Syria - Please Do What You Can Now to Halt this Rush to War

[Signor]

Wow Signor, you have read a work by Samuel Huntington?

LOL,Does his works meant to be "all rights reserved for XYZ"^o)

Clash of Civilizations is considered to be one of his weakest works. The section "Islam's Bloody Borders" is particularly controversial. It has been a while since I've read it but I did find that his inclination to describe Islamic Civilization as being more prone to violence with its neighbors was full of spurious logic (pages 254-265 in my edition).

I've my areas of agreements and disagreements with Samuel Huntington(I forgot the name of other author whose theory he endorsed) which not the issue in hand right now.Independent believes only Muslims feel they have some problems with west not the opposite,this is what i addressed here.

 

[WarriorforMarie]

got to love that brazenly sardonic style!
Only one book is taken in totality Marie and it is the noble Quran.. the rest of the books can be taken for what they're worth!

best,

I was not trying to be sardonic. I am actually impressed that Signor has read something by Samuel Huntington, he is a serious political scientist and it is impressive that anyone would try to read his work.

 

[جوري]

. I am actually impressed that Signor has read something

If you can't see your repeated insults here then I don't think anyone can help you!
Also who are you to be impressed or unimpressed by anyone on board?

 

[WarriorforMarie]

What is that exactly? sob7an Allah at the trolls that frequent this forum!

Signor has read something by Samuel Huntington who is a significant scholar in the realm of political science.

 

[Independent]

Greetings Muhammad

I don't know where you have received the impression that Muslims believe the whole of the west is evil - if that is the view of one or two members, it should not be reflected upon Muslims as a whole

Obviously I don't think this view is held by every Muslim. There is a terrific range of views in this forum, never mind anywhere else. it is perfectly possible to believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy without being anti western. However, for those who do feel that way inclined, it's an article of faith.

But there are Muslims who routinely demonise the West as a whole, without qualification. The urge for this is so great that there is little enthusiasm here for criticising Russia for what they have already done in Syria, they prefer to get agitated about what America might do. Russians are almost being turned into heroes for 'standing up to America' - even though they provided the chemical and biological weapons in the first place.

This is absurd at every level, including the term 'Westerner' itself - which effectively is now being used as a racial term, rather than geographical or economic.

As I said before, it's very difficult to know numbers. One thing is for sure is that the internet is the home of conspiracy theories. The internet has caused their popularity to rise exponentially, along with many other views formerly confined to isolated individuals. I love the internet for my work and for recreation, but I'm beginning to wish it had never been invented, when I see what people do with it.

Believing in conspiracy theories does not automatically mean that the entire western world is demonised

I agree, it doesn't have to mean that. The range of views based on the same basic principle (a secret elite that is controlling the world) is huge. In fact, one of the many, many reasons I find these theories to be wholly unconvincing is that they have been used for such diverse and contradictory messages. As far as the 'it's an anti Muslim conspiracy' version of the theory goes, this is relatively recent. The same theories were knocking around for a hundred years or more before it got turned that way.

Why should Muslims be singled out or even blamed for believing in it?

Right wing American patriots are another significant group - however, they are localised to the US and personally I don't think they ever will do much (unless the US economy collapses). There is also the old, ever popular anti semitic strand (which is usually worked into all the other versions too).

Logically of course, if someone believes in the 'secret elite' story, they should see Westerners as victims alongside themselves. But this doesn't seem to happen. They criticise westerners both for being 'sheeple' and ignorant, whilst also blaming them for the actions of this same elite which they aren't supposed to know about. Does it make any sense? Of course it doesn't.

I hope you will also be motivated to learn what drives many Muslims to believe in such theories and hold distrust for western powers in the first place.

I couldn't have been a member here for this long and not realise that. I totally agree that Muslims are suffering in many countries. But I don't think this is the result of an international conspiracy. I think it is for the same kind of reasons that people suffer in other parts of the world today and back through history. At this point i don't see that there is something different going on although I continue to read and learn more. But there are plenty of successful, wealthy Muslim states in the world today. I don't see how Muslim states have had it worse than sub Saharan Africa, for instance.

This is an Islamic website so certain things get talked about, and others not. But the context is missing. You cannot understand Bosnia unless you also know about Croatia. You can't analyse what's happened to the Rohinga unless you also look at the fate of the Karen. Yugoslavia and Burma are both better defined as wars of nationalism, rather than purely anti Muslim. In both cases, religion was one identifier of nationalism, but it wasn't the only one and nor was it just Islam. There is so much that is left either unexplained or simply non-sensical, if it is seen exclusively from the Muslim viewpoint.

