Syrian military won't let the red cross into Baba Amr in Homs [Archive]

Sinister Cultural Marxist

2nd March 2012, 16:36

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17238220

Red Cross convoy bringing Baba Amr aid stopped in Homs

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/51606000/jpg/_51606573_fa1d16c0-9c6c-4f82-b0b8-ab66ddd94f78.jpg
Continue reading the main story (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17238220#story_continues_1) Syria Crisis (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12813859)

Referendum in media spotlight (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17178860)
Syrians flee (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17151364)
Tribute to Colvin (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17136427)
Guide to opposition (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15798218)

The Red Cross has been refused permission to deliver aid to the Baba Amr district of the bombed-out Syrian city of Homs, despite earlier getting the go-ahead from the authorities.
ICRC President Jakob Kellenberger said the hold-up was "unacceptable".
The delay has given rise to opposition allegations that government forces were trying to get rid of evidence of summary killings.
Baba Amr has suffered heavy bombardment by government forces in recent weeks.
The rebel Free Syrian Army (FSA) said on Thursday it was leaving the district in a "tactical withdrawal".
On Friday the UN human rights office said it had received reports of summary killings in Homs involving 17 people.
Two French journalists injured last month in the shelling and smuggled out of Homs into Lebanon are being flown back to Paris.
Edith Bouvier and William Daniels will be met by President Nicolas Sarkozy when they arrive.

So basically after the Syrian state bombards the area massively, killing or wounding countless civilians, the Syrian state won't even let the wounded get medical assistance. That is despicable.

It is time for Leftists who view this government as some kind of principled anti-Imperialist force to abandon that viewpoint! The Syrian state clearly has no more concern for the lives of their people than foreign Imperialist states.

Blanquist

2nd March 2012, 17:09

The Red Cross are a proxy of the Western imperialists.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

2nd March 2012, 17:39

The Red Cross are a proxy of the Western imperialists.

That's not even an argument. The Syrian regime is a proxy for Russian Imperialists. But unlike the Syrian regime, which is bringing heavy artillery fire down on innocent civilians and cutting off the water supply so that residents need to collect snow to drink, the Red Cross is trying to bring emergency medical care. When people are basically living in an emergency zone, they need help regardless. I'm not going to refuse to call an ambulance when I see a dying man because the closest hospital is privately owned.

It's so fucking convenient ... whenever the USA, France or Britain kill innocent people in their Imperialist wars, you people correctly take a stance against it, but you don't give two shits when some third world plutocracy that feigns "anti-Imperialism" needlessly kills thousands of innocents.

Leftsolidarity

2nd March 2012, 17:46

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17238220

So basically after the Syrian state bombards the area massively, killing or wounding countless civilians, the Syrian state won't even let the wounded get medical assistance. That is despicable.

It is time for Leftists who view this government as some kind of principled anti-Imperialist force to abandon that viewpoint! The Syrian state clearly has no more concern for the lives of their people than foreign Imperialist states.

You seem to spend more time attacking the ones that Imperialists have their sights on instead of attacking the Imperialists.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

2nd March 2012, 17:57

You seem to spend more time attacking the ones that Imperialists have their sights on instead of attacking the Imperialists.
Give me a break. I'm criticizing a government which is using heavy artillery on heavily populated areas, cutting them off from water and electricity and then denying medical assistance to those who need it. I suppose for you "leftsolidarity" for you means "solidarity" with a quasi-fascist Baathist despots.

Is Syria "in the sights" of Imperialists you ask ... is that relevant to this issue of a mass medical triage and emergency relief? I don't see how being "in the sights of Imperialists" is a license to massacre civilians. Mussolini was "in the sights" of the old Imperialist Churchill, that doesn't mean the brutalities of Italian Fascism shouldn't have been criticized by Leftists. Homs is being turned into a modern day Guernica by the Syrian state and you really think we should ignore the brutalities of this state? Standing up for the working class does not mean standing up for a government willing to murder the working class en masse to preserve its own power.

Of course there is an Imperialist threat to Syria, as there is to all people around the world. We stop that not by ignoring the suffering of innocent people at the hand of despotic states but by anti-Imperialist activism against the Imperialist states and corporations themselves. Don't be a propagandist for the despots, go protest and raise awareness about the actions of your local Imperialist power. You can oppose NATO attempts to manipulate mass movements there without taking the side of the Assad family. Resistance to Imperialism needs to come from the people and not creepy autocrats.

