextricably linked. To paraphrase Mick the worst excesses of Assad's monstrous father will appear as though a 'Golden Age' in comparison to what lies in store if the World Order succeeds in its plan. I'd rather that did not happen again and if that means supporting Bashar al-Assad out of necessity then I've no shame in that whatsoever. When the time comes, when a genuine process of change comes around, I'll not be found wanting. And I don't think Bashar al-Assad will be either. Not entirely convinced about what you said in relation to our own difficulties but I'm not going into it because it was as you said just put there to try and corner you. For the record though I did not feel cornered myself, just that you were attempting to do so - I'm comfortable in my analysis of the situation just as I'm comfortable in the legitimacy of the armed resistance to British rule in Ireland

Alec said...

Mackers, if we accept Assad is a war criminal then we must also accept those opposing him are war criminals. To cut out the heart of an opponent is clearly a war crime. Until we know all the facts of the gas attack, if we ever do, the jury is out on who was responsible for this act of mass murder. In the fog of war the rights of innocents/non-combatants are invariably overlooked or infringed.

I think Sean has identified the issue at hand. At this moment in time the sovereignty of the Syrian people is linked to the survival of the Assad regime. Stating this fact does not imply support for the government per se. There is no other institution capable of deploying the national resources neccessary to combat the rebel forces who have the support of westren imperialism. By and large, the army has remaind loyal to the regime preventing the total collaspe of the political system. Syria must not be allowed to go the same way as Libya and Iraq. The removal of Assad does not justify intervention by foreign powers without broad international support. My own position on this would change were his use of chemical weapons against the civilian population to be proven beyond resonable doubt.

sean bres said...

If Bashar al-Assad or anyone else committed war crimes then I do not condone it in any shape or form. The same goes for the Provisionals, I would not condone the like of Coshquin but I certainly wonder just who was behind it and why. Also, so there's no confusion, I didn't try to corner you out of spite or temper but in the context of what we're arguing. I would never have included it in the discussion though otherwise. I could never have malice or ill-will towards you, I've nothing but the highest respect for yourself and Carrie and all you's stand for. You're certainly one of the 'good guys' and I've no doubt in that whatsoever

Organized Rage said...


I agree with your last two posts, if we do not believe such things what is the point of being politically active. We could just go and join the rest of them at the trough.

I do not feel there is an iron law on this subject, but if there were as you say the UK would not be qualified to write it for sure. Humanitarian intervention is the use of a fluffy word to allow nasty people to do wicked things and sadly get away with it.

Mustafa Kemal who was a great one for quotes with his raki, and had an interesting take on this subject.

"Every nation has the right to demand proper treatment and no country should violate the territory of any other country.” "Unless a nation's life faces peril, war is murder."


What I don't get about your argument is why you expect the Syrian people to put up with something we would not. Ie a dictator who gained the post by inheriting it from his dad, I realise I'm on soft ground what with Betsy here, (another reason why it's not 'my country') but your support for Assad seems so out of place with what you believe.


With holes appearing in Obama's justification for war he might act sooner rather than later. I thought Miliband did pretty good today, Whether he succeeded in slowing Cameron's rush over the cliff we can but hope. But the Labour leader will be under intense pressure to crumble and that is in the nature of the beast, if he does not, and manages to keep the UK out of the war, he could go and get the key cut ready for when he wins in 2015.

I notice France has now pushed the timeline back, Merkle is not playing ball, and so far Cameron looks like a chump. Obama is beginning to look like billy no mates.

Unlike the time line leading into the Iraq war, a majority of people over here are dead against intervention, including senior members of military (retired) and Tory party.

A lot will depend on whether Miliband stands his ground, on the plus side he has little to gain by supporting the war.

AM said...


but you still have not answered the question if Assad is a war criminal. He either is or he isn't. This is the problem and Mick has nailed it. Nor have you said what position you take in relation to his crimes against humanity. I think these are issues we cannot deflect or evade. If you believe he is a war criminal but have to back him nonetheless for the sake of Syria, that is another issue. But we would imagine you would do it holding your nose rather than wishing him long life.