 

[Karl]

The Zionist New World Order is as plain as the nose on your face. International Jewery by another name. It is the reason for all the aggression against Islam.

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Another analysis on the general situation.

While Syria Descends Into Suicide, Israel And The Us Are Enjoying The Spectacle

Ceasefire (Frank Barat): What is the definition of negotiations in Israel-US language and why is the Palestinian Authority playing along?

Noam Chomsky: From the U.S. point of view, negotiations are, in effect, a way for Israel to continue its policies of systematically taking over whatever it wants in the West Bank, maintaining the brutal siege on Gaza, separating Gaza from the West Bank and, of course, occupying the Syrian Golan heights, all with full US support. And the framework of negotiations, as in the past twenty years of the Oslo experience, has simply provided a cover for this.

CF: In your opinion, why is the PA playing along with this and going to negotiations time after time?

NC: It’s probably partly out of desperation. You can ask whether it’s the right choice or not but they don’t have many alternatives.

CF: So it’s pretty much to survive that they indeed accept the framework?

NC: If they were refuse to join the US-run negotiations, their basis for support would collapse. They survive on donations essentially. Israel has made sure that it’s not a productive economy. They’re a kind of what would be called in Yiddish a “Schnorrer Society”: you just borrow and live on what you can get.

Whether they have an alternative to that is not so clear, but if they were to refuse the US demand for negotiations on completely unacceptable terms, their basis for support would erode. And they do have support – external support – enough so that the Palestinian elite can live in a fairly decent – often lavish – lifestyle, while the society around them collapses

CF: So would the crumbling and disappearance of the PA be a bad thing after all?

NC: It depends on what would replace it. If, say, Marwan Barghouti were permitted to join the society the way, say, Nelson Mandela was finally, that could have a revitalising effect in organising a Palestinian society that might press for more substantial demands. But remember: they don’t have a lot of choices.

In fact, go back to the beginning of the Oslo Agreements, now twenty years old. There were negotiations under way, the Madrid negotiations, at which the Palestinian delegation was led by Haider Abdel-Shafi, a highly respected, Left-Nationalist figure in Palestine. He was refusing to agree to the US-Israel terms, which required crucially that settlement expansion was allowed to continue. He refused, and therefore the negotiations stalled and got nowhere.

Meanwhile Arafat and the external Palestinians went on the side-track through Oslo, gained control and Haider Abdel-Shafi was so opposed to this he didn’t even show up to the dramatic and meaningless ceremony where Clinton beamed while Arafat and Rabin shook hands. He didn’t show up because he realised it was a total sell-out. But he was principled and therefore could get nowhere, and we’ll get nowhere unless there’s substantial support from the European Union, the Gulf States and ultimately, from the United States.

CF: In your opinion what is really at stake in what’s unravelling in Syria at the moment, and what does it mean for the broader region?


NC: Well, Syria is descending into suicide. It’s a horror story and getting worse and worse. There’s no bright spot on the horizon. What will probably happen, if this continues, is that Syria will be partitioned into probably three regions; a Kurdish region – which is already forming – that could pull out and join in some fashion the semi-autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan, maybe with some kind of deal with Turkey.

The rest of the country will be divided between a region dominated by the Assad regime – a brutal horrifying regime – and another section dominated by the various militias, which range from the extremely malicious and violent to the secular and democratic. Meanwhile, Israel is looking by and enjoying the spectacle. If you look at the New York Times this morning there’s a quote by an Israeli official essentially expressing their joy at watching Arabs slaughter each other.

CF: Yes, I read that

NC: For the United States, that’s fine, they don’t want an outcome either. If the US and Israel wanted to assist the rebels – which they do not – they can do it, even without military intervention. For example, if Israel were to mobilise forces on the Golan Heights (of course, it’s the Syrian Golan heights, but by now the world more or less tolerates or accepts Israel’s illegal occupation,) If they would just do that, It would compel Assad to move forces to the South which would relieve pressure against the rebels. But there’s no hint even of that. They’re also not giving humanitarian aid to the huge number of suffering refugees, not doing all kinds of simple things that they could do.