The Cheshire Cat

2nd March 2012, 18:14

This is from Russia Today (which I trust more than the average western media). They tell something different...

Aisling Byrne of the Conflicts Forum in Beirut, told RT the Red Crescent twice sent ambulances to Baba Amr, but both times they were blocked by the FSA.

The humanitarian mission “did get ambulances through to take injured journalists out of Homs, and it was actually the Free Syrian Army who refused to let them leave,” she said, adding that the FSA also obstructed the evacuation of injured civilians.

http://rt.com/news/red-cross-mission-homs-syria-701/

I recommend that you read thist article. It is very short, but it makes clear that the 'rebels' are just as worse of even more worse than the Syrian gov.
Ofcourse this article doesn't proof that alone, but there are alot of articles like this.
The rebels really don't want to do the best for the people, and I see them as worse than the Syrian gov. as it was relatively peaceful in Syria while the government ruled. Now, thousands of people are killed for nothing at all.

Leftsolidarity

2nd March 2012, 18:39

KurtFF8

2nd March 2012, 19:52

It is time for Leftists who view this government as some kind of principled anti-Imperialist force to abandon that viewpoint! The Syrian state clearly has no more concern for the lives of their people than foreign Imperialist states.

Are you implying that Leftists should support the FSA?

Sinister Cultural Marxist

2nd March 2012, 19:59

Are you implying that Leftists should support the FSA?

I don't see how a belief that injured Syrian civilians need medical attention immediately and that the use of heavy artillery against civilian areas to end a rebellion is wrong implies support for the FSA. It is certainly unclear whether the FSA would show Alawite or Christian civilians any more respect than the Syrian military has shown to anti-regime populations, and clearly Saudi Arabia and Turkey are trying their best to co-opt them too. They may end up embracing the same kinds of brutal, sectarian, despotic tactics of their state, much as many of the Libyan militias have done, and much as rebel militias did in neighboring Lebanon and Iraq during the civil war and US occupation respectively. But skepticism about the FSA does not excuse the actions by the State. When the USA cracks down on al Qaeda and denies the rights of innocent Muslims at home and abroad in the process, and we oppose it, are we taking a position in favor of al Qaeda? Of course not!

KurtFF8

4th March 2012, 02:59

But the point is that the FSA is one of the two main belligerents in this conflict, so in attempting to build Left wing opposition to the Assad government: what does that translate to on the ground?

Sinister Cultural Marxist

4th March 2012, 19:51

But the point is that the FSA is one of the two main belligerents in this conflict, so in attempting to build Left wing opposition to the Assad government: what does that translate to on the ground?

That's a good question. However, it's tempered by a number of things:

(1) How could we actually impact the scenario? We really have no influence over facts on the ground. There are legitimate Leftist revolutionaries there however we really have no way to help them other than documenting any crimes against them by either the Syrian State or the FSA

(2) The nature of the Syrian opposition is incredibly diverse and still largely unknown. Are there divisions within the FSA? To what extent does it take its directives form abroad? Al Qaeda obviously wants a role in the Syrian uprising, have they embedded themselves in the FSA? How well are Leftist forces able to act within the FSA, or are they silenced? These factors about the FSA are still unknown.

(3) Just how horrible are the war crimes of the Syrian State? It's hard to say as of right now, we know almost for sure that they have used heavy artillery to murder thousands of innocent civilians, but some of the more horrific rumors are of paramilitaries associated with the government murdering thousands of innocent families by machete-however it's hardly possible to verify such things, especially without a cease fire to let in groups like medical teams, journalists and other observers. There are obviously a number of rumors going around about crimes from the FSA too, and in both cases these kinds of things are often hard to confirm without hindsight and transparent investigation.

These unanswered questions all make it very hard to pick a principled position on the Syrian opposition and how to move ahead in that country. However, without that, the least we should be able to do is take a hardline stance against war crimes by the Syrian state against the people. Being the advocate of the people is morally right, but if all that "idealist" jazz doesn't light your fire, it's politically pragmatic for the Left to be seen as a credible voice for the oppressed everywhere, and not as a bunch of opportunists.

KurtFF8

5th March 2012, 01:14

Your conclusion doesn't make much sense to me though.

You claim we "don't know much" about the FSA for example (although there seems to be plenty reason to believe that they are influenced by Turkey, as their political base is largely in exile based in NATO countries) yet claim that if we want to be credible, we must side against the Syrian state.

