The only major report into the incident corroborated the story that the attack was carried out by regime forces and Shabiha militants. With further accounts identifying Jamil Hassan, head of the Syrian Air Force Intelligence as being directly involved in covering up the attack.
Unless you have access to information that the investigation did not, the report found the government supplied story to be "unlikely," and there really isn't much more to say on it.
For more, you can read and discuss the issue in it's own thread here.
So, as to the interview with Assad's brother, what do you think is incorrect about it? Do you think he was lying, or is a rebel sympathizer? Why would you think that his account that they are seriously looking to an end to the conflict is wrong?
Good idea, this thread. I won't be able to do it justice ATM. Got very busy, as well as feeling crappy.
My best solutions involve the use of a time machine. On the runners up, I'm fairly near to HGE above. I realize the rebels and most of the world wouldn't trust the Syrian government to deal with the cleanup fairly, and that concern has plenty of reason, some of it probably even true. It's a very tricky situation.
We could examine all the factors leading to the current state of war
1) Syria's whole gov. policy stuff, opposing Israel, supporting Iran, etc.
2) The West's extreme opposition to such governments
2) The West's encouragement and arming of the rebels (Turkey is the West, and new Libya was made by it), announcing there's no accpetable outcome but the current government's fall.
3) The government'sdesire to protect itself and the people of Syria against what it "calls terrorists." And they believe it, with some reason, some of it at least true.
4) Assad's desire to personally hold on to power and unwillingness to step down
5) The rebel unwillingness to negotiate at all and win totally, whether by force or abject gov. surrender
6) Syrian activists and outsiders continuing to make it sound like the government is responsible for all of the app. 20,000 reported killed, creating a moral black-and-white photo that's soooo not accurate, as the basis of decision
7) etc.
One or more of these factors has to be broken. There are many ways to achieve peace, but barring a negotiated settlement (extremely unlikely) it will entail one side winning and the other ceasing even to struggle, realizing the game is up. It will probably involve one side put at the others' mercy. That's how it happened in Libya, and the mercy was generally thin.
On preventing genocide - It's been said the rebels and their supporters seek regime change at all cotst. It's been countered that the outside world will help mitigate and control those costs. I'm not so sure. I see outsider peacekeepers being attacked, a few killed, as protectors of the Alawite heretics. They'd say 'you don't understand. After the things they did (or were accused of), you need to let us work this out." We'd say, "no, that's bad," but oh well... they did do some nasty stuff, and their kids should have thought about that before letting themselves be born to such monsters...
Fair assessment, although we would disagree on some of the points, but the main thing that I think is being overlooked by many sides is the internal opposition to either side fighting to the very end.
I think that when it gets closer to that point, there will be a lot more support for a negotiated settlement vs. a sectarian winner takes all solution.
So, as to the interview with Assad's brother, what do you think is incorrect about it? Do you think he was lying, or is a rebel sympathizer? Why would you think that his account that they are seriously looking to an end to the conflict is wrong?
It wasn't Assad's brother, but the Russian deputy foreign minister who was allegedly interviewed. Didn't you wonder why Assad's brother should be named Mikhail Bogdanov when you typed up your post? He allegedly told the Saudi rag that Assad's brother lost his legs in the bomb attack. Why anybody would believe that a Russian official had anything exclusive to say to a Saudi rag is beyond imagination, and that goes for you but especially for the Guardian who should be ashamed for even reporting it, but have lost all their shame in reporting on "Arab Spring" issues since over a year.
At least they printed the Russian rebuttal which came in an hour or so later...
It wasn't Assad's brother, but the Russian deputy foreign minister who was allegedly interviewed. Didn't you wonder why Assad's brother should be named Mikhail Bogdanov when you typed up your post? He allegedly told the Saudi rag that Assad's brother lost his legs in the bomb attack. Why anybody would believe that a Russian official had anything exclusive to say to a Saudi rag is beyond imagination, and that goes for you but especially for the Guardian who should be ashamed for even reporting it, but have lost all their shame in reporting on "Arab Spring" issues since over a year.
At least they printed the Russian rebuttal which came in an hour or so later...
