How can peace in Syria be achieved?

[Childlike Empress]

Came across a little article about the German left and their support for Assad.

He quotes a leading middle east expert who heads several academic Arab studies institutions and a journalist living inside Syria for many years. He does nothing to counter their expert opinions. What is his expertise other than incredulity from being a pro-american wannabe leftie?

 

[trustbutverify]

Came across a little article about the German left and their support for Assad.



Maybe the author knows CE.

Eerie, isn't it? Absolutely nailed the typical Assadist mindset.

 

[Virus]

He quotes a leading middle east expert who heads several academic Arab studies institutions and a journalist living inside Syria for many years. He does nothing to counter their expert opinions. What is his expertise other than incredulity from being a pro-american wannabe leftie?

It's just funny how he talks about the German left being supporters of Assad, sycophants for Putin and 9/11 twoofars.

 

[Childlike Empress]

It's just funny how he talks about the German left being supporters of Assad, sycophants for Putin and 9/11 twoofars.

Ah, so it serves to confirm your prejudices and ludicrous stereotypes regardless of any knowledge, substance and connection to reality of the events in Syria the author possesses. I understand.

 

[HoverBoarder]

Eerie, isn't it? Absolutely nailed the typical Assadist mindset.

Facts are facts, except when they don't matter in the cases where supporting a side for political purposes is more important.

It is somewhat sad when people give up on honest analysis in favor of political bias.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Facts are facts, except when they don't matter in the cases where supporting a side for political purposes is more important.

It is somewhat sad when people give up on honest analysis in favor of political bias.

This statement is so empty that we can agree on it.

 

[HoverBoarder]

As I await more enlightenment from Hover Boarder, I took a look at one of his videos Syria. Soldier Shoots Detainee in Cold Blood 1-Oct-12.

I invite him, or anyone else, to review it and tell me there's not a 50% chance or higher of that scene being faked. Where was he shot? In the blood packet? Why wasn't it shown? What was the intent of the loyalist solider filming this in the first place? Etc.

And what the heck, I'll check the others, real quick. Passing thoughts only.
Russian title, trans: Syria. Shooting.: Possibly real shooting. Possibly real soldier/Shabiha guy in sneakers. Possibly not real. Possibly misattributed until I learn more.

Russian again, trans: Syria. "Arrest." Looks pretty genuine, quite brutal. It seems he's alive that whole time, apparently sobbing at the end, his free arm only maybe shilding his face during the drag. Yikes. The shovel, the kick to the face, and the whole thing suggest he's to be relieved of his suffering quite soon, however. Also, less likely to be misattributed. Violators: Possible loyalist soldiers in camo, boots and sandals (not the famous Shabiha sneakers). Possible FSA defectors, perhaps even trying to impersonate soldiers. Not sure how convincingly. Not sure what the Toyota truck they pile into suggests. The person whose boots were removed, presumably the doomed man, was apparently wearing military-looking boots. Possible soldier, possible defector, maybe even caught trying to impersonate a soldier and treated to this.

Many unknowns, unless you have detailed information to clarify this snuff film someone made and you feel quite sure fits your agenda. It's worth more study, this one. They have a fire truck (1:06). Hm. Looking again at the boots (0:17). What are those funky loops at the top? Fireman's overboots perhaps? How about the pants? What do those suggest? As I said, more study.

But then you could get me for ignoring 99.8% of the data. Everything but this, and the Houla massacre, and Daraya, and Sari Saoud, and a few others... It could get to be like that scene in the Jerk where he's listing exceptions to his not needing anything. Here, for the history-impaired.

Raw Video: Amateur Video Shows Syria Violenc
Dated April 25, FWIW, Dateline Izraa. Some people apparently shot in a city square. Most of it could be fake, but this time it doesn't seem like the case. We don't see the shooters or the shooting, that I saw, just the aftermath, injured being loaded into rebel cars (not ambulances) to go to opposition field clinics.

That's all the time I have for now. HB, maybe you can fill in the rest about just what this shows and how sure we can be of just what's the right response to it?

I agree that you can never know anything 100%, pretty much ever, but it seems pretty doubtful that ALL of these videos were faked.

Especially since there are a whole lot more just like them.


I think one of the more important questions is:

How much time and effort do you think it would take to fake all, or even a majority of the videos showing abuses in Syria (from either side)? Do you think the FSA or similar groups would have the ability/resources to carry that out themselves?

 

[HoverBoarder]

I looked at the images, having no inclination to ignore their most powerful message because of who published them, surprising as that might sound. I asked you what they're supposed to prove. You offered no answer. What am I supposedly ignoring in these amazing satellite images of Syrian armor engaged in, or prepared for, warfare? Do you even know what it's supposed to prove?