How is not that not "idealist" itself? And you slip into some politically loaded logic of "being the advocate of the people" which itself assumes quite a bit about what you claim is unknown.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

5th March 2012, 01:36

I don't think we should be on the side of the FSA against the Syrian state because of the fact that we don't know much about them. This doesn't mean that we should not criticize the excesses of the Syrian state, however, in the extent of "collateral damage" that they are happy to cause.

Even though we don't know the extent of the brutality of the Syrian state, it's clear that their siege and use of heavy artillery against civilians is a case of brutality. We don't know if they are using paramilitary death squads, but their use of heavy artillery against civilians, and now their seeming refusal to let those civilians get medical care, food or water, seems fairly well documented at this point. Being an advocate for the people does mean criticizing a regime which uses such heavy military firepower against civilians under these circumstances.

There's also no analysis whatsoever that would lead one to believe that a victory by the Syrian state would likely lead to some truly democratic, socialist and egalitarian project, unless you're on some kind of hallucinogen. I see why you're critical of the FSA, there are certainly many sketchy things about them which are known. But there are many more things we know about Assad's government which reveal its reactionary and brutal nature. The best thing is not to view this as some kind of zero-sum game between the Syrian State and some particular faction of armed rebels, as much as the outcome of the failures and inefficiencies of Baathist autocracy, Arab nationalist politics and the global markets.

the last donut of the night

5th March 2012, 02:06

The Red Cross are a proxy of the Western imperialists.

not really surprised by your username anymore

KurtFF8

5th March 2012, 02:36

The best thing is not to view this as some kind of zero-sum game between the Syrian State and some particular faction of armed rebels, as much as the outcome of the failures and inefficiencies of Baathist autocracy, Arab nationalist politics and the global markets.

But if a third force does not develop a strong alternative: in military situations like this, polarization is essentially inevitable.

I'm not sure who is arguing that if the Syrian state wins this out that there will be an egalitarian state. But it is clear that the non-market based nature of the state is seen as an opportunity for international capital.

Os Cangaceiros

5th March 2012, 03:10

It's been fun watching the left chase their tail over Syria, especially after Hamas recently advocated that the Assad regime should go. Just another example of the continued embrace of cold war formulations of power and influence which in today's era seem less relevant than ever.

This is from Russia Today (which I trust more than the average western media). They tell something different...

It's weird that you appreciate the state-financed media of an imperialist state, but you don't like the BBC!

Kassad

5th March 2012, 03:15

freepalestine

5th March 2012, 04:33

(1) How could we actually impact the scenario? We really have no influence over facts on the ground. There are legitimate Leftist revolutionaries there however we really have no way to help them other than documenting any crimes against them by either the Syrian State or the FSA the leftists 99% insyria seem to be siding with the govt

(2) The nature of the Syrian opposition is incredibly diverse and still largely unknown. Are there divisions within the FSA? To what extent does it take its directives form abroad? Al Qaeda obviously wants a role in the Syrian uprising, have they embedded themselves in the FSA? How well are Leftist forces able to act within the FSA, or are they silenced? These factors about the FSA are still unknown.there are no leftistin the fsa..anyway,they are largely the muslim brotherhood(and foreign jihadists) .the socalled SNC is also another syrian mb front.amongst other organisations who are sending out false info/propagnda to the media and u.n etc etc ,unquestioned,that are controlled by the syrian mb..including casualty numbers

(3) Just how horrible are the war crimes of the Syrian State? It's hard to say as of right now, we know almost for sure that they have used heavy artillery to murder thousands of innocent civilians, but some of the more horrific rumors are of paramilitaries associated with the government murdering thousands of innocent families by machete-however it's hardly possible to verify such things, especially without a cease fire to let in groups like medical teams, journalists and other observers. There are obviously a number of rumors going around about crimes from the FSA too, and in both cases these kinds of things are often hard to confirm without hindsight and transparent investigation.

These unanswered questions all make it very hard to pick a principled position on the Syrian opposition and how to move ahead in that country. However, without that, the least we should be able to do is take a hardline stance against war crimes by the Syrian state against the people. Being the advocate of the people is morally right, but if all that "idealist" jazz doesn't light your fire, it's politically pragmatic for the Left to be seen as a credible voice for the oppressed everywhere, and not as a bunch of opportunists.are you serious ,the mb have been beheading syrians ,bombing civillian areas with western missiles for the past months.i dont dispute the govt have been free from blame.

