Syrian rebel leader threatens to escalate attacks

[KurtFF8]

Source (http://news.yahoo.com/arab-league-says-syria-monitors-helping-activists-085211028.html;_ylt=AgSy8xUEHfP08TTlxMpO1XOs0NUE;_ ylu=X3oDMTNsdTU2NnBlBG1pdANUb3BTdG9yeSBGUARwa2cDM2 QzZTFmY2YtMjIzOC0zY2ZiLWIxYzMtNWIwMzMzY2NjMzg3BHBv cwM1BHNlYwN0b3Bfc3RvcnkEdmVyA2U1OTMzNGMwLTM2MzItMT FlMS1iZGY1LWJmMWU0YmVlMjllYQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTFvdnRqYzJoBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25zBHRlc3QD;_ ylv=3)


BEIRUT (Reuters) - The commander of Syria's armed rebels threatened on Tuesday to step up attacks on President Bashar al-Assad's forces, saying he was frustrated with Arab League monitors' lack of progress in ending a government crackdown on protests.

"If we feel they (the monitors) are still not serious in a few days, or at most within a week, we will take a decision which will surprise the regime and the whole world," the head of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), Colonel Riad al-Asaad, told Reuters in an interview.

The Arab League said on Monday its monitors were helping to stem bloodshed, 10 months into a popular uprising against Syria's ruling family, and asked for more time to do their job.

But since the team's arrival last week, security forces have killed more than 132 people, according to a Reuters tally. Other activist groups say 390 have been killed.

Eighteen security force personnel were killed in the southern town of Deraa as dozens of deserting soldiers returned fire on police who shot at them as they fled their posts, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.

Security forces also opened fire and killed two people at a protest in the central city of Hama, the same day that activists met monitors and said the team seemed powerless to help them.

The monitors are checking whether Syria is implementing an Arab League peace plan by pulling troops from flashpoint cities and releasing thousands detained in the revolt, one of a series of Arab uprisings that have toppled four leaders in a year.

MAJOR ESCALATION?

Asaad, whose FSA is an umbrella group of armed factions, said he was waiting for the League's report on its first week before deciding whether to make a "transformative shift" that he said would mark a major escalation against the security forces.

"Since they (the monitors) entered, we had many more martyrs," he said, speaking by telephone from his safe haven in southern Turkey. "Is it in the Syrian people's interest to allow the massacre to continue?"

A committee of Arab ministers will discuss the monitors' preliminary report on Saturday, Arab League sources said.

The League mission has already been plagued by controversy. Protesters have complained about its small size and were appalled when the head of the mission suggested he was reassured by first impressions of Homs, one of the main centers of unrest.

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe said on Tuesday it was crucial that monitors were able to act independently. Protesters have complained that security forces regularly accompany monitors, making them difficult to approach.

"Do they truly have genuinely free access to information? We are waiting for the report they will produce in the coming days for more clarity," Juppe told the French news channel i>tele.

The U.S. State Department noted that violence against the protesters had not stopped, and said it was concerned by reports that soldiers were donning police uniform to mask their actions.

"In some cases the regime is actually putting out its own false reports that monitors are on the way, demonstrators come into the streets, and then they fire on them," spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said.

"The Syrian regime has not lived up to the full spectrum of commitments that it made to the Arab League when it accepted its proposal some nine weeks ago."

MONITORS "AFRAID"

Activists who met the monitors in Hama on Tuesday said they doubted whether the monitors had freedom of movement.

Mohammed Abul-Khair told Reuters he was among activists who had met monitors without security escorts present, handing them details of detainees and suspected detention centers. The monitors said they had found it hard to meet activists until now, but appeared sympathetic, he said.

Others said the team seemed unprepared or unwilling. They said the monitors had set up an office in a government-controlled area hard for activists to reach, and complained that many observers did not bring cameras or notepads on visits.

"I don't think they are sympathetic, I think they are afraid," said activist Abu Faisal, also present at the meeting. "We wanted to take them to one of the narrow alleys where there had been a lot of shelling. They wouldn't go past the buildings where there were snipers.

"People here are getting shot. They are here to get the facts but they are cowards and too afraid to do it," he said.

Juppe said he believed in the Arab League's determination, but the United Nations could not stand idly by as more people died. He said Russia continued to block decisive U.N. action.

"The (U.N.) Security Council cannot remain silent," he said. "The savage repression is totally clear, the regime has no real future and that's why it's up to the international community to speak out."

More than 5,000 people have been killed in Assad's crackdown on the protests, according to a United Nations estimate.

Armed rebellion has begun to overshadow what began as peaceful protest as rebels fight back. Damascus says it is battling foreign-backed "terrorists" who have killed at least 2,000 members of the security forces.

Rebel leader Asaad last week ordered a stop to attacks on security forces during the monitors' visit, but reports of assaults have continued to come in, highlighting concerns that the FSA does not fully control all armed rebels.

Nuland underscored Washington's repeated warning that an escalation of violence would only exacerbate the problem.

"That's exactly what the regime wants ... to make Syria more violent and have an excuse to retaliate itself," she said.

HUNGER STRIKE

Political detainees at Damascus's central prison started a hunger strike in protest over observers who met jailed felons during a visit, but not political prisoners, their relatives told the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

"The people the monitors met had nothing to do with recent events, so these (political) prisoners went on strike and are demanding monitors visit them," said Rami Abdelrahman, head of the British-based Observatory.

The government bars most foreign journalists from Syria, making it difficult to verify witness accounts.

Arab League Secretary General Nabil Elaraby said on Monday that Syria's military had now withdrawn from residential areas to the outskirts of the cities, but that gunfire continued and snipers were still a threat.

"We call upon the Syrian government to fully commit to what it promised," he said. He asked Syrians to "give the monitoring mission a chance to prove its presence on the ground."

Elaraby said the monitors had succeeded in getting food supplies into Homs, one of the centers of the violence, and had secured the release of 3,484 prisoners. Before the mission began, the rights group Avaaz said 37,000 were in detention.

On Sunday, the Arab Parliament, an 88-member committee of delegates from each of the League's member states, called for the monitors to leave Syria, saying their mission was providing cover for unabated violence and abuses by the government.

(Additional reporting by Khaled Yacoub Oweis in Amman and Mariam Karouny in Beirut; Editing by Mark Heinrich)

It's quite incredible that in the midst of a rebel army claiming that it will escalate existing attacks against the regime that some folks can point to this as evidence that the Syrian regime is cracking down on "peaceful protesters." Regardless of your opinion of the regime there, this logical inconsistency should be quite obvious.