It is not your defence of Syrian sovreignty that is being queried, it is the seemingly benign stance towards this despot.

There is Sweet FA personal in it from you as far as i am concerned. I don't care if you tried to corner me. It's a fair tactic in discussion. Nothing beneath the belt about it. We might all be friends but we are not a cosy club of backslappers applauding each other's bollix. Why shouldn't you corner me if you think I am wrong. Alec, who I will come back to later, has been a very good friend for decades but we hardly went through a day without arguing or having a go.

And people get angry, lose the head, shout, scream, have a rush of blood to their head, watch their tongue snaking out of their mouth as if it has a life of its own, and say things they wish they hadn't. But its life and nothing that can't be smoothed over again once the dust settles. We have to get away from the notion of gentlemen duelling. What we lose on the swings we win back again on the roundabouts.

As for good guys, here's the thing: I take up the George Orwell position - I want to be good but not too good and not all the time. I can live with being a cunt at times.

If tomorrow morning I started going around all the people I have wronged or did harm to I would be walking until I am 90.

But that's life - there is no perfection and mistrust those who strive for it. They are dangerous and not always religious nutters.

Alec said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sean bres said...

I don't dispute there have been serious human rights violations but this thing about war crime? Is this in the context of the Syrian presence in the Lebanon (which Assad removed) or the civil war? Because when it comes to this civil war I view the entire thing as the manipulative work of agents provocateurs to which the regime was forced to respond. And it has done so with verifiable and undeniable restraint despite the lies of Western media. Explain to me these war crimes and I will judge them then. Assad was not involved in politics until his brothers death, he was as Mick says earlier off cavorting in the West. When he assumed office he was originally seen as a reformer and intimated his support for democratic transformation, though he said it would have to take time. We have to remember this man is a product of circumstance as much as anything and like all rulers he is prone to abuse of power and repression, unfortunately that is the way of it. But at all times we have to remember the hidden hand ready to manipulate any genuine revolutionary current anywhere for its own strategic ends. People like Bashar al-Assad are aware of it too and in part this guides there actions. This isn't an excuse for the man but an expression of reality. I just hope that when all is said and done Assad recognises he could not have survived without his people and gives them the type of freedom they deserve. None of that's an apology for war crimes, if he is guilty of them then I condemn them of course. Solidarity with the victims though depends on just who they are

larry hughes said...

I'm just sick to death watching the USA/UK behave as righteous arbitrator globally.

What galls me just as much is that the UK public unquestionably accept this situation as their starting point. Never question the 'right' to intervene globally. Gobsmacks me. Even ethnic minority people questioned on the street take it as a 'given'. Not is it our position/job, but does this case merit our input. WTF??

John Kerry says chemical weapons killing women and kids is a war crime. Did I hear him continue to say napalm is ok though? HE SHOULD KNOW, ... BTW the criminal.

We have a pack of criminals trying to recruit Assad to their club, officially.

AM said...


if we accept Assad is a war criminal then we must also accept those opposing him are war criminals.
As the Czech proverb goes the big thieves hang the little ones.
The US has been a staunch defender of bombing civilians long after the practice was banned by international law in 1977. The Brits and US between them were responsible for rejecting the 1949 attempt to outlaw it in case it implied guilt for Brit carpet bombing of German cities during WW2 and US bombing of Japanese cities.
Assad is a war criminal long before the gas attack which I am still not convinced he did. Carla Del Ponte as linked by Larry raised serious question marks over it. She is not somebody easily dismissed.
I thought your point on Facebook was a sober assessment of the strategic reality on the ground, in as far as I understand what happens on the ground in that place. But a strategic argument is vastly different from conferring any legitimacy on the war criminal as I fear Sean is doing. Riding on the back of the scorpion is bad enough but at least hold our noses and get off before the sting comes, as it will.
Why would your position change if it was proven he had used gas? It is just one more war crime in a long litany of them. And the sovereignty issue remains the same. I don’t think you can really run with a gradation here, at least not in the way you seem to set it up. Whether he used gas or not should not be the determining factor. In an ideal world the bastard should be serving life. The reason your argument has to prevail is not because he is a progressive anti imperialist - he is anything but – rather it is because as Mick points out, the consequences of Syria falling to these powers is catastrophic. Much worse than what the current bastard is doing to his people.
Take a look if you get time at the AC Grayling article. It is an illustration of how these things are considered. Grayling is one of the most outspoken opponents of war crimes and civilian bombing yet he thinks military intervention here is the way to go. In my view Grayling got it wrong but the comments are interesting.