Probably people should stop fighting. Since the Syrian army and Syrian police have legitimacy and the Syrian Free Army has none, the first step would be for the Syrian Free Army to withdraw and disarm. Its a funny thing, but the more the Syrian Free Army move in to "protect civilians" the more civilians wind up dead, the more police and soldiers wind up dead and the more business and houses wind up destroyed. I wish the Syrian Free Army would go and protect Americans instead.
Once the insurgents have disarmed, there will be no more fighting. Sounds pretty sustainable to me.
They reported what would have been a major story, an interview to a Saudi paper that the brother of Assad had stated that Assad was ready to step aside if proper plans were put in place for an acceptable compromise.
The fact that the paper was so quick to post the denial of the interview by the Russian Foreign Ministry is further proof that they are a higher integrity paper than sources like RT, and especially the more CT heavy sources that do not post retractions for their many, many errors.
Probably people should stop fighting. Since the Syrian army and Syrian police have legitimacy and the Syrian Free Army has none, the first step would be for the Syrian Free Army to withdraw and disarm. Its a funny thing, but the more the Syrian Free Army move in to "protect civilians" the more civilians wind up dead, the more police and soldiers wind up dead and the more business and houses wind up destroyed. I wish the Syrian Free Army would go and protect Americans instead.
Once the insurgents have disarmed, there will be no more fighting. Sounds pretty sustainable to me.
Well, the major problem with that plan is what would regulate the behavior of the Assad forces in that situation?
Would they really stop shelling, torturing, killing, and executing massive numbers of Syrians if that happened?
Still, I appreciate your straight forward honest response.
I am still hoping that there will be serious moves to bring about a negotiated settlement by an outside player.
If China brings about a serious plan to bring about peace in Syria (China seeking to coax compromise in Syria: state paper), than they could possibly get Russia to get on board with a full UN security council resolution that would finally bring about an end to the conflict.
I have been interrogated by the Mukhabarat myself actually.
Long story, basically Israel had tossed a missile into a Palestinian refugee camp/training ground and 6 months later I went to have a look.
They seem to have all the good cop/bad cop techniques worked out and lots of psychological tactics, so I don't think they need to pull fingernails. Why not waterboard like the Americans do?
I did see someone being slapped around in one of the basements I was taken - but for all I know he was an ali baba. Anyway, the insurgents aren't exactly angels either.
Why should I care if some Mukhabarat slaps someone around in the well founded belief that if the tables were turned they would slit his throat? And ignore rebels that knife children in Houla?
Probably people should stop fighting. Since the Syrian army and Syrian police have legitimacy and the Syrian Free Army has none, the first step would be for the Syrian Free Army to withdraw and disarm. Its a funny thing, but the more the Syrian Free Army move in to "protect civilians" the more civilians wind up dead, the more police and soldiers wind up dead and the more business and houses wind up destroyed. I wish the Syrian Free Army would go and protect Americans instead.
Once the insurgents have disarmed, there will be no more fighting. Sounds pretty sustainable to me.
The bolded will of course rub many the wrong way, and that's interesting. Usually, a government is recognized as having some legitimacy - if not by virtuous origin than pragmatically, by durable existence prior to the troubles, having survived and managed to keep the country together. It needn't be along the best lines to matter - clearly they've given the scene they live in some thought and know how to manage it better than the outsiders who decide which faction to support.
But National sovereignty and governmental legitimacy is something we've developed a habit overriding by any means, when desired. It's true that those insane and dangerous enough deserve little or no respect, and have to be taken out. But we have extremely low standards for finding out who that it. Alleging abuses by a regime on the State Dept. or Israel enemy list? We believe what you're saying, activists. Murky battles become crystal-clear massacres requiring a "never again!" answer, etc. The path of exceptionalism is made clear by the target government's own alleged actions. They always go insane and demand overthrow right before it happens. And so, many people FEEL the Syrians have been given far too much respect, given that increasing thousands of people are dying there in crystal-clear circumstances as the rebels get better armed.
In Libya, few people realize the significance, but the UN and others silently rubber-stamped the theft, by defectors seemingly working off a script, of many diplomatic posts and seats granted to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya - a great disrespect and illegal, but it's okay, as Gaddafi was so exceptionally hated, er, insane, bombing the capitol itself and having Viagra-pumped Africans raping women and children ... Consider one of the first voices demanding bombing of the Jamahiriya was the defected ambassador Shalgam, keeping his spot like so many others would, shucking the government that appointed him and had the seats in this forum of governments, now representing "the Libyan people" and also, according to resolution 1970, remaining "the Permanent Representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya." Wow, they got great representation from their permanent, unremovable "representative" there...