I'm not ignoring it, I just need you to specify just what sequence of leaps you've made in order to see in that proof of the distorted pseudo-reality activists are feeding us, and on which the vast majority of us base opinions on how peace can, or rather should, be achieved. If it's a good sequence, I'll give you credit for that, but I need to hear it first.

I am not making any big leap.

There are pictures and many accounts of artillery/aerial bombs hitting civilian areas that have killed a large portion of the 30,000 people in the Syrian war.

Satellite pictures show Syrian artillery near those civilian areas, and pictures from the cities show the artillery damage.


Which makes it pretty hard to claim that the artillery strikes have not been carried out by the regime.

 

[HoverBoarder]

Ironically enough, that is also very similar to what occurs when the whole Syrian crisis is just blamed on one 'evil empire' or another without really looking into what is actually going on.

So let me get to the heart of it.

Why do you think there is has been a Syrian civil war in the first place?


That question gets to the heart of the problem, and is also a large part of finding a solltuion.

It helps to know what went wrong in the first place if you want to figure out how to fix it.

I didn't blame it on that soothing, off-the-shelf "one 'evil empire' or another" stereotype. That's your insertion. I said the US was foremost in my mind when thinking about countries engaged in covert warfare against Syria. I was interested as to why you had chosen to exclude Western countries from your list of countries with the power to influence events in Syria.

I had previously addressed why I had focused on the main players in the conflict, but did include an analysis of other actors per your request.

Israel would lose more in terms of their National Security without Assad in power, NATO mostly has the Euro crisis to worry over, and the US talks a lot about the humanitarian problems in Syria, but is not able to intervene in Syria.

The main players of Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Lebanon, and Jordan have a lot more to do with the conflict, and serious analysis of their role is often ignored by many of the pro-Assad crowd in lieu of blanket CT assertions of CIA/Mossad involvement.


However, a lot of this (and any discussion on how best to end the conflict) has to do with the question of "Why do you think there is has been a Syrian civil war in the first place?"

 

[HoverBoarder]

HB, maybe you can fill in the rest about just what this shows and how sure we can be of just what's the right response to it?

BTW, in case you are really interested in assessing the videos of alleged abuses, a large collection was put together in the following video.

In the first part, you can hear and see the incoming artillery hitting the town.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I am not making any big leap.

There are pictures and many accounts of artillery/aerial bombs hitting civilian areas that have killed a large portion of the 30,000 people in the Syrian war.

Satellite pictures show Syrian artillery near those civilian areas, and pictures from the cities show the artillery damage.


Which makes it pretty hard to claim that the artillery strikes have not been carried out by the regime.

So presuming the picture is supposed to prove who's in the wrong in Syria
your leaps are
1) You believe the "many accounts" of shelling being responsible "a large portion of the 30,000 killed." I wouldn't disagree, since 'large' is a vague word and it doesn't specify who those people are or that many foreigners aren't also being killed.
2) This is an image of that Syrian artillery - again, I agree
3) Therefore this image proves that the Syrian military is killing large numbers of people with its artillery. Same basic ideas, so I guess I agree in the same limited way, but it also seems the proof is rather vague and unneeded. No one denied artillery has been used, to attack buildings in cities. It's who's in those buildings and why they're targeted that matters to me.

Also, there's one good answer to solve the problem of the innocents who will surely be killed by accident (in small-to-middling numbers, presumably) in the shelling of cities: if the rebels know they'll be attacked, they should not hide themselves inside populated cities. But they do it FOR the human shields, just to cause complications like civilian casualties, should they be hit. Look up our friend Abu Hashish in Aleppo who's "given up on the present," who'd give his own kids for the revolution, but decided to endanger many other peoples' kids in the city instead, by taking up bases there (better than olive groves) although all the neighbors who could left before or early in the resultant shelling.

I was going to contest your 99.9% modified to 95-99% ignore rate. But the number isn't so bad. There's a large majority of things I haven't studied closely and some I haven't even heard about at all (alternately, "ignored.") If one was to put a number of the stories, it's less than 1% I really know. If the stories are weighted for importance, it's probably at least 5%. Houla and Daraya combined? That's big. So it's "ignore" that I contest, and that you should revise since, from the look of it, you have yet to really examine 100% of the information rushing past you pre-packaged.

One other difference between us is I'm on a team with a couple of other who've looked into things I haven't and shared their findings which I take as good even though I can't vouch for them in the same way.