All of which suggests that both Israel and the United States prefer exactly what is happening today, just as reported in that NYT story this morning. Meanwhile, Israel can celebrate, and its status as what they call a “Villa in the Jungle”. There was an interesting article by the editor of Haaretz, Aluf Benn, who wrote about how Israelis are going to the beach and enjoying themselves, and congratulating themselves as being a “Villa in the jungle” while the wild beasts out there tear each other to shreds. And, of course, Israel under this picture is doing nothing except defending itself. They like that picture and the US doesn’t seem too dissatisfied with it either. The rest is shadowboxing.

CF: What about talk of a US strike then, do you think it’s going to happen?

NC: A bombing?

CF: Yes

NC: Well, it’s kind of an interesting debate in the United States. The Ultra-Right, the Right wing extremists who are kind of off the international spectrum, they’re opposing it, though not for reasons I like. They’re opposing it because “Why should we dedicate ourselves to solving other people’s problems and waste our own resources?” They’re literally asking “Who’s going to defend us when we’re attacked, because we’re devoting ourselves to helping people overseas?” That’s the Ultra-Right. If you look at the ‘moderate’ Right, people like, say, David brooks of the New York Times, considered an intellectual commentator on the right. His view is that the US effort to withdraw its forces from the region is not having a “moderating effect”. According to Brooks, when US forces are in the region, that has a moderating effect; it improves the situation, as you can see in Iraq, for example. But if we’re withdrawing our forces then we’re no longer able to moderate the situation and make it better.

That’s the Standard view from the intellectual right over to the mainstream, the liberal democrats and so on. So there’s a lot of talk about “Should we exercise our ‘Responsibility to Protect’?” Well, just take a look at the US record on ‘Responsibility to Protect’. The fact that these words can even be spoken reveals something quite extraordinary about the US – and, in fact, Western – moral and intellectual culture.

This is quite apart from the fact that it’s a gross violation of international law. Obama’s latest line is that he didn’t establish a “red line” but the world did through its conventions on chemical warfare. Well, actually, the world does have a treaty, which Israel didn’t sign and which the US has totally neglected, for example when it supported Saddam Hussein’s really horrifying use of chemical weapons. Today, this is used to denounce Saddam Hussein, overlooking the fact that it was not only tolerated but basically supported by the Reagan administration. And, of course, the convention has no enforcement mechanisms.

There’s also no such thing as “Responsibility to Protect”, that’s a fraud perpetrated in Western intellectual culture. There is a notion, in fact two notions: there’s one passed by the UN General Assembly, which does talk about “Responsibility to Protect,” but it offers no authorisation for any kind of intervention except under conditions of the United Nations charter. There is another version, which is adopted only by the West, the US and its allies, which is unilateral and says R2P permits “military intervention by regional organisations in the region of their authority without Security Council authorisation”.

Well, translating that into English, this means that it provides authorisation for the US and NATO to use violence wherever they choose without Security Council authorisation. That’s what’s called “Responsibility to Protect” in Western discourse. If it weren’t so tragic it would be farcical.

CF: Thank you, Professor Chomsky.

http://www.zcommunications.org/while-syria-descends-into-suicide-israel-and-the-us-are-enjoying-the-spectacle-by-noam-chomsky.html

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

An update, looks like the date is set for the bombs to fly


US gives Syria one week to surrender chemical weapons or face attack

John Kerry tells press conference with William Hague in London that US intelligence blames Assad regime for gas attack

The US secretary of state has said that President Bashar al-Assad has one week to hand over his entire stock of chemical weapons to avoid a military attack, but said he had no expectation that the Syrian leader would comply.

John Kerry also said he had no doubt that Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack in east Damascus on 21 August, saying that only three people are responsible for the chemical weapons inside Syria – Assad himself, one of his brothers and a senior general. He said the entire US intelligence commnity was united in believing Assad was responsible.

Kerry was speaking on Monday alongside William Hague, who was forced to deny that he had been pushed to the sidelines by the House of Commons decision 10 days ago to reject the use of UK force in Syria.

The US Senate is due to vote this week on whether to approve an attack and Kerry was ambivalent over whether Barack Obama would use his powers to ignore the Senate, if it were to reject an attack.

Kerry said the US had tracked the Syrian chemical weapons stock for many years, adding that it "was controlled in a very tight manner by the Assad regime … Bashar al-Assad and his brother Maher al-Assad, and a general are the three people that have the control over the movement and use of chemical weapons.