This very article contains a contradictory narrative: discussing how security forces were killed, then trying to paint a picture of a regime crackdown on protesters as the reason for the death of the security officials (and of course just citing protester figures for the number of opposition deaths).

Now there's nothing inherently wrong with an armed uprising of course, that's not exactly what's the issue here. The issue is the narrative of a peaceful protest being violently attacked by an oppressive regime (which has some truth). And that that narrative is holding while it becomes clear that it is becoming a conflict between two belligerent armed factions.

The inability for some folks (including on the Left) to situate the meaning of the armed uprising in terms of what it means is quite problematic.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The issue isn't whether there's an armed conflict now but whether or not it started as an armed conflict.

[KurtFF8]

I agree that that is important. Another issue, however, is what is the nature of the Free Syrian Army. From what I understand it is mostly based in Turkey and is likely receiving arms from NATO forces. While this may not concern some Leftists, I think it's an important factor that needs to be addressed.

[Sasha]

Source (http://news.yahoo.com/arab-league-says-syria-monitors-helping-activists-085211028.html;_ylt=AgSy8xUEHfP08TTlxMpO1XOs0NUE;_ ylu=X3oDMTNsdTU2NnBlBG1pdANUb3BTdG9yeSBGUARwa2cDM2 QzZTFmY2YtMjIzOC0zY2ZiLWIxYzMtNWIwMzMzY2NjMzg3BHBv cwM1BHNlYwN0b3Bfc3RvcnkEdmVyA2U1OTMzNGMwLTM2MzItMT FlMS1iZGY1LWJmMWU0YmVlMjllYQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTFvdnRqYzJoBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25zBHRlc3QD;_ ylv=3)



It's quite incredible that in the midst of a rebel army claiming that it will escalate existing attacks against the regime that some folks can point to this as evidence that the Syrian regime is cracking down on "peaceful protesters." Regardless of your opinion of the regime there, this logical inconsistency should be quite obvious.

This very article contains a contradictory narrative: discussing how security forces were killed, then trying to paint a picture of a regime crackdown on protesters as the reason for the death of the security officials (and of course just citing protester figures for the number of opposition deaths).

Now there's nothing inherently wrong with an armed uprising of course, that's not exactly what's the issue here. The issue is the narrative of a peaceful protest being violently attacked by an oppressive regime (which has some truth). And that that narrative is holding while it becomes clear that it is becoming a conflict between two belligerent armed factions.

The inability for some folks (including on the Left) to situate the meaning of the armed uprising in terms of what it means is quite problematic.

Except that the deserters have been observant of the Arab leagues demands in the peace plan, its only logical that if assad refuses to keep his end of the deal and continues to shell demonstrating cities (which is BTW not where
the armed deserters are) they will consider starting/resuming armed activities as well

[KurtFF8]

I'm guessing you're not referring to the section of the opposition that launched a terrorist attack in Damascus though.

It will be interesting to see what direction the two main opposition groups go. Apparently they've reached an uneasy agreement about intervention that does not count intervention via Arab countries as foreign intervention.

[freepalestine]

tbh the news is kind of one sided.
no one mentioned the attackers behind the damascus bombing.
nor the opposition cutting throats ,chopping heads of soldiers and police etc.over the last few months.
or foreign salafists crossing from lebanon,turkish,and iraq border aided by who knows.
the muslim brotherhood of syria.is not mentioned in any of that.at least on western and saudi/gulf news channels.



I'm guessing you're not referring to the section of the opposition that launched a terrorist attack in Damascus though.translate (In arabic)http://palestinesons.com/ar/aid14140.html
muslim(alqaeda) brotherhood of syria admitted on 23 or24th december to those attacks

[agnixie]

nor the opposition cutting throats ,chopping heads of soldiers and police etc.over the last few months.
Yeah, if there's one thing a leftist is supposed to love it's the police. :rolleyes:

[agnixie]

you got the wrong thread..here>http://www.revleft.com/vb/israel-pay-internet-t166519/index.html?t=166519

What about no. My opinions on Israel are known already on this board so don't you ever try to imply I'm a zionist again just because of what little you think you understand about my ethnicity before you act like an antisemitic dipshit.

Also fyi, I'm not israeli, I have no israeli family, I have never set foot in Israel and I have no intent to.

[Sasha]

you got the wrong thread..here>http://www.revleft.com/vb/israel-pay-internet-t166519/index.html?t=166519
infraction for flaming, you have been warned enough.

[freepalestine]

infraction for flaming, you have been warned enough.
if a proper unbiased admin judged that .it would be the other way around.nevertheless.
(nb ive never previously had a warning etc on the forum)



What about no. My opinions on Israel are known already on this board so don't you ever try to imply I'm a zionist again just because of what little you think you understand about my ethnicity before you act like an antisemitic dipshit.

Also fyi, I'm not israeli, I have no israeli family, I have never set foot in Israel and I have no intent to.
well i dont know you.but have noticed on threads ive posted on in the past that you are pro isreal.
secondly i think your original ridiculous reply was to have a dig at me,because i'm an arab.so take your accusations elsewhere agnixie

[agnixie]

well i dont know you.but have noticed on threads ive posted on in the past that you are pro isreal.
Then you're illiterate or doing selective reading.

secondly i think your original ridiculous reply was to have a dig at me,because i'm an arab.so take your accusations elsewhere agnixie

lol, when I said "what you think you understand about my ethnicity" - that's exactly what I meant. You've got no goddamn clue. My original reply made no reference to ethnicity at all. You're doing projection here. You think I prefer one fascist regime because I called the fascist you actually side with for what they are. They both are. Simple really.


if a proper unbiased admin judged that .it would be the other way around.nevertheless.

What's your problem now?

[agnixie]

you gonna edit that anymore?


anyway can you explain your original comment,and what it had to do with the thread?

As much as your accusations of the opposition attacking syrian cops. You can attack them for being reactionary all you want, the syrian government is too, and it would be perfectly legitimate for leftists to attack the syrian police.

[manic expression]

As much as your accusations of the opposition attacking syrian cops. You can attack them for being reactionary all you want, the syrian government is too, and it would be perfectly legitimate for leftists to attack the syrian police.
The question is whether or not it's legitimate to attack the Syrian police (among others) while claiming to be "peaceful protestors" and appealing to imperialist NATO to "intervene".

I had hoped the lessons of Libya would be heeded.

[bcbm]

The question is whether or not it's legitimate to attack the Syrian police (among others) while claiming to be "peaceful protestors" and appealing to imperialist NATO to "intervene".