Now, I'm still curious about your revised (?) thoughts on evidence and snuff films. Don't forget to explain the significance of that for me.

And then

Why do you think there is has been a Syrian civil war in the first place?


That question gets to the heart of the problem, and is also a large part of finding a solltuion.

How exactly does it do that? I can think of ways I'd agree with that you'd consider massively twisting your intent.

But to simply answer the question, there is a civil war because two groups of people in Syria, both with the idea thay could win it, have challenged each other for the role of running the country. Both have some numbers and some military capabilities and some outside support, and neither has backed down or shown serious willing to compromise anywhere like 50-50 between their extremely different visions, and so they fight. As soon as enough of those factors change, the fighting should pretty much cease.

 

[JihadJane]

... the US talks a lot about the humanitarian problems in Syria, but is not able to intervene in Syria.

lol, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo!

The main players of Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Lebanon, and Jordan have a lot more to do with the conflict, and serious analysis of their role is often ignored by many of the pro-Assad crowd in lieu of blanket CT assertions of CIA/Mossad involvement.

Please provide some examples of these blanket CT assertions of CIA/Mossad involvement, starting with commentators on the JREF forum. At the moment, it looks like another of your off-the-shelf, strawman stereotype insertions.

However, a lot of this (and any discussion on how best to end the conflict) has to do with the question of "Why do you think there is has been a Syrian civil war in the first place?"

I'd start by making sure that my political beliefs weren't clouding my judgement and perceptions, lest I end up cheerleading yet another destructive wild goose chase that leaves hundreds of thousands of people dead, mutilated, traumatized, displaced and homeless and another country in ruins.

 

[Toontown]

I'd start by making sure that my political beliefs weren't clouding my judgement and perceptions, lest I end up cheerleading yet another destructive wild goose chase that leaves hundreds of thousands of people dead, mutilated, traumatized, displaced and homeless and another country in ruins.

You talking about Saddam's 30-year rampage of terror, mass murder, and serial invasions, resulting in over 2 million dead?

That's over now. Neocons ended it.

 

[HoverBoarder]

lol, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo!

Please provide some examples of these blanket CT assertions of CIA/Mossad involvement, starting with commentators on the JREF forum. At the moment, it looks like another of your off-the-shelf, strawman stereotype insertions.

Seems like you already found the Conspiracy Theory thread on it.

I'd start by making sure that my political beliefs weren't clouding my judgement and perceptions, lest I end up cheerleading

You seem to be working very hard at that.........

yet another destructive wild goose chase that leaves hundreds of thousands of people dead, mutilated, traumatized, displaced and homeless and another country in ruins.

The simple answer is that Syria would never be in a civil war if their allies had not allowed them to kill so many protesters without repercussions.

If Russia had insisted that Syria uphold some level of human rights, and not kill hundreds of their own people just for disagreeing with the government, than there would never have been a Syrian conflict.

Instead of a Syrian conflict, it would have been a Syrian dialogue.


Instead Russia set the line of acceptable behavior at not using chemical biological weapons, and made no actions to stand up to any of the other abuses of the Syrian regime. Understandably, Russia had their own protests against alleged vote fixing by Putin, but they were able to deal with that in ways that did not kill tens of thousands of their own people.

The only reason that we are in this situation at all is because mass killings of innocent civilians are still seen as acceptable behavior by a large number of countries. If we had a more just system that held countries accountable for their actions without requiring military involvement, Syria and a whole lot of other countries would never have had civil wars.


That's one of the main reasons why I have been so focused on highlighting the abuses in the Syrian conflict. If we had a more just and reasonable system, it would be a lot less likely that pointless wars like this one would occur.

 

[Caustic Logic]

HB, I'll check back tonight to see what you've covered out of the things I'm waiting on. In the meantime, one more optional question for the list (bolded)...

The simple answer is that Syria would never be in a civil war if their allies had not allowed them to kill so many protesters without repercussions.

If Russia had insisted that Syria uphold some level of human rights, and not kill hundreds of their own people just for disagreeing with the government, than there would never have been a Syrian conflict.

Instead of a Syrian conflict, it would have been a Syrian dialogue.

If Russia stood down, it would mean UNSC approval for intervention, which as history shows, depending on the air defenses situation and/or willingness to act even without that mandate (as in Iraq) it could lead to months of bombing of military targets and cities as the rebels slowly took more territory, then swept on the capitol and began their purge. Good air defenses seem to be the only thing really going against that here, besides the UNSC blockage and possibly the will to act without that.