"But under any circumstances, the Assad regime is the Assad regime, and the regime issues orders, and we have regime members giving these instructions and engaging in these preparations with results going directly to President Assad.

"We are aware of that so we have no issue here about responsibility. They have a very threatening level of stocks remaining."

Kerry said Assad might avoid an attack if he handed every bit of his chemical weapons stock, but added that the Syrian president was not going to do that. He warned that if other nations were not prepared to act on the issue of chemical weapons, "you are giving people complete licence to do whatever they want and to feel so they can do with impunity".

Kerry said the Americans were planning an "unbelievably small" attack on Syria. "We will be able to hold Bashar al-Assad accountable without engaging in troops on the ground or any other prolonged kind of effort in a very limited, very targeted, short-term effort that degrades his capacity to deliver chemical weapons without assuming responsibility for Syria's civil war. That is exactly what we are talking about doing – unbelievably small, limited kind of effort."

The secretary of state repeatedly referred to genocides in eastern Europe and Rwanda in putting forward his case for taking military action. "We need to hear an appropriate outcry as we think back on those moments of history when large numbers of people have been killed because the world was silent," he said. "The Holocaust, Rwanda, other moments, are lessons to all of us today.

"So let me be clear," he continued. "The United States of America, President Obama, myself, others are in full agreement that the end of the conflict in Syria requires a political solution."

But he insisted such a solution was currently impossible if "one party believes that he can rub out countless numbers of his own citizens with impunity using chemicals that have been banned for 100 years".

Hague was forced to emphasise that the UK was engaged in the Syrian crisis through its call for greater action on humanitarian aid, as well as support for the Geneva II peace process.

He pointed out that David Cameron had convened a meeting of countries at the G20 summit in Saint Petersburg to ramp up the humanitarian effort.

Hague met members of the Syrian opposition last Friday and described its leaders as democratic and non-sectarian. On Monday, he avoided questions on why he was not providing lethal equipment to the Syrian opposition.

He said it was for the US to decide whether to attack Syria without congressional endorsement. "These are the two greatest homes of democracy and we work in slightly different ways and we each have to respect how each other's democracies work."

Kerry said he did not know if Obama would release further intelligence proving the culpability of Assad in the chemical weapons attack, saying the administration had already released an unprecedented amount of information.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/us-syria-chemical-weapons-attack-john-kerry

 

[Abz2000]

John Kerry also said he had no doubt that Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack

Intelligence leaves no doubt that Iraq continues to possess and conceal lethal weapons​

George Bush, US President 18 March, 2003


​

Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction​

Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary 2 April, 2003


​

Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit​

Tony Blair 28 April, 2003


​

We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd​

Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003​

It is possible Iraqi leaders decided they would destroy them prior to the conflict​

Donald Rumsfeld, US Defense Secretary 28 May, 2003

​

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.​

Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002​

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. George "aWol" Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002​

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world. Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
December 2, 2002​

We know for a fact that there are weapons there. Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003​

"25,000 liters of anthrax ... 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin ... materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent ... upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents ... several mobile biological weapons labs ... thousands of Iraqi security personnel ... at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors." George "aWol" Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003​

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more. Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003​

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have. George "aWol" Bush
Radio Address
February 8, 2003​

So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not. Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
March 7, 2003​

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. George "aWol" Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

my first suspect would be israel, second washington, third - the rebels, last (in light of the situation) - assad (despot though he may be).
​

 

[Mustafa2012]

Brother Abz, that is one of the best posts I've seen in a long time :ma:.

In the good old days, people would let each side have their say and present their evidence and let a jury decide the verdict.

These days it works the other way round.

First the media and governments decide the verdict and then they present evidence to support their judgement which may or may not be the right one.

But it must be right if they say it is, right?

After all, it's not possible for the media or even a government to be wrong, is it?

Of course not.

 

[Karl]

Assad is going to get rid of his chemical weapons to comply to requests. He is clever as chemical weapons are useless against the Zionists as they have protective gear.
If the Zionists attack him after he gets rid of his naughty chemical weapons the aggressors will look bad. The Wests propaganda machine will weaken if Assad plays it like Gandhi. He is also in luck that the rebels are attacking Christians, the rebels don't appear to be the goody goodies the West is making them out to be. The American soldiers or "grunts" don't even like the situation, they are waking up to the fact that they are being used for dirty wars for the progress of the internationalist Zionists euphemistically known as "The International Community". But the game plan is to hit Syria to bait a military response from Iran so they "The International Community" can invade and conquer Iran. I don't think Iran will fall for it.