I had hoped the lessons of Libya would be heeded.

the snc wants international intervention but has specifically said they are not asking for nato and don't want 'boots on the ground.' the ncb opposes foreign intervention.

and lol at 'legitimate to attack police while claiming to be 'peaceful protesters'' give me a fucking break

[Omsk]

the snc wants international intervention but has specifically said they are not asking for nato and don't want 'boots on the ground.' the ncb opposes foreign intervention.



They dont want boots on the ground?They prefer bombardment?And what is international intervention other than NATO jumping in for more resources/taking down their enemies?

However,i dont see how will the situation in Syria end,and i dont think anyone can.Russia seems determined to stand with Bashar,Bashar will probably fight to the end in the case of an Libya-style conflict,and i think the protesters will do the same thing.

[manic expression]

the snc wants international intervention but has specifically said they are not asking for nato and don't want 'boots on the ground.' the ncb opposes foreign intervention.

and lol at 'legitimate to attack police while claiming to be 'peaceful protesters'' give me a fucking break
That's exactly what the Libyan collaborators were saying right up to the moment that they weren't. NATO is already involved in Syria anyway.

And what's wrong with pointing out the hypocrisy of a movement that has constantly claimed to be the image of peace and virtue whilst fielding an army?

[bcbm]

That's exactly what the Libyan collaborators were saying right up to the moment that they weren't.

damned if you damned if you dont


And what's wrong with pointing out the hypocrisy of a movement that has constantly claimed to be the image of peace and virtue whilst fielding an army?

killing police is nonviolence

[Ostrinski]

1. Yes the media is covering the whole phenomenon irresponsibly, nothing new here.
2. How could possibly question the legitimacy of attacks on the police? What analogue is there to defend the Syrian state?

[manic expression]

damned if you damned if you dont
Damned if you're making overtures for NATO support (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/calls-in-syria-for-weapons-nato-intervention/2011/08/26/gIQA3WAslJ_story.html).


killing police is nonviolenceNo it isn't.

[agnixie]

Damned if you're making overtures for NATO support (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/calls-in-syria-for-weapons-nato-intervention/2011/08/26/gIQA3WAslJ_story.html).

Wapo would say that. They're not known for providing sources so long as it makes the state department happy.



No it isn't.

Indeed. It's justifiable violence. Or is it one of these "defend the bourgeois state, we want spoils" moments.

[bcbm]

Damned if you're making overtures for NATO support (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/calls-in-syria-for-weapons-nato-intervention/2011/08/26/gIQA3WAslJ_story.html).

august 28th, timely.


The young Internet activists who have helped guide the uprising are arguing against the strategic shift. So, too, are the older dissidents who have long dreamed of the nonviolent revolution now unfolding



The NCB opposes foreign intervention, claiming it would result in an “occupation” of Syria (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/syria/) similar to the prolonged U.S. military presence in Iraq (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/iraq/) after the ouster of Saddam Hussein (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/saddam-hussein/)’s regime in 2003. The last U.S. troops left Iraq (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/iraq/) last month.


NCB officials accuse the Syrian National Council (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/syrian-national-council/) (SNC (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/syrian-national-council/)) of betraying Syrians by supporting military action that would result in widespread bloodshed. Imposing a no-fly zone would require neutralizing the regime’s vast air defenses, which would lead to heavy civilian casualties, NCB officials say.


“The SNC (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/syrian-national-council/) wants the devil to come and protect them against this regime,” said Khaldoon Alaswad (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/khaldoon-alaswad/), a member of the NCB’s executive committee.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/6/syrian-opposition-row-over-foreign-military-action/?page=all#pagebreak



The NCB is an umbrella group of Arab nationalist figures, socialists, independents, Marxists and also comprises members of Syria’s minority Kurdish community. The coalition is staunchly opposed to any international military intervention.
http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/national-coordination-body-for-democratic-change-in-syria



No it isn't.

of course it is.
but really its clear the opposition is not a unified force so there can be both peaceful protesters and those using violent means, which should be noted are a response to the much more overwhelming violence of the regime.

[manic expression]

august 28th, timely.
Do these things have expiration dates?


of course it is.
but really its clear the opposition is not a unified force so there can be both peaceful protesters and those using violent means, which should be noted are a response to the much more overwhelming violence of the regime.No, it isn't. Even if you think it's justifiable, it's still violence.

Sure, it's not a unified force, but that doesn't mean no one bears responsibility for what's going on.


Indeed. It's justifiable violence. Or is it one of these "defend the bourgeois state, we want spoils" moments.
Well, it's important to establish that violence isn't nonviolence. Second, my concern is the sovereignty of the Syrian people...that's what's at stake here.

[bcbm]

Do these things have expiration dates?

yes, dynamic situations change in real time. i notice you ignored the part about the sections of the opposition opposed to intervention.


No, it isn't. Even if you think it's justifiable, it's still violence.

Sure, it's not a unified force, but that doesn't mean no one bears responsibility for what's going on.

so who bears responsibility? there is no faction that has total control of the situation as far as i can tell.


Well, it's important to establish that violence isn't nonviolence.

if you're looking to moralize at people being massacred by their government for protesting, sure. but frankly i'm not sure what sort of communist does that.


Second, my concern is the sovereignty of the Syrian people

i'm sure

[manic expression]

yes, dynamic situations change in real time. i notice you ignored the part about the sections of the opposition opposed to intervention.
How has this situation changed since then? Is NATO intervention now OK, or was it OK then and now is not OK?

I didn't ignore them, I went on to say it's not unified but that we have to be honest about those seeking imperialist collaboration.


so who bears responsibility? there is no faction that has total control of the situation as far as i can tell.
Factions don't have control over their own words? The opposition groups who have been in support of intervention are responsible for that, and the groups that haven't are responsible for their noncompliance in that shameful appeal.


if you're looking to moralize at people being massacred by their government for protesting, sure. but frankly i'm not sure what sort of communist does that.
Protestors who've organized themselves into an army? At what point do we no longer call them by that label?

[bcbm]

How has this situation changed since then? Is NATO intervention now OK, or was it OK then and now is not OK?

not everyone is asking for nato intervention, even some of the groups asking for intervention have said they don't want nato.


I didn't ignore them, I went on to say it's not unified but that we have to be honest about those seeking imperialist collaboration.

if you acknowledge some don't want intervention, why are you using the fact that some do to paint the whole?


Factions don't have control over their own words? The opposition groups who have been in support of intervention are responsible for that, and the groups that haven't are responsible for their noncompliance in that shameful appeal.

the ncb condemned the call for intervention as i quoted before. and i was speaking about the violence- are those still peacefully protesting responsible for armed groups outside their control?