Unfortunately, Alec, your defence of Sean notwithstanding, he did wish the bastard well - long life to the scuzbucket. This is where the current debate has its origins. Long life to Syria is one thing, but conferring any legitimacy on this despot is another.

It is not Sean's opposition to invasion, or his support for resistance to it, but the seemingly benign approach to Assad, that is being challenged

Alec said...

I binned my last post because Sean may not want me attempting to speak for him. He is more than capable of clarifying his points.

Mackers, you make great play of Assad being a war criminal without presenting anything by way of evidence. I am commenting on the current situation as I have no knowledge of his past record in regards to war crimes against his people. I am opposed to foreign intervention except in the case were it is necessary to protect a civilian population from gross harm. Even then it must have the strongest possible support from the international community. We discussed this years ago during the Rawandan genocide.

Sovereignty is a first principle of international law which must be recognised and respected.

AM said...


you probably read more about it than I do and hardly therefore need reminded of the mass rape, murder and torture documented by Fisk, who you are unlikely to claim is a representative of Western media bias. In fact in one piece where he hammered the Western media he matter of factly referred to the war crimes listed above.

Solidarity with raped women or victims of torture does not depend on who they are. Once we let that happen we legitimise Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, because it just becomes a matter to be decided by who gets tortured or raped, not whether torture or rape is wrong.

Now in a somewhat selfish and cynical move I am off to drink bourbon - so none of you start accusing me of bias if the comments don't appear until I am sober.

AM said...


the problem with pulling comments is that it ruins discussion.

I shouldn't even be on now but another piece has to be formatted - so much for my bourbon.

The evidence is so frequent that citing it seemed superflous. It is like saying Adams is a liar. It is such a given we presume nobody any longer needs persuaded.

As a quickie just read Fisk, even casually. Assad is not one of the war criminals I would watch in the sense that I have Bagosora or Videla, but the old reliables have put enough out there to make the mark. If it was Fox News puting it out we would switch off.

I don't disagree with you on intervention. As you say we have debated it for years and in particular around Rwanda. It is just that when I look at all the countries selected for intervention, the case seems to fall. Humanitarian military intervention must trump national sovereignty in the circumstances you outlined. It is just finding the conditions that fit. Rwanda was perfect - one radio station bombed could have prevented the half of it in some estimates.

But the US cannot seriously call for democracy in Syria and allow Saudi Arabia to continue. It is all guff.

AM said...

Before I claer off having just uploaded ranklin Lamb, a Tory MP was on the news there and he posed the very simple question: what was in it for the Syrian regime if it used gas? Nothing that he could see.

frankie said...

US 'backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria, blame it on Assad govt'

Dated 30th Jan 2013....

Makes you think..(makes me at least)..

itsjustmacker said...


Nothing surprises me anymore.


I agree with that Tory MP.

sean bres said...

Mick I'm only seeing your comment now having read over this evening's contributions - just in from football. I do not expect the Syrian people to put up with something we would not tolerate ourselves, the principle point I stand behind is that they are in a life and death struggle for the very fabric of their own society, imperfect as that may be, and as such victory for the Assad regime is the only viable mechanism not only for progress but for survival. And as such then we should support the regime. This is the source of Anthony's ire because I said on another occasion words to the effect of "long live the resistance of Hezbollah, long live Bashar al-Assad, long live Syria". Perhaps I was overzealous but it was in the context of the criminal manipulations Syria has experienced and continues to experience because of the activities of MI5/CIA/Mossad and in the context that unless the axis I referred to with my 'long-live' sentiment emerges victorious that Syria will become another Iraq, another Libya - a failed state torn to pieces by extreme, wanton and murderous violence and a once-functioning society absolutely ripped apart in a horror show we would never want visited on our own. In a perfect world things would be just as you and Tony argue but unfortunately this is not a perfect world and in this instance it's complicated by a series of extremely complex contributing factors - you know this as well as I do.