Syria's government has not suffered that fate, AFAIK, and has been functioning and protecting people and keeping things together better than in a failed state like "Free Libya," for years before these weird things started. But they have no role but to die now because they've been blamed for everything that's happened in the course of their resistance to another engineered takeover attempt. The permanent Uncle Sam representative to the world says "this is still the Arab Spring, a magical, whimsical time when dictators fall. If the people, any number, armed or not, demand regime change, and you fail to just surrender, we'll help them get it. If your air defeses are weak enough, we will find reasons and ways to bomb your butts if needed."
And to be consistent, it should happen. It happened in Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, so why not in Syria and then Iran?
No,most people still believe that. They just absorb what prevails in the media and then never study up, so how could they know? It's best to help work on that problem in the indicated thread, especially since I'm taking a break from it. Peace.
Today, al-Watan has hit back against the Russian denial and posted an audio recording of the alleged interview on its website. The voice in the recording speaks fluent Arabic, so presumably Bogdanov was interviewed through an interpreter if the recording is genuine.
I have been interrogated by the Mukhabarat myself actually.
Long story, basically Israel had tossed a missile into a Palestinian refugee camp/training ground and 6 months later I went to have a look.
They seem to have all the good cop/bad cop techniques worked out and lots of psychological tactics, so I don't think they need to pull fingernails. Why not waterboard like the Americans do?
I did see someone being slapped around in one of the basements I was taken - but for all I know he was an ali baba. Anyway, the insurgents aren't exactly angels either.
Why should I care if some Mukhabarat slaps someone around in the well founded belief that if the tables were turned they would slit his throat? And ignore rebels that knife children in Houla?
They seem to have all the good cop/bad cop techniques worked out and lots of psychological tactics, so I don't think they need to pull fingernails. Why not waterboard like the Americans do?
Did you mastermind or otherwise participate in the murder of thousands of Syrians?
Apparently not, since you continue to be able to use your fingers. I'm pretty sure they were just "conditioning" you. Clearly, they are good at what they do.
I did see someone being slapped around in one of the basements I was taken - but for all I know he was an ali baba. Anyway, the insurgents aren't exactly angels either.
Why should I care if some Mukhabarat slaps someone around in the well founded belief that if the tables were turned they would slit his throat? And ignore rebels that knife children in Houla?
And how do you know said "well founded belief" actually existed? A "slapping around" hardly establishes the existence of such a presumed well founded belief.
Considering your obvious conclusion-jumping bias, why should anyone give a rat's ass what you care about, or what you say you saw?
Probably people should stop fighting. Since the Syrian army and Syrian police have legitimacy and the Syrian Free Army has none, the first step would be for the Syrian Free Army to withdraw and disarm
A modern Russian lady, ha. Ok ok, I didn't have a lot of time to type my post and made a mistake on not including "talks about" after the comma.
The Russian Foreign Ministry denies that any interview ever took place, and the Saudi paper is standng by the story. Thanks for the link CE, here is the translated version.
It definitely would still have been an important story to cover though. On the one hand it would have been very probable that the foreign minister would have had access to talk to Maher, on the other, it is very suspicious and curious why a Russian Foreign Minister would have given that type of interview to the Saudi newspaper in the first place, but it cannot be confirmed unless someone does a voice comparison analysis on the recording.
Here is the alleged text recording of the interview from the Saudi newspaper:
Here is some sample videos of him speaking:
This story though is even more reason why it is more trustworthy to have sources like the Guardian that perform serious fact checking and are accountable for posting retractions if they find errors.
I find it a lot less trustworthy for sources that never post any retractions at all, especially when there are a lot of questionable claims, or hyperbolic assertions
The bolded will of course rub many the wrong way, and that's interesting. Usually, a government is recognized as having some legitimacy - if not by virtuous origin than pragmatically, by durable existence prior to the troubles, having survived and managed to keep the country together.
It's not always the case that people who think that Assad has lost his legitimacy to rule, deny or get mad that there are some people who think otherwise. There will always be supporters of a dictators rule, especially if they provide and maintain a privileged group of society to support them.