Protestors who've organized themselves into an army? At what point do we no longer call them by that label?

there are armed groups and unarmed groups. call them by what they are.

[Sasha]

Apparently the regime fired today at several sit-down blockades, a colonel deserted with 50 soldiers, the fact that these deserters take very rightfully their weapons with them (deserters always face capital punishment) should never be a excuse to get away with executing sit-down blockaders...
It's really unbelievable that the same people who where rightfully pissed of when the US cops where pepperspraying those ows students suddenly make all kind of excuse when it are "anti-imperialist" cops.
Nothing more than orientalism in a different package...

[manic expression]

not everyone is asking for nato intervention, even some of the groups asking for intervention have said they don't want nato.
NATO is what they'll get if they keep calling for intervention...and like I said recent history shows that the "oh we want aid but not those guys" line deserves absolutely no credibility.


if you acknowledge some don't want intervention, why are you using the fact that some do to paint the whole?
I didn't try to do that, perhaps it came off that way in spite of my intentions, but those who do call for intervention should not be promoted by the likes of socialists.


the ncb condemned the call for intervention as i quoted before. and i was speaking about the violence- are those still peacefully protesting responsible for armed groups outside their control?
Probably not but if there is an organizational connection then one could say so...I'd like to note (in general, not on your comments) that given the confusion it's been made exceedingly easy for some to demonize the Syrian government when I've seen very little hard evidence for it so far.


there are armed groups and unarmed groups. call them by what they are.
Agreed.

[bcbm]

NATO is what they'll get if they keep calling for intervention...and like I said recent history shows that the "oh we want aid but not those guys" line deserves absolutely no credibility.

russia will block anything going through the un and nato doesn't seem to have much interest in syria as far as i can tell, so i don't think they'll get much of anything.


I didn't try to do that, perhaps it came off that way in spite of my intentions, but those who do call for intervention should not be promoted by the likes of socialists.

who is promoting them? presumably socialists would 'promote' the coalition that includes marxists and opposes intervention


Probably not but if there is an organizational connection then one could say so...

'if'


I'd like to note (in general, not on your comments) that given the confusion it's been made exceedingly easy for some to demonize the Syrian government when I've seen very little hard evidence for it so far.

the protesters are shooting themselves with tanks?:rolleyes:

[manic expression]

russia will block anything going through the un and nato doesn't seem to have much interest in syria as far as i can tell, so i don't think they'll get much of anything.
Well I think NATO is going to try to be less overt in Syria, but they have an interest there...it's arguably the very last government not aligned with imperialism in the whole of the Arab nations. We'll see what happens but even if imperialism is stretched I wouldn't underestimate it.


who is promoting them? presumably socialists would 'promote' the coalition that includes marxists and opposes intervention
Well, it's important to show that it's not just the big-bad Syrian government being mean to peaceful protestors. It's a lot more complicated than that.


'if'
True.


the protesters are shooting themselves with tanks?:rolleyes:
No, but so-called "protestors" are apparently shooting guns.

[bcbm]

Well I think NATO is going to try to be less overt in Syria, but they have an interest there...it's arguably the very last government not aligned with imperialism in the whole of the Arab nations. We'll see what happens but even if imperialism is stretched I wouldn't underestimate it.

aligned with western imperialism you mean.


Well, it's important to show that it's not just the big-bad Syrian government being mean to peaceful protestors. It's a lot more complicated than that.

who opened fire on protesters in the streets initially, remind me?


No, but so-called "protestors" are apparently shooting guns.

just a few posts ago you admit there are armed and unarmed groups, but now the idea of protesters is both 'so-called' and put in quotes and they're all shooting guns? and i'm sure poor bashar is just defending himself from these thugs with guns, not like the government has gunned down peaceful protesters that spurred them to pick up guns in the first place... oh wait there's no evidence right? the witnesses are liars, the videos are fakes i'm sure

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

No, it isn't. Even if you think it's justifiable, it's still violence.


Just like the violent people who assault police officers at American protests? I'm sure they have it coming when they're legally persecuted.


Sure, it's not a unified force, but that doesn't mean no one bears responsibility for what's going on.
Non-unified forces should not be given monolithic blame for the actions of a few within their movement. There are nonviolent protesters, there are violent rebels, and there are people who were nonviolent but became violent out of necessity.

However, stressing the importance of the violent protesters is the same game the USA plays with al Qaeda-find a group of particularly threatening people and play up the threat as much as you can to justify extreme state measures of repression.



Second, my concern is the sovereignty of the Syrian people...that's what's at stake here.How are the PEOPLE sovereign when they are managed by a fascist dictatorship? Do the Syrian Kurds have Sovereignty? Do the Syrians in Homs and Hama have sovereignty when Syrian artillery is destroying their homes and machineguns are slaughtering their protesters? To suppose that the "Syrian people" have sovereignty is basically to take for granted the outdated nationalist notion of a society. Syria is a diverse society, and many sectors are as little represented as Indians were in the British Empire. As an example, it is only until *this year* that Syrian Kurds were even recognized as citizens, and that was a cop-out to the protesters and not a principled decision! Their language, cultural and political rights still go unrecognized even though they have lived there for time immemorial.


How has this situation changed since then? Is NATO intervention now OK, or was it OK then and now is not OK?


This is an oddly moralistic argument. You need to consider the conditions of the people making those demands and why they might make a misguided decision. What position do you take on Stalin hassling Churchill and Roosevelt to land troops in France? The rationale behind demanding intervention may be misguided or even totally counterproductive in the long run for the working class in France, Italy and West Germany, but from that particular group's point of view it can be understood why the leadership of the CPSU might have seen it as necessary. Or what about Marshall Tito asking Churchill for help? I'm guessing you take a marginally less critical stance towards these decisions because you understand the conditions which led to the Soviets and Yugoslavs making those requests.

I'm not defending these groups, I'm just saying the situation is more complicated than you are presenting it as.



Protestors who've organized themselves into an army? At what point do we no longer call them by that label?Except not all protesters are organizing themselves into an army.


NATO is what they'll get if they keep calling for intervention...and like I said recent history shows that the "oh we want aid but not those guys" line deserves absolutely no credibility.


Again, it is better to understand the conditions which would lead to them making such a misguided demand, than moralistically condemning them altogether. They can be *wrong* about intervention without being an essentially Imperialist movement. People can easily fall prey to misguided views, especially when in severe circumstances.