Can you show where the FSA, SNC, or anyone relevant said if they got enough outside support, they would really like to talk to Assad and broker a compromise? I don't remember seeing that said, but maybe it was once. I have seen its opposite stated several times, that they will never talk to the butcher after this or that murky massacre, and repeated rebel dismissal and even demonization of all reforms, inspections, peace missions, talks, compromises, etc.

In the shadow of what happened to Libya, it seems they have banked all on securing a repeat. Peace that way will come only after they have ground down the last of the resistance into the grave or their own secret prisons. It will take years after the first bombs fall, so we had better start soon.

ETA:

That's one of the main reasons why I have been so focused on highlighting the abuses in the Syrian conflict. If we had a more just and reasonable system, it would be a lot less likely that pointless wars like this one would occur.

You really do have this genius, here and above, for getting things almost perfectly true when taken the opposite way. Please keep it up, and here's to a more just and reasonable system! Let the problematic Security Council member backing prolonging the conflict end, and let compromise become a possibility!

 

[JihadJane]

The only reason that we are in this situation at all is because mass killings of innocent civilians are still seen as acceptable behavior by a large number of countries.

Please name these countries and link to their expressions of acceptance.

...
If we had a more just and reasonable system, it would be a lot less likely that pointless wars like this one would occur.

I don't understand what kind of system you are referring to here. What have you got in mind?

The simple answer is that Syria would never be in a civil war if their allies had not allowed them to kill so many protesters without repercussions.

How many protestors did they kill, who killed them and on whose orders?

 

[HoverBoarder]

I don't understand what kind of system you are referring to here. System of what?

One that paid more attention to the UN charter of human rights.

More specifically, I am talking about a group of countries that will agree to put sanctions on countries found to be killing thousands of their own people.

How many protestors did they kill, who killed them and on whose orders?

Most estimates put the numbers in the thousands.

Syria death toll hits 33,082 – Security Council inaction encouraging Assad



As far as who ordered the Syrian regime military to kill such a large number of protestors, you can just follow the chain of command.


A very detailed analysis of the human rights abuses including the regime killings of protesters can be found here:

Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in the Syrian Arab Republic


As well as this report

Ms. Navi Pillay, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights: Statement to the Side-event at the 21st session of the UN Human Rights Council on "Bearing witness: human rights and accountability in Syria"

All wars come to an end at some point, but a sustainable peace will only be possible if accountability and justice prevail.

 

[JihadJane]

One that paid more attention to the UN charter of human rights.

More specifically, I am talking about a group of countries that will agree to put sanctions on countries found to be killing thousands of their own people.






Most estimates put the numbers in the thousands.

Syria death toll hits 33,082 – Security Council inaction encouraging Assad

Those figures aren't for protestors.

As far as who ordered the Syrian regime military to kill such a large number of protestors, you can just follow the chain of command.

i.e you don't know.

 

[Virus]

Those figures aren't for protestors.

By October 2011 it had reached 3000 according to the UN.

This has resulted in a “devastatingly remorseless toll of human lives,” she added, noting that more than 3,000 people have been killed since the Government began its crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in March, including at least 187 children. More than 100 people have been reported killed in the last 10 days alone.

So the answer to your "question", a lot of protesters have been gunned down and blown to bits with artillery.

i.e you don't know.

Do you think tanks, snipers and artillery just rolled up to demonstrations spontaneously without orders being given?

 

[Caustic Logic]

Originally Posted by JihadJane
How many protestors did they kill, who killed them and on whose orders?

Most estimates put the numbers in the thousands.

Syria death toll hits 33,082

33,082 protesters? Words have meaning, and it was a specific question. Is there a separate list then for the armed militant fighters who've been killed challenging the government? For the soldiers killed by those non-protesters, on and off-duty, in and out of hospital, the policemen, mailmen, firemen, female medics, various loyalist civilians, Alawites, Sari Saoud, etc? None of those are protesters. Nor are these 'majority' of the dead, or maybe it's 'many,' whatever, of the dead you feel are children.

Children=protesters=rebel fighters=Islamo-nihilists enjoying their fleecing of the infidels=freedom good guy Arab Rainbow Spring stuff=bad guy thug insane regime slaughtering that same whole cluster of goodness with war machines, just for protesting/waging jihad/wanting ice cream.

Again, what I'm waiting on:
Your thoughts on "snuff films" as evidence and/or as propaganda tools. What's wrong with my 'only settling for those,' as you decided, apparently because I actually analyze them? And what's right about you dropping rebel snuff films around to make your pro-rebel points and thus contribute to the climate of blind acceptance that makes them want to keep making more?

There were some other points, but that's the main one.

Or, go quote some articles and make another montage.