The main thing that those who say that Assad has lost his legitimacy are doing is acknowledging the significantly large numbers of Syrian citizens who do not think that Assad has legitimacy to rule anymore due to his continued violence against his people, compared to the significantly large number of Syrian citizens who think otherwise. It is a stance that takes both sides into account.
So there really is nothing a person who acknowledges that a significantly large number of Syrian citizens don't view Assad as a legitimate ruler to get mad about. Sure there are going to be some people who think otherwise, but that does not change the large number of people who think Assad should go.
Interestingly though, it is the pro Assad side that gets worked up about opposing viewpoints, or more commonly ignores them altogether. SANA doesn't exactly spend a lot of time talking about the people who do not approve of Assad, and especially not why.
It needn't be along the best lines to matter - clearly they've given the scene they live in some thought and know how to manage it better than the outsiders who decide which faction to support.
But National sovereignty and governmental legitimacy is something we've developed a habit overriding by any means, when desired. It's true that those insane and dangerous enough deserve little or no respect, and have to be taken out. But we have extremely low standards for finding out who that it. Alleging abuses by a regime on the State Dept. or Israel enemy list? We believe what you're saying, activists. Murky battles become crystal-clear massacres requiring a "never again!" answer, etc. The path of exceptionalism is made clear by the target government's own alleged actions. They always go insane and demand overthrow right before it happens. And so, many people FEEL the Syrians have been given far too much respect, given that increasing thousands of people are dying there in crystal-clear circumstances as the rebels get better armed.
In Libya, few people realize the significance, but the UN and others silently rubber-stamped the theft, by defectors seemingly working off a script, of many diplomatic posts and seats granted to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya - a great disrespect and illegal, but it's okay, as Gaddafi was so exceptionally hated, er, insane, bombing the capitol itself and having Viagra-pumped Africans raping women and children ... Consider one of the first voices demanding bombing of the Jamahiriya was the defected ambassador Shalgam, keeping his spot like so many others would, shucking the government that appointed him and had the seats in this forum of governments, now representing "the Libyan people" and also, according to resolution 1970, remaining "the Permanent Representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya." Wow, they got great representation from their permanent, unremovable "representative" there...
Syria's government has not suffered that fate, AFAIK, and has been functioning and protecting people and keeping things together better than in a failed state like "Free Libya," for years before these weird things started. But they have no role but to die now because they've been blamed for everything that's happened in the course of their resistance to another engineered takeover attempt. The permanent Uncle Sam representative to the world says "this is still the Arab Spring, a magical, whimsical time when dictators fall. If the people, any number, armed or not, demand regime change, and you fail to just surrender, we'll help them get it. If your air defeses are weak enough, we will find reasons and ways to bomb your butts if needed."
And to be consistent, it should happen. It happened in Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, so why not in Syria and then Iran?
Syrians should have a right to choose and peacefully demonstrate without fear of being killed by their government.
The first and foremost duty of a Nation is to protect the people. If a Nation is failing to do that, and especially if they are intentionally doing a lot of killings themselves on unarmed civilians, than something need to be addressed.
I don't know if you read the UN Human Rights Council Report of the independent international commission of inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic (you have to download it) that CE linked to, but it pretty grave. I know that you would go straight to the section on Houla with an explanation on why you disagree with their labeling the only two accounts that followed the government version of the story as "unreliable" because of "inconsistencies."
However, you cannot deny that the report details some extremely serious war crimes. There are some extremely grave findings in these sections:
UNHRC Report of the independent international commission of inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic said:
E. Torture and other forms of ill-treatment 74–89
F. Indiscriminate attacks 90–95
G. Sexual violence 96–102
H. Violations of children’s rights 103–115
If you search for "Shabbiha," you can find some of the worst abuses that have been carried out are associated with that group. That is why it is so troubling when CE jokes about Assad being a "thug, LOL" for sending his shabbiha out to kill defecting soldiers.
There are some pretty grave accounts of what the Shabbiha did to villages who were suspected of knowing about defected soldiers, and especially the families of defected soldiers.