One extreme example are the Hmong and Montanards in Vietnam and Laos-they certainly did side with the USA, but they were not the bourgeoisie, they were not oppressors, and they were not Imperialists-they were people whose material circumstances exposed them to exploitation from the West. The later Vietnamese and Laotian repression of these ethnic groups was an unjustified crusade driven by the desire for revenge, and not socialist in nature, because those states never considered the material conditions which led these ethnic groups to make the mistake of siding with American Imperialism.



I didn't try to do that, perhaps it came off that way in spite of my intentions, but those who do call for intervention should not be promoted by the likes of socialists.
I would disagree with their call for intervention, but like the aforementioned example of Stalin's request to the other two of the "big three", it is more useful to understand why they would make such a misguided demand than simply saying "well, they must have been a pawn of imperialists."



Probably not but if there is an organizational connection then one could say so...I'd like to note (in general, not on your comments) that given the confusion it's been made exceedingly easy for some to demonize the Syrian government when I've seen very little hard evidence for it so far.
What counts for "hard evidence"? There's at least as much "hard evidence" of Syrian state violence than there is for violence from rebels towards the government, however the state violence has been on a much greater scale. I suppose someone could say that it's been exceedingly easy for some to demonize the US government's actions in the past 11 years, or that it was exceedingly easy for some to demonize the Shah or the Israeli state. Yet the so-called "demonization", both in the case of the examples I gave and in the example of the Syrian state, is based on allegations of which many are true.

[Threetune]

Driven on by the greatest economic crisis ever, the US and its NATO ‘allies’ are already well into their new holocaust to save capitalism form final destruction triggering the usual outbursts of confused anti-communism, which is what is really on display here in this forum again. As with all questions concerning ‘international relations’, Yugoslavia, Libya etc the ‘left’ in the west get into a pickle simply because they have been taught for decades to abandon and despise communist theory.

The ‘tanky’ Stalinists bravado of “support” for every revisionist or nationalist formation that runs afoul of imperialism is hopeless and gives the wrong message entirety to the working class internationally. Whatever “good” the Libyan or Syrian governments have done or attempted can’t hide their essential anti-communist nature. Likewise counter-revolutionary China, Cuba, North Korea with their revisionist confusion (e.g. supporting the UN no-fly zone over Libya and more) can’t be understood and intervened against by “supporting” their idiocies. Such macho ‘tanky’ posturing is in any case really only a cover for essential counter-revolutionary “peaceful coexistence” revisionist policies set in train by Stalin in his 1951 ‘Economic Problems’ book.

While it’s tempting to argue that this blustering ‘hard nut’ Stalinist “support” for all manner of confusion gives encouragement to the anti-communists ‘lefts’ and “anti-authority” libertarians, the truth is they need no encouragement at all to line up behind, and often in front, of the marauding imperialist storm front, all the while claiming they are on the side of the workers against the dictators. And every time imperialism stamps its bloody rule over another obstinate contry.

Their individualist petit-bourgeois fantasise that the working class in general are naively itching to cast down every government and relinquish their own proletarian power in favour of some anarcho syndicalist collective inspired by the romantic heroism of the black block types etc, blinds them from seeing that, far and away, the greatest menace to the working class are the imperialist gangsters in Washington, Berlin, Tel Aviv, London and Paris.

Communist revolutionaries in Syria will, without ever giving, support to Assad, organise against the pro-imperialist rebs who like their forerunners in Libya, are the agents of imperialist intrigue and will help Zionist imperialism dismember Syria entirely if not stopped

[agnixie]

Your trolling is fairly entertaining, it would probably be possible to automate everything you write based on buzzwords so long as nothing of substance was desired. Unless it's meant as satire but at this point it's really impossible to argue for that last one. Also seriously, comparing a few cops of a fascist regime (yes, fascist, read up on the history of Baath and its ideological roots, same nonsense as Mussolini with storming out of left wing groups to create a nationalist third way) getting the shit kicked out of them by workers to the holocaust because the Washington post made up some bullshit to support US intervention based on a minority faction everyone else disagrees with?

[Threetune]

Your trolling is fairly entertaining, it would probably be possible to automate everything you write based on buzzwords so long as nothing of substance was desired. Unless it's meant as satire but at this point it's really impossible to argue for that last one. Also seriously, comparing a few cops of a fascist regime (yes, fascist, read up on the history of Baath and its ideological roots, same nonsense as Mussolini with storming out of left wing groups to create a nationalist third way) getting the shit kicked out of them by workers to the holocaust because the Washington post made up some bullshit to support US intervention based on a minority faction everyone else disagrees with?

Are you drunk or just unable to read any revolutionary contributions without having a hissy fit or trying to prvoke a silly spat.
You could try criticly responding to my post, if you are able to read and understand it that is. If you need any help just ask.

[Threetune]

Apparently the regime fired today at several sit-down blockades, a colonel deserted with 50 soldiers, the fact that these deserters take very rightfully their weapons with them (deserters always face capital punishment) should never be a excuse to get away with executing sit-down blockaders...

...

Can you post the link for this please.

[Ocean Seal]

The main point behind this is that the liberals who say that these are peaceful protesters being brutally murdered and that imperialists should intervene are wrong. Both sides are factions of the bourgeoisie, and they are both pretty reactionary. With the exception of being throughly against any form of intervention leftists shouldn't be taking sides.

[manic expression]

How are the PEOPLE sovereign when they are managed by a fascist dictatorship?
Sorry, but this low equivocation has no place in honest discussion. The Syrian government is not fascist, simple as. Further, Syria is sovereign in that it is governed on its own terms, without the meddling of imperialism. The opposition would very likely change all that.

And as for everyone trying to cry crocodile tears for the Syrian opposition, please make sure you take notice that they've already formed an army and that many among them are soliciting NATO aid.

[bcbm]

syrian opposition is not unified, the ncb which includes marxists opposes intervention. but yeah, fuck them, go bashar

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Sorry, but this low equivocation has no place in honest discussion. The Syrian government is not fascist, simple as.

It's a 3rd positionist, class collaborationist, capitalist dictatorship based on a strong national-identity party, militarism and charismatic leadership. Baathism is a political response by the bourgeoisie to what was the power of the communists in the Middle East (same as with Italy and Germany). Problems are not attributed to their real causes, i.e contradictions in society but to "the other". If you disagree with that understanding of fascism I'd like to see what yours is. Either way, it's not a government I would want for the working class and marginalized minorities.