Anthony are you telling me that Bashar al-Assad ordered the rape of these women, that it was systematic? How can you really say that, you don't know that at all. This man is a progressive by the standards of the Middle East and certainly by the standards of the thug, facist killers of Washington, London and Paris. But that does not preclude the reality that he is also capable of corruption. Of course he is. Nor does it preclude the reality that he is but one man in a system. A powerful figure in that system yes but Bashar al-Assad is not the singular personification of Ba'ath rule. Which is why I believe the man is in favour of change but simply can't come out and call for it, to leave himself exposed to those who would lets say "not be happy" at the loss of their position and privilege if events moved on the ground to quickly for their liking. We only need to look at what is happening with Tamarod in Egypt and the coup d'etat that brought in the stooge El-Sisi. Just to be clear I'm under no illusions as to the activities of the secret police, the beatings, the tortures. But the war crimes? That's another story. You made the comparison with Chile earlier but when Allende was deposed in a military coup he had risen to power through the existing Chilean constitution - Nixon and the Generals massacred thousands to do away with him. Assad did not kill thousands of people and overturn the Syrian constitution to come to power, like Allende he achieved his office through the existing constitutional structures - no matter how vile we may or may not find them. There's a world of difference here as far as I'm concerned. Enjoy the bourbon anyway a chara... Gonna get a read here at the latest upload from Lamb, his stuff is impressive

AM said...


I did enjoy the bourbon but I'm not enjoying it now the morning after.

frankie said...

Bourbon........Try this Anthony. Next time you take a 'sup of whusky' drink some orange juice before you sleep and first thing in the morning.

As for Al Qaeda/Rebels in Syria..Started of as a computer database

larry hughes said...

Be careful what you swallow from western media. My wife tells me the Philippine people would love to have Marcos back in the morning. It was a sentiment I encountered all the time on my visits there.

The bottom line was he actually did things for the people. Hospitals, schools, universities, roads, jobs etc. Obviously something wasn't to the liking of the yanks. They did what they always do, ran a media slur campaign and ousted him. Aquino did nothing for the people. She was another 'yes we can' 'change' bull-shitter. She is hated now by the people who were just sold another American dream/lie. A yank proclaimed in a bar in Manila. 'we saved these people from communism man'!! I said 'saved? ffs look around you, at least under China or Russia they'd have apartments and not be living in plywood sheds'. He was going to start a fight over it, but thought better of it, there were other leprechauns there who's also had enough of his huge fucking mouth! Thinking on it now, it was a chance wasted we should have put him in traction the scum bastard.

We know absolutely nothing about what is going on in other countries and the proof of that is in the blatant lies that we can all see clean through daily on our tv, which the USA/UK expect us to take as our truth. What else then is untrue? Just about EVERYTHING I suggest.

I hope the Westminster vote yesterday against attacking Syria is a sign that people on the ground in the UK have made it clear to their MPs that this time will be a bridge too far and the end of their political careers.

REMEBER, it is WE who are the most brainwashed people on earth. NOT North Korean's, Iranians or people in the Philippines or Syria. People know what is going on in their own countries, but the evil axis of the USA and anyone who will give them political cover for their despicable deeds is impossible to stop. SHAMELESS.

So, what the hell do we know? I know nothing of the internal affairs of Syria. Leave it to themselves to fix if they can.

Tain Bo said...