Here is just one small part form the report (pg. 74):
UNHRC Report of the independent international commission of inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic said:
35. Multiple, consistent reports have been received about extra-judicial executions of civilians in the Shammas neighbourhood in Homs on 15 May 2012. Shammas is approximately three kilometres from the Baba Amr neighbourhood. Residents describe members of the security forces and Shabbiha entering the area and shooting into the air before commencing house searches. One of those interviewed explained that the building opposite her house was abandoned and that security had broken in, transforming it into a “slaughter house”. She described how approximately every 15 minutes security forces would bring in a man handcuffed and blindfolded and that she would hear a shot shortly afterwards. The first man that was shot was dumped in the street. Another interviewee indicated that the following day he found 23 bodies, including the local imam, in a building near the mosque. Most had bullet wounds to the head.
That kind of action shouldn't be happening, and Russia, Iran, and the other Syrian allies who refuse to pressure Assad to halt that kind of actions are allowing it to occur. There shouldn't have to be an armed uprising to fight back against that kind of governmental abuse.
Normal functioning governments should be able to prevent their own institutions and forces from carrying out those kinds of severe abuses and killings against its own people.
With the repeated patterns of massive civilian killings that have gone on again and again, the Syrian government has proven that they are not only unable to prevent their own forces from carrying out mass abuses and murder of their own people, but they are repeatedly unable, and even purposefully allowing their own forces to commit massive abuses and killings against their own people.
If the implied message of your post with the references to Libya is that we should not take the rebels fight for a representative government as genuine, than you are not acknowledging that the abuses carried out by forces of the regime would have caused enough Syrians to turn against Assad.
A number of rebel commanders have claimed including the NYT article here, that “This is not an Islamic revolution. Each person has the right to wear what they want, eat what they want. We are fighting for freedom.”
However, Al Qaeda units have also arrived as noted in that same article, and the FSA is not strong enough to fight both them and the government right now. The FSA does however know that while the Syrian public at large may not approve of the massive numbers of civilian killings from Assad's forces, there is even more extensive opposition to Al Qaeda. The FSA knows that if they do enough to distance themselves as forces who are fighting for a more representative government for Syria, from the Al-Qaeda militants who seek to exploit the conflict to try to replace the current bloody dictatorship with a hardline bloody theocratic dictatorship, than they will lose public support.
As the NYT article that JJ posted about the 90% of Christians who had left Homs noted, it was an Al-Qaeda linked group that was responsible for harassing the Christians. Also talked about in this article from the Catholic paper The Tablet here. The FSA freed the captive Journalists held by an Al-Qaeda group not that long ago, and they will have some very delicate choices on how they stop the Al-Qaeda groups from carrying out abuses while still staying strong enough to fight Assad's forces.
Which is all the more reason why there needs to be international negotiated solution and peacekeeping force to ensure the protection of all Syrians.
Even if all of the FSA disarmed and all other outside groups left, the plain fact is that the Syrian government is not capably able to control its forces from massively abusing the people and citizens of Syria. It is also similarly unlikely that the FSA will be able to control all of their forces while they are still struggling to fight Assad's forces, much less prevent the Al-Qaeda groups from carrying out abuses.
The simple fact is that the only way that both sides are going to be held accountable is to get an international peacekeeping force to ensure that adequate protections are provided for all Syrians.
Haha, so what you wrote about "the interview with Assad's brother" in #21 was just an elaborate follow-up joke to that little typo. Clever. Glad we cleared that up...
Haha, so what you wrote about "the interview with Assad's brother" in #21 was just an elaborate follow-up joke to that little typo. Clever. Glad we cleared that up...
Remind me, how does the urban warfare in Syria look any different from the urban warfare in Fallujah?
What is happening in Syria is simply what any urban insurgency is like, Assad is not "killing his own people" as the crawlers like to pretend, but an urban insurgency targets government workers and installations which either has to be surrendered to or resisted.
I did not say Assad has legitimacy or the Assad government has legitimacy, I said the Syrian army and the Syrian police force have legitimacy to carry out security and terrorism prevention. The Syrian Free Army has no legitimacy to do anything.
There is no moral judgement, simply a legal judgement.
In order to benefit Israel we are encouraging the murder of innocent soldiers and policemen whose only crime was to sign up to serve their country and their community. If you want change in a country you need to look to the example of Eastern Europe of how to achieve that. The fact is most Syrians probably don't care much one way or the other, so we need the revolutionary vanguard approach of terrorism in order to force people to choose a side.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