It's been fun watching the left chase their tail over Syria, especially after Hamas recently advocated that the Assad regime should go. Just another example of the continued embrace of cold war formulations of power and influence which in today's era seem less relevant than ever.

It's weird that you appreciate the state-financed media of an imperialist state, but you don't like the BBC!hamas have changed their minds,yesterday they are neutral on syria againhttp://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/35967/World/Region/Hamas-not-taking-sides-in-Syria-crisis-Zahar.aspx

“Bashar Assad rapes children”: BBC propaganda
By As'ad AbuKhalil - Sun, 2012-03-04
http://english.al-akhbar.com/blogs/angry-corner/%E2%80%9Cbashar-assad-rapes-children%E2%80%9D-bbc-propaganda

Friday, March 02, 2012
Did you Syrian regime infiltrate the rebels of Baba Amr?(videos)
posted by As'ad AbuKhalil
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2012/03/did-you-syrian-regime-infiltrate-rebels.html

seems the best engish site for news from leftistson syria

http://angryarab.blogspot.com/

also http://english.al-akhbar.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxb6QPzqrbY

Sunday, March 04, 2012
the responsibility of the Syrian National Council and when Jeffrey Feltman pontificates
This lousy outfit is responsible for losing support among non-Syrian Arabs. The pronouncements and alliances of the Syrian National Council have clearly undermined Arab popular support and sympathy for the Syrian protest movement. Two weeks ago, there was a call for a demonstration in Egypt in support of Syrian protests and no one showed up except the Salafites. The biggest demonstration in Tunisia on Syria was in support of Bashshar Al-Asad (unfortunately, of course). But that shows you how the Arab people feel about the Syrian uprising and i am not speaking on their behalf but it is clear that the issue is not moving Arabs the way the "authentic" Egyptian and Tunisian uprisings moved all Arabs. It is unthinkable that either the Tunisian or the Egyptian uprising would call for NATO support or Saudi or Qatari support. Unthinkable. Look at Libya: there is no sympathy whatsoever in the Arab world for Libya's NATO militias. I write this because I read that Jeffrey Feltman in his testimony in US Congress this week basically said that support for US policies on Syria and hostility to Bashshar Al-Asad are prevalent in all Arab countries: clearly, Feltman was talking about GCC dynasties but this is a common US error: they conveniently conflate Arab ruling dynasties in the Gulf with the Arab people.
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2012/03/responsibility-of-syrian-national.html

KurtFF8

5th March 2012, 05:22

Sometimes I truly believe that "communists" are more dogmatic than some of the most fanatical religious folks I've ever met. What's the logic used by those defending Assad's regime right now? "Sorry, it's a choice between Assad and imperialism" or "Apologies, but there's no organized working class that can be the alternative." Shit, guys. This is the same bullshit that the mainstream media feeds people in the United States on a daily basis. There's no alternative, so sit down and take it.

What a crock of shit. You can remove imperialism from the equation. Or leave it in for that matter. It doesn't change the fact that Assad is a capitalist ruler who has no problem unleashing the hounds and literally butchering his people. Then again, a lot of the same Assad cheerleaders are Ahmadinejad fanboys. I know, I've been there and the logic used to defend these characters is incredible deranged. Sure, imperialism uses fronts every day. I believe Bush cited something from Amnesty International as an excuse to go after Saddam in Iraq. That doesn't mean we have to become as mindless and unscientific as they want us to be.

I can't tell if you're trying to actually engage in the conversation or just throw insults around.

The idea that we can "remove imperialism from the equation" doesn't make much sense to me considering that there is an armed component of the opposition to Syria that is being supported by what most Leftists would consider to be "imperialist powers."

On top of that, the countries that the Left tends to consider imperialist (the NATO countries) have been putting pressure and attempting to open the door to a kind of intervention in Syria. How this is just an after thought or "a side issue apart from the fact that Assad's government is a bourgeois on" is baffling to me. Especially in the context of the increased tension between the United States (along with Israel) and Iran. Your "imperialism uses fronts" doesn't really seem to apply here, as we're talking about pretty tangible aggressions against these countries in question.

Yet with those mounting pressures against Iran and Syria, those groups based in those imperialist countries that want to focus on opposing the imperialist agression are labeled "Assad cheerleaders" and "Ahmadinejad fanboys" for that opposition to the possibility of NATO attacking these countries. That is just absurd to me.