It’s beginning to look like the USA will be flexing its might alone as it seems wiser heads prevail.
The media hype might just have backfired as a result it is reminiscent of the cold war era as it looks like they are wanting a proxy war with their old red enemies.
The big question now is will they strike out of bravado or will they shy away in which case their enemies will view them as weak.
One would think after the last to ventures into the Middle East they would by now know they can’t be the strong arm world police.
It does look like they have put their back against a wall as they scramble for support from allied nations.
I doubt if their interest in Syria is humanitarian as their eyes are looking a little south to a major interest the Suez Canal a vital trade artery.
If they strike Syria is it just target practice just in case Egypt boils over into all out civil war?

Organized Rage said...

"REMEBER, it is WE who are the most brainwashed people on earth."


Good point, if you do not mind I will tuck that away and use it some time.

larry hughes said...

Organised Rage

Absolutely, work away.

I don't think the authorities in the UK/USA actually believe their own propaganda and junk for a minute. They are acting contemptuously in the USA knowing their own supporters/cheerleaders don't believe the lies either but obviously find it amusing that those who rationally oppose them can do nothing about their evil. Westminster MPs seem to have gotten a career ending wake-up call of some sort though which is welcome.

Only one member of Parliament seemingly has a child in the armed forces, but just about all of them are fiddling their expenses. Yep, lets send our kids to Syria to sacrifice limbs and lives to keep the likes of Eton and Harrow kiddies safe in their beds.

John Kerry is indicative of how no amount of incinerating babies and entire Asian villages can satiate the American desire for killing and war. Simply stunning in the hypocrisy and evil of his stance. And at his age.

AM said...

On the drink tonight again. But I can't blame Sean Bres. I just like the drink! Not that drunk that I will stick my oar in and make an incoherent point.

Alec said...

The crux of the difference here is whether Assad is deserving of support. I get totally what Sean is saying and I think others do as well. I support his contention that the immediate future of Syrian sovereignty is directly linked to the governments ability to win the war. This seems a no brainer. Reform of the politcal system must come from within the counrty and not as the result of froeign intervention.

I am still to be convinced of Assad's war crimes as I have not been able to source anything to support it. Perhaps this has more to do with my poor use of goggle and computer ignorance. What I will not deny is the nepotistic character of the regime and probable human rights abuse. Evidence of greater crimes will prove me worng.

Regime change has become a euphemism for naked foreign agression. It hides behind a pseudo democractic veneer to fool the people. But its true meaning has been exposed in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya where it has brought nothing only suffering and civil war. America and Britian have nothing to offer the Syrian people that would ultimately improve their situation.

Change within Syria must come from the sovereign people deciding the own affairs.

sean bres said...

Wish I could join ye Mackers, doubt Carrie'd be down shouting at us to get up to bed, it half 7, the two boys locked and in the middle of a complete twisting session!

sean bres said...

And I reckon if Lar was there the whole thing would have degenerated by 2am and we'd be out on the street!

Alec said...

Too much whiskey, I'd say. Get on the wagon old hand.

AM said...


\like lots of things it seemed a good idea ... at the time. But ...


I always had something about the house and you wouldn't look at it in the house.

It is not a good idea if you are bringing down the weight. It leads to head in the fridge syndrome.

AM said...


will I survive the experience? That sounds like an Orange Order attempt on my life!!

larry hughes said...


'On the drink tonight again. But I can't blame Sean Bres. I just like the drink! Not that drunk that I will stick my oar in and make an incoherent point'.

Wimp!! Sure yer no man at all until ye can celebrate graduation by locking yerself in the flat for 3 days with 2 cases of 'probably' and 2 barrack-busters of cider and the computer ON. Then spend a month with yer head under the pillow grinding yer teeth at what ye wrote. Grow a pair ffs!!

Is this UN meapons inspection not a rigged event. I mean WHY do the yanks insist the DON'T indicate who used the weapons, just verify that they were used?

DISGUSTING, and the media playing it's full part in the charade AGAIN. Recon the loyalists have the right idea regarding journalists. (and no, I'm not drinking at the moment)

Sean Bres

Defamation of character will get ye everywhere, see you tomorrow.

michaelhenry said...