 

[Independent]

We know for a fact that there are weapons there. Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003

What an odd post from Abz. The issue is not whether or not Syria possesses chemical weapons - they've already admitted it. They've even thrown them into negotiations.

 

[Trumble]

He is clever as chemical weapons are useless against the Zionists as they have protective gear.

So, if Assad is clever enough to know chemical weapons are useless against the 'Zionists', why does he have them? Who did he intend to use them against?

 

[جوري]

So, if Assad is clever enough to know chemical weapons are useless against the 'Zionists', why does he have them? Who did he intend to use them against?

His own people as he has been doing.. not that I agree that the west should interfere, they're obviously there because they know he is done for and don't want the weapons to fall in the hands of gabhat anusra whom they put on their terrorist list.. surprisingly Bashar and HizbuAllah are not so we know who the west defines as a true enemy and we certainly have Iraq as an example!

best,

 

[Independent]

So, if Assad is clever enough to know chemical weapons are useless against the 'Zionists', why does he have them? Who did he intend to use them against?

Chemical weapons are regarded as a kind of 'poor man's nuclear weapon' along with biological weapons - which Assad also has and which are even more indiscriminate. Chemical weapons can have at least some battlefield application, whereas biological are almost entirely random.

Syria has developed them primarily as an ultimate deterrent against Israel, just as Israel itself has nuclear weapons for the same reason. But of course, if Syria is threatened by any other country, then Assad has the weapons available. The main threat to the US would not be chemical but biological.

 

[جوري]

as an ultimate deterrent against Israel,

Kaffirs in here must really address themselves with these comic quips?

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139373/efraim-halevy/israels-man-in-damascus

and regardless of their own admissions, I guess the record speaks for itself, he hasn't fired a single bomb against Israel and well what of the Golan heights for a guy who is an enemy of Israel and capable of that much carnage he would have been hailed as a hero.. the only time he'll ever fire against Israel is to save himself as a last ditch effort. The west is very happy with despots ruling over Muslims, they're also very happy with Muslims specifically Sunnis dying any which way and the 4th generation style war where the nation eats itself from within is their best bet for now!

 

[Independent]

and regardless of their own admissions, I guess the record speaks for itself, he hasn't fired a single bomb against Israel/quote]
i don't think you have grasped the concept of a 'deterrent'.

The west is very happy with despots ruling over Muslims

Assad is Russia's man, not the US, and always has been.

 

[جوري]

Assad is Russia's man, not the US, and always has been.

it doesn't matter who plays good cop bad cop when it comes to Israeli interests.. The article is about 'Israel's' man not the U.S or Russia..
stop with the irrelevant drivel!

 

[Independent]

The article is about 'Israel's' man not the U.S or Russia..

However, you quoted the article in support of a different claim: 'the west is very happy with despots ruling over Muslims'. I can't help it if your article is irrelevant to your own post.

Other despots have received western assistance, and sometimes lost that assistance - but Assad is all Russia and Iran.

You've also missed the most important development of the day. Under Russian persuasion, there is a possibility that Syria will allow the UN to immobilise their chemical weapons, in order to avert attack. It's very unusual for Russia to take such a proactive and genuinely helpful role. At this point it's far from certain it will come off, but it might.

This will avert US involvement although it will mean Assad is likely to stay in power, as he shows no sign of losing the civil war.

 

[جوري]

However, you quoted the article in support of a different claim: 'the west is very happy with despots ruling over Muslims'. I can't help it if your article is irrelevant to your own post.

The only thing you can't help is to tie things together that are separated by time and space!
You're a concrete thinker and that's actually a compliment from how I'd like to describe you!

You've also missed the most important development of the day. Under Russian persuasion, there is a possibility that Syria will allow the UN to immobilise their chemical weapons, in order to avert attack. It's very unusual for Russia to take such a proactive and genuinely helpful role. At this point it's far from certain it will come off, but it might.

Actually that's a brilliant step to enable Bashar to stay and continue on his agenda!

This will avert US involvement although it will mean Assad is likely to stay in power, as he shows no sign of losing the civil war.

Yup, US has no problem playing good cop, bad cop for the bigger picture. Any votes in the U.N can be vetoed by Russia and that would take the edge off the U.S they still come out the good guys when they're all devils!