Are you of the opinion that the Left should just not take a stance on imperialist aggression in these countries? (And if that seems like a straw man to you, then now you know how it feels in this debate to have straw men arguments being thrown at you most of the time) Most Leftists who are "above the debate" tend to point out that "support for or opposition to certain rebel groups doesn't really amount to anything other than an article and a statement" by Left groups, which is true for the most part. But then again, organizing against the policy of the very countries in which these Left groups (like ANSWER as one that has been the target of Kassad for example) is taking place in the aggressor nations against the policies of those nations, makes sense as a focus to me at least.

andyx1205

5th March 2012, 13:38

Many of you guys would've been busy debating whether or not to intervene in Rwanda and Sudan (as well as Darfur) and the Congo while it was too late and the damage had already been done.

Just because I oppose Saddam doesn't mean I supported the Western imperialists in Iraq! Noam Chomsky wrote a letter, signed by many other intellectuals, criticizing Iraq's oppression of the Kurds...this letter can be found on the NY Times from the date "1975" yes "1975" yet he also opposed the invasion of Iraq.

What is happening in Syria is a humanitarian crisis. A genocide. Srebrenica might be around the corner and while we're arguing, it just might happen right under our noses.

Are Western players, specifically the Saudis and Qataris, trying to co-opt the movement so they can decide which part of the armed opposition gets armed to serve their own selfish interests? (there's many loosely organized armed groups, the FSA is NOT a centralized organization and recently there was a split in it...not complete split but federalized split due to disagreements)

Of course! Is it also true the Allies had their own self-interests in defeating Hitler? Of course! But who here would stay "neutral" during WW2, instead of supporting the Allies?

When it comes to intervention there are 3 courses of action:

1) escalate the crisis
2) do nothing
3) mitigate the crisis

I think the Balkans is a great example. There was an existent crisis in the Balkans in regards to Albanian Kosovars. The NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999, in response to the crimes in the previous year, were predicted by military analysts to escalate the crisis. Guess what, this is exactly what happened, and the humanitarian crisis was GREATLY escalated, not to mention the war crimes of the bombing itself. In this case, intervention did more harm.

NATO intervention in Bosnia was since 1992, yet, it was unable to prevent the Srebrenica massacre of 8000 Muslim Bosniacs in 1995. Perhaps in this case...the intervention should've been much stronger. Perhaps instead of the heavy intervention being in 1999, it should've been MUCH EARLIER. Perhaps Milosevic should've been taken out before 1995.

Btw I used this example because similar to Assad, Milosevic is not the classic western puppet. Obviously the intervention in Balkans was imperialist, considering there were both worse and similar humanitarian crisis happening in the world around the same period. Yet just because we don't intervene everywhere (because we only intervene where our interests dictate) doesn't mean we shouldn't intervene somewhere, even if for imperial means, but if it can mitigate a humanitarian crisis I support it. Unfortunately most of our interventions do not mitigate crisis but escalate crisis, even in the case of the 1999 NATO bombing which most liberals seem to support without a blink (odd because it's a clear fact that the bombing escalated the crisis).

What can do we in Syria to mitigate the crisis? Arming the opposition can escalate the conflict by further militarizing the conflict (which can undermine the ongoing peaceful democratic movements in Syria) YET an armed opposition can also be useful for protecting civilian areas.

If we don't do anything, this can be supported from a moral position in that one would rather do no harm than do harm, while continuously pursuing diplomatic means intended to mitigate the crisis and reach a solution. Yet, there is the RISK that while we do nothing, another Srebrenica happens as we sit and watch.

Both intervention and non-intervention have their risks and we have to, if we seek to base our actions on morality rather than dogma (someone noted that as communists we don't have to support the opposition because none of the options offer anything to the working class), contrast the level of risks between several different options and choose the one which does the best at mitigating a crisis or possibly creating a better Syria in the long run for Syrians (I've always maintained that when it comes to dictatorships, the establishment of a national pluralistic democratic state is a step towards that eventual "socialist revolution" that we lefties seek, definitely a closer step than keeping a dictatorship). Yet, as Karl Marx believed (something many of his supposed ideological descendants have thrown out the window), an end brought through unjustified means is an unjustifiable end.