Just watched Obama live on sky-I think he has sh1t himself-a American president on his last term is now leaving the decision about bombing another nation up to Congress-i think the brits have showed a way out for Obama and he's made a grab for it with both slimy hands-cant see the dumb French bombing by themselves now-talk about egg left on faces-its a large omelette that has dropped on them-

AM said...


dare the French after their disgraceful stance on Rwanda. There, their intervention was timed to facilitate the escape of the Hutu Power perpetrators of genocide. It aided Théoneste Bagosora, a much worse war criminal than Assad, and the effective mind behind the genocide.

larry hughes said...


Couldn't agree more. He is dumping the upcoming latest war-crime on the American people via Congress. I hope with all my heart the American public put the fear of God into their Congressmen. The country is in a mess, criminal bankers having a laugh and countless amputees in every village and town from Afghan and Iraq and Obama is begging (cringe) for more war.

I believe the USA supplied the chemicals and I think the UN inspectors being refused permission to ascertain who fired them is proof of it. The Syrian army has victory in hand and the USA wants an excuse to cripple the Syrian military before it can push its victory home.

Perhaps the USA has caught a glimpse of itself in the 'global mirror' and seen just how UGLY it has become. A GLOBAL MENACE.

C'mon all you Americans, get busy on the phones, now is your chance to correct some of the global negativity towards your country.

sean bres said...

Here here Larry. The CIA and MI5 done this no doubt, just as they orchestrated the Houla and Hama massacres - the two effective war crimes Assad stands accused of. In both instances those of a pro-West disposition sent there to find the evidence that would allow for military intervention could not determine if it was the regime or the Takfiri-Salafist terrorists. Why? Because it was NOT the regime but the professional killers being armed and funded by the West through KSA and the Prince of Qatar. And all to blame it on Assad, to justify even more and even greater foreign intervention - for make no mistake the Brits, Zionist occupiers of Palestine and Uncle Sam have been on the ground here for a long, long time. Now we have Bandar Bush - so-called because his family is so close to the Nazi Bush political dynasty that he and good old GW palled about as children when he would visit the Bush family homestead in Texas - being linked to the chemical attack. The scum bastards who sit in the Pentagon and Langley and think up such vile, debased, devious schemes are more than capable of this do not fool yourselves! They have no value, none whatsoever, on a human life. Because we are dealing with sociopathic madmen. The difference now and the time of Iraq is that public opinion has become more important thank fuck. Had it not the Cruise missiles would already be raining down on the poor souls of Damascus, sent there quite happily and oblivious to the human suffering of the ordinary people of Syria by these rogue terrorists sociopathic monsters who as Larry says are the greatest threat to stability in the world today. John Kerry's diatribe yesterday was absolutely disgusting but shouldn't surprise us. What was refreshing was to see from social network, political bloggers and even some mainstream outlets that this time their filthy lies have not worked. And yes indeed Lar quite looking forward to seeing ye tomorrow also!

larry hughes said...

Have to say I have begun to wonder might all the illegal social network spying that they are engaged in have alerted the USA/UK axis of deception and evil to their ever increasing unpopularity at home as well as globally. Not to mention the Iraq debacle. People have gotten to the stage they believe nothing from these scoundrels.

All the revelations about the 'dirty-war' here and elsewhere down the decades may have perhaps undermined their iron grip on media outlets post 9/11. In spite of the majority of journalists crawling shamelessly to the governments commands people have developed their own method of assessing what is going on.

Reminds me a bit of a programme I watched about old 1930s Hollywood movies where the man had to have one foot on the floor in all bedroom scenes to pass the censor. Imaginative double meaning and innuendo were inserted by directors which the audiences got and knew, providing added entertainment and preventing the movies from being cut and rendered unwatchable. It has become almost the same process in reverse in reading through the blatant lies pumped into our living rooms daily on news channels in 2013 just to decipher the shit we are to endure.


Honestly not sure what happened, but both the USA/UK are so tarnished and discredited now they should do NOTHING for a decade and give planet earth a much needed break...AMEN.

frankie said...

British government allowed company to export nerve gas chemicals to Syria while civil war was raging