Further, Syria is sovereign in that it is governed on its own terms, without the meddling of imperialism. The opposition would very likely change all that.
A state governing people "in its own terms" is not necessarily "sovereignty". The British Empire was governed on its own terms, but the Indians and Africans (and the British working class) in the British Empire lacked "sovereignty". Likewise, just because Syria has a singular government, it doesn't mean its people have sovereignty. If "sovereignty" means anything of value for the working class, it means the people being represented by their government. It's a pointless term if all it refers to is the independence of a nationalist or statist elite to dominate the people or groups of people within the borders.

I don't know how "the opposition" "will" change that. There is no one opposition, and there is no one deterministic route of history which will result from the opposition winning (you accused me of being a determinist in another thread)



And as for everyone trying to cry crocodile tears for the Syrian opposition, please make sure you take notice that they've already formed an army and that many among them are soliciting NATO aid.Stalin was begging for British and American assistance against the Nazis. So was Tito. Were they reactionary Imperialists? You have to consider the context of what was going on.

As I said there is no one "Syrian opposition", and even if there was that does not justify the brutal, bloody, violent repression by the Syrian state of unarmed protesters which came well before all of these "NATO connections" etc.

[manic expression]

It's a 3rd positionist, class collaborationist, capitalist dictatorship based on a strong national-identity party, militarism and charismatic leadership.
It's Arab Nationalist. Charismatic leadership and use of the military aren't exactly the exclusive purview of fascism.

More importantly, Syria is essentially the last remaining government in the region that isn't an imperialist protectorate.


A state governing people "in its own terms" is not necessarily "sovereignty". The British Empire was governed on its own terms, but the Indians and Africans (and the British working class) in the British Empire lacked "sovereignty".
The whole point of the British Empire was not allowing for the sovereignty of its colonies.


I don't know how "the opposition" "will" change that. There is no one opposition,
I guarantee you that if imperialism gets involved it will make sure there is one opposition, and an opposition it likes.

I mean honestly everyone, we've seen this movie before...I thought people would have learned a thing or two from Libya.


Stalin was begging for British and American assistance against the Nazis. So was Tito. Were they reactionary Imperialists? You have to consider the context of what was going on.
The popular front against fascism took precedence. Entirely different scenario.


As I said there is no one "Syrian opposition", and even if there was that does not justify the brutal, bloody, violent repression by the Syrian state of unarmed protesters which came well before all of these "NATO connections" etc.
What "violent repression" of unarmed protestors?

[bcbm]

What "violent repression" of unarmed protestors?

well, this pretty much sums it up. :rolleyes:

[manic expression]

well, this pretty much sums it up. :rolleyes:
If we're going to talk about it, I want specific instances, not blanket accusations. Only then can the discussion be productive...otherwise it's just two people talking past one another.

[bcbm]

march 18 probably marks the beginning of the crackdown and was when the first deaths occurred. tear gas on funerals for those killed in daraa on the 19th. one dead many wounded there on the 20th when security forces opened fire. live ammunition used in daraa again on the 21st, killing one and injuring others. on the 23rd reports of at least 15 protesters killed in the south, at least six in daraa. 25th march military opened fire at various protests across syria, killing at least 20 in daraa. protesters killed also in latakia, homs, sanamayn, kafas and damascus. 26 march killings in latakia and daraa. 27th march at least 12 killed in latakia. 30th march protesters fired on in latakia and daraa, five more dead in the latter.

so that's march of 2011. its been ongoing since then with new incidents all the time. where would you like to start?

[manic expression]

I'd like to start with the sources.

[bcbm]

what about them?

[manic expression]

For starters, where are they?

[bcbm]

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/03/201131817214964640.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12791738
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/8391438/Syria-four-dead-in-rare-demonstrations.html
http://www.9news.com/news/world/188236/347/3-protesters-killed-in-Syria-activist-says
http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE72H1U520110318?sp=true
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12796020
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/world/middleeast/20syria.html?_r=1&hp
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5imPTFixkG47Y44ZniAQVv4wC6UGw?docId=CNG.301dc 17b5d60dc6790da1726987ffe7d.c71
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ipLl3yeb_p-BMEyqG7WM2O9PYSbg?docId=CNG.e623321b6a9f7efb561fd4 70f40817bf.9d1
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0322/1224292773018.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/world/middleeast/21syria.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/22/syrian-protests-troops-kill-deraa
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12827542
http://www.suntimes.com/news/world/4472184-418/15-killed-in-clashes-in-southern-syria.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-23/four-people-killed-in-renewed-unrest-in-southern-syrian-town.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12843905
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/03/201132475046579830.html
http://nowlebanon.com/NewsArchiveDetails.aspx?ID=253703
http://nowlebanon.com/NewsArchiveDetails.aspx?ID=253836
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/03/25/syria.unrest/index.html?hpt=T1
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/world/middleeast/26syria.html?ref=syria
http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/at-least-23-said-killed-as-protesters-in-syria-clash-with-security-forces-1.351815
http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/15960221
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2011/03/syria-government-forces-open-fire-on-protesters.html
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/03/2011325145817688433.html
www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2011/03/25/2011-03-25_violence_erupts_in_syria_troops_open_fire_on_an tiprotestors_.html?r=news
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704517404576222350109783770.html
http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArchiveDetails.aspx?ID=256458

etc

[agnixie]

"Arab Nationalism" based on the same sources as italian fascism. Renan especially, who was a proto-fascist.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It's Arab Nationalist. Charismatic leadership and use of the military aren't exactly the exclusive purview of fascism.


Charismatic leadership and militarism, when combined with nationalism and party-based class collaboration is fascist though.



More importantly, Syria is essentially the last remaining government in the region that isn't an imperialist protectorate.
A cynical person might say it's an Iranian or a Russian protectorate. Anyhow, that's not really the issue, it's a capitalist society with serious social contradictions, and the protests are a product of those social contradictions.



The whole point of the British Empire was not allowing for the sovereignty of its colonies.
The whole point of the British Empire was economic exploitation. Denial of sovereignty was merely a means to that end. Same with Syria.

How are the Kurds in Syria or the people of Deraa, Homs and Hama any more sovereign in Syria than the Indians and Africans were in the British empire?



I guarantee you that if imperialism gets involved it will make sure there is one opposition, and an opposition it likes.

I mean honestly everyone, we've seen this movie before...I thought people would have learned a thing or two from Libya.
You accused me of being a determinist in another thread! Why does an anti-Imperialist government necessarily get replaced by a pro-Imperialist one? NATO doesn't have magical powers, and Libya is in fact a good example of that ... the situation there is very unstable and NATO's chosen leadership has not been able to unite the conflicting factions behind them. The NTC has already started battling the local anti-Gaddafi militias, both of which everyone was insisting were secret NATO mercenaries. As another example, Afghanistan too saw American-backed Taliban and al Qaeda forces happily turn their guns back towards the Americans, albeit a decade later. Imperialists are not omnipotent, they are opportunists who get it wrong more than they get it right.



The popular front against fascism took precedence. Entirely different scenario.
So it's only right for people to stand up to some capitalist nationalist dictators, and others not all? Either way, it shows that people can take aid from western powers without necessarily becoming agents of Western Imperialism.




What "violent repression" of unarmed protestors?I refer to bcbm's response.

[manic expression]

@ bcbm...from your third link:

The page said clashes had occurred between protesters and security forces in Daraa while video footage showed fire trucks turning their hoses on a procession to disperse demonstrators.

OK, hardly what this is being made out to be (by all the usual suspects, as shown by your second link).

AFP could not independently verify the authenticity of the videos.

Hmmm...but anyway:

Human Rights Watch has called for the release of all detained demonstrators, and independently confirmed that 18 people had been arrested.

Security forces were arresting people, not firing upon them indiscriminately as you claimed. If there's a specific link that supports those claims, let me know.


"Arab Nationalism" based on the same sources as italian fascism. Renan especially, who was a proto-fascist.
And Mussolini was in the Second International...so what? Are you seriously claiming that Nasser was a fascist?


Charismatic leadership and militarism, when combined with nationalism and party-based class collaboration is fascist though.
I'd hardly call whomever was leading the Estado Novo "charismatic". Nationalism and "party-based class collaboration" is something you'll have to explain further. Militarism is present in every state that's ever existed.


A cynical person might say it's an Iranian or a Russian protectorate. Anyhow, that's not really the issue, it's a capitalist society with serious social contradictions, and the protests are a product of those social contradictions.
That cynical person would be wrong. And yes, there are social contradictions but the most glaring one is that of the last independent state in the middle east facing down powers that want to destroy it.


How are the Kurds in Syria or the people of Deraa, Homs and Hama any more sovereign in Syria than the Indians and Africans were in the British empire?
They aren't being colonized. I stand for the self-determination of the Kurds but it's simply not the same scenario.


You accused me of being a determinist in another thread! Why does an anti-Imperialist government necessarily get replaced by a pro-Imperialist one?
It's quite simple. It's because an anti-imperialist government's fall will inevitably be tied to imperialist policy, and the resulting vacuum will be filled by imperialist money and influence and threats in order to create a friendly regime.

If you know how these people work, it's textbook stuff. Destabilize, divide and conquer.


So it's only right for people to stand up to some capitalist nationalist dictators, and others not all? Either way, it shows that people can take aid from western powers without necessarily becoming agents of Western Imperialism.
The Soviet Union took aid but had a state and was able to enforce the will of its citizens. However, read the history of the French and Italian anti-fascists and you'll see quite clearly that the leftists were unequivocally silenced or kept from any position of authority by the imperialist forces that entered those countries. They were right to accept aid because they were fighting a genocidal monster (aka not a sovereign, non-aggressive government the US just doesn't happen to like very much), but it did come at a price, which was that imperialism installed regimes it wanted.

[bcbm]

@ bcbm...from your third link:

The page said clashes had occurred between protesters and security forces in Daraa while video footage showed fire trucks turning their hoses on a procession to disperse demonstrators.

OK, hardly what this is being made out to be (by all the usual suspects, as shown by your second link).

AFP could not independently verify the authenticity of the videos.

Hmmm...but anyway:

Human Rights Watch has called for the release of all detained demonstrators, and independently confirmed that 18 people had been arrested.

Security forces were arresting people, not firing upon them indiscriminately as you claimed. If there's a specific link that supports those claims, let me know.

almost every link deals with security forces killing protesters, including the one you are quoting from ("The security forces fired live bullets at the protesters. Four people were killed," said the activist in Daraa). but yeah i guess because the bbc is reporting it, it's all a fabrication. all the funerals, the footage of dead bodies (not confirmed! :rolleyes:) and shooting, just a big trick by the protesters to gain sympathy and humiliate poor bashar. what a joke.


That cynical person would be wrong.yeah russia only has a couple billion of arms, energy and other contracts invested in syria.


I stand for the self-determination of the Kurdsunless they do anything that threatens 'the last independent nation in the middle east' (lol)

[Os Cangaceiros]

Security forces were arresting people, not firing upon them indiscriminately as you claimed. If there's a specific link that supports those claims, let me know.

Getting arrested by security forces in Syria isn't fun.

eviR_Yqg4EI

[bcbm]

OjWJB8Pv2OU

[agnixie]

Funny you mention the second internationale, as the founders of Baath left the french communist party in the same kind of context Mussolini left the Italian communist party.


It's quite simple. It's because an anti-imperialist government's fall will inevitably be tied to imperialist policy
Your view of the world is so simplistic it hurts. Additionally, Syrian kurds are just as colonized as Iranian and turkish kurds, which means that yes, they are. Geographical proximity doesn't make them not colonized. It's part and parcel of arab nationalism.

[manic expression]

almost every link deals with security forces killing protesters, including the one you are quoting from ("The security forces fired live bullets at the protesters. Four people were killed," said the activist in Daraa). but yeah i guess because the bbc is reporting it, it's all a fabrication. all the funerals, the footage of dead bodies (not confirmed! :rolleyes:) and shooting, just a big trick by the protesters to gain sympathy and humiliate poor bashar. what a joke.
Said the activist in Daraa...

The video you posted does show clear brutality and I condemn that as a crime.

We would be amiss if we did not recognize the over 1,000 reported deaths (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/14/us-syria-idUSTRE7B90F520111214) of police and security forces at the hands of the opposition, however, and that paints a very different overall picture. This isn't the one-sided affair that imperialism's media says it is.


yeah russia only has a couple billion of arms, energy and other contracts invested in syria.
Russia has investments in Venezuela, doesn't make it a protectorate.


unless they do anything that threatens 'the last independent nation in the middle east' (lol)
Or unless it's a genuine working-class movement. And Syria is the last independent country in the middle east.


Getting arrested by security forces in Syria isn't fun.
Not being fun isn't the crime Syria is accused of.


Funny you mention the second internationale, as the founders of Baath left the french communist party in the same kind of context Mussolini left the Italian communist party.
Many of the early members were fighting French colonial forces in Lebanon...I hardly think that qualifies them as the ideological friends of Mussolini.


Your view of the world is so simplistic it hurts. Additionally, Syrian kurds are just as colonized as Iranian and turkish kurds, which means that yes, they are. Geographical proximity doesn't make them not colonized.
Colonialism is way more than being in a country that isn't fully run by one's own nation. Colonialism has to do with the annexation of territory and the exploitation of resources and geopolitical strategic value. While I promote self-determination for the Kurdish people, colonialism has not been the policy of Syria.

[bcbm]

Said the activist in Daraa...

a liar of course! :rolleyes:


The video you posted does show clear brutality and I condemn that as a crime.

there are plenty of videos, even from the events i mentioned earlier. maybe you can see the pattern here?


We would be amiss if we did not recognize the over 1,000 reported deaths (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/14/us-syria-idUSTRE7B90F520111214) of police and security forces at the hands of the opposition, however, and that paints a very different overall picture.

5000 reported deaths on the opposition side so thats what 5 to 1? and the armed attacks didn't begin immediately either, they developed in response to the crackdown.

i also think its funny you think the protesters are all liars but believe whatever the government says.


This isn't the one-sided affair that imperialism's media says it is.

didn't you link to imperialism's media about soldiers getting killed one sentence ago?


Russia has investments in Venezuela, doesn't make it a protectorate.

i think 'protectorate' is over stating it but certainly syria is within russian imperialisms sphere.


And Syria is the last independent country in the middle east.

there are no independent countries.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I'd hardly call whomever was leading the Estado Novo "charismatic". Nationalism and "party-based class collaboration" is something you'll have to explain further. Militarism is present in every state that's ever existed.

Well class collaboration is the main thing, from what I understand about fascism. The idea is that unions, the bourgeoisie and the petite bourgeoisie have their relations largely determined by a dominant political party which claims to balance their interests fairly "for the national interest".

Charismatic leadership does not need to be actually charismatic, the point is that it surrounds itself with those trappings. Franco and Latin American fascism usually lacked a sufficiently charismatic figure and relied more on nationalism and religion (religion, of course, benefiting from the spectral charisma of God)



That cynical person would be wrong. And yes, there are social contradictions but the most glaring one is that of the last independent state in the middle east facing down powers that want to destroy it.
I'll leave the most glaring one to the people on the street, who seem to think, based on their protests, that it is sustained and ingrained inequality between pro and anti regime groups within the nation.



They aren't being colonized. I stand for the self-determination of the Kurds but it's simply not the same scenario.
Well, insofar as colonization is a geographically alien group coming in and exploiting the surplus labor of a population while denying them legal rights, the Kurds in Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran are all colonized peoples. Arguably, there are Arab groups in Syria, despite the state's Arab nationalism, which are similarly repressed, as they do not identify with the modern Syrian state.



It's quite simple. It's because an anti-imperialist government's fall will inevitably be tied to imperialist policy, and the resulting vacuum will be filled by imperialist money and influence and threats in order to create a friendly regime.

If you know how these people work, it's textbook stuff. Destabilize, divide and conquer.
Those threats do not always succeed, however, and Imperialist nations do the same thing when any nation collapses, even their allies.

The reality is that many of these so-called "anti-imperialist" regimes are merely weak capitalist countries which, if more powerful and wealthier, would be legitimate Imperialist forces themselves. They are only "anti-Imperialist" insofar as they lack that capacity.



The Soviet Union took aid but had a state and was able to enforce the will of its citizens. However, read the history of the French and Italian anti-fascists and you'll see quite clearly that the leftists were unequivocally silenced or kept from any position of authority by the imperialist forces that entered those countries. They were right to accept aid because they were fighting a genocidal monster (aka not a sovereign, non-aggressive government the US just doesn't happen to like very much), but it did come at a price, which was that imperialism installed regimes it wanted.Yes, Imperialist intervention does come with a price. However the motives behind the Soviets/Tito and anti-Baathist activists in Syria wanting aid from the US/Europe is strikingly similar. Assad is no Hitler, but he does nonetheless pose an existential threat to those who oppose the leadership of his government.

And Albanian and Yugoslav anti-fascists did manage to avoid that fate too, despite taking aid from Western powers, so a state is not a necessary feature for dealing with Imperialist powers in such a manner that it serves their interests to the exclusion of the interests of the working class. Lenin's admittedly minimal assistance from the German government (including a fairly generous peace treaty signed with Germany for the sake of ending the war) is similar in a non-state actor dealing with Imperialists in such a manner that the ends of Imperialism are not necessarily served in the long run.

Interestingly, while most NATO powers seem to be against the Syrian regime, from what I understand Israel is quite nervous about Assad's fall, as they see him as the devil they know. Israel understands that any populist Syrian regime will need to take an even more explicitly anti-zionist stance to remain popular.



Colonialism is way more than being in a country that isn't fully run by one's own nation. Colonialism has to do with the annexation of territory and the exploitation of resources and geopolitical strategic value. While I promote self-determination for the Kurdish people, colonialism has not been the policy of Syria.
Who decided that Kurds and anti-regime Arab tribes and cities were a part of the Syrian nation? How are they a part of the Syrian nation any more than Indians, Irish and Kenyans were a part of the British nation? This takes for granted a nationalistic type of analysis which simply doesn't hold up to critical scrutiny. Nations are social constructs and more importantly constructs of political propaganda, and as such are not concrete entities which one can base such a judgement on. The Syrian state says that those people are a part of their "nation", but it behooves us to be more critical of such a claim? Even if you were right about Syrian Arabs, the fact that Syria is ARAB Nationalist and did not give Kurds citizenship means that the Kurds by definition are not a part of this "Syrian Nation".


Many of the early members were fighting French colonial forces in Lebanon...I hardly think that qualifies them as the ideological friends of Mussolini.

Reactionaries can fight colonialism too. Many Arab fascists at the time, who did actually ally with Hitler (many of whom were also violently anti-Jewish) also fought the British and French Imperialists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashid_Ali_al-Gaylani#Anglo-Iraqi_War

[Rafiq]

Getting arrested by security forces in Syria isn't fun.

eviR_Yqg4EI

This has actually been proven to be the work of salafists.

I mean, fuck Assad and his friends but let's not lose a grasp on a scientific analysis of the situation with emotional romanticism.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Proven that he was killed by Salafists? The Wikipedia article says nothing about that, not even speculation...in fact the medical examiner appointed to look over the body after the scandal broke said there was nothing amiss with the corpse, no signs of torture.

The only reference to Salafists I could find from searching on Google was a reference to the Syrian officer who brought the corpse back to his relatives demanding that they say he was killed by Islamic fundamentalists. :rolleyes: Maybe you could furnish me with a link?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Not being fun isn't the crime Syria is accused of.


No, they're accused of brutalizing political opponents.