Many of you are disgusting, absolutely disgusting. The leftists in Syria support Assad? LOL. Do you think I give a FUCK? The League of Communists in Serbia supported Milosevich, an ultra-nationalist bloody genocidal dictator.

For those speaking of imperial interests in Syria in regards to our attempt to co-opt parts of the opposition, do you think we're dumb? OF COURSE the West will take advantage of the crisis in Syria to get rid of both Iran's ally and Russia's naval port, hit two birds with one stone. DUH! This has nothing to do with the fact that Assad is a genocidal dictator who just might have recently slaughtered thousands in Baba Amr, we do not know because the Syrian army is "cleaning" Baba Amr before the aid agencies can go in. "Cleaning." Lol.

You can take a stance against BOTH Assad and the imperialists. Last time I checked, Chomsky considered Milosevich, rightfully, a grave perpetrator of crimes against humanity, yet he also criticized the actions of the West, his most famous attack being the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia which actually escalated the crisis resulting in a multiplying of the crisis and atrocities.

If the West proposes actions that will escalate the crisis then I will criticize it. But that doesn't mean the West should do nothing, it should do SOMETHING. Many of you guys probably would've been creating threads on the West's imperialist ambitions if it wished to mitigate the humanitarian crisis in Sudan or Rwanda or the Congo. Obviously if the West had imperial interests it would've intervened but would you be spending more time on criticizing the West than the perpetrators of GENOCIDE in those countries?

manic expression

5th March 2012, 14:47

That's not even an argument. The Syrian regime is a proxy for Russian Imperialists. But unlike the Syrian regime, which is bringing heavy artillery fire down on innocent civilians and cutting off the water supply so that residents need to collect snow to drink, the Red Cross is trying to bring emergency medical care. When people are basically living in an emergency zone, they need help regardless. I'm not going to refuse to call an ambulance when I see a dying man because the closest hospital is privately owned.
Do you expect a military to not cut off the water supply to an area in open rebellion and defiance?

You seem to think this is an "emergency zone" like Hurricane Katrina or some natural disaster...but it's not, it's more complicated than that, armed conflicts are so often so.

It's so fucking convenient ... whenever the USA, France or Britain kill innocent people in their Imperialist wars, you people correctly take a stance against it, but you don't give two shits when some third world plutocracy that feigns "anti-Imperialism" needlessly kills thousands of innocents.But your rebellion can slaughter innocents and still be the white-hat-wearing "good guys", right? Let's not be absurd...neither side here is innocent. As Libya so accurately shows, bringing up imperialism is not irrelevant in such a situation.

Thirsty Crow

5th March 2012, 15:21

andyx1205

5th March 2012, 15:33

Being against the Syrian revolution because of the SNC is like being against the Palestinian struggle because of the Palestinian Authority. The hypocrites exposé themselves.

andyx1205

5th March 2012, 15:43

3.16pm: The BBC's Paul Wood [and his cameraman] has returned to Syria despite the dangers facing journalists reporting from the country.

In his latest dispatch from near Homs he details horrific accounts of those fleeing Baba Amr.

One man told me that any man detained at a checkpoint is killed.

"They took our husbands, they took them at the checkpoint, they will slaughter them like sheep," one woman said.

Everyone shares the same fears that their husbands are not coming back. For now they are on their own, with nothing.

It is absolutely freezing. The children here are spending a night in a house with no heat and no electricity and, more than that, they are wondering what on earth has happened to their fathers.

This family says that they witnessed a massacre. On Friday, they say, troops took 36 men and boys from one district and killed them all.

"My son's throat was cut," a woman told me. "He was 12."

manic expression

5th March 2012, 15:43

Homs is being bombarded while there is no serious military presence within the city, as far as I know, which would merit bringing up the notion of war (of course, feel free to correct me on the factual issues). Sure, it's armed conflict, but not every armed conflict is war. What we essentially have here is pure slaughter of people who are opposed to the existing government. And no medical assistance in the form of Red Cross "intervention" is allowed.
No serious military presence? I wonder how over 60 Syrian soldiers managed to get themselves killed just last December, then.

If the Syrian Army was able to simply walk into Homs and take control of it without further bloodshed, they'd do it in a second. The Pentagon is now talking out loud (http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2012/02/29/starr-syria-us-military-plans.cnn) about plans to invade the country, Syria doesn't want instability, it doesn't want this to continue. It's simply unjustifiable to argue that Syria is trying to postpone this tragic situation, because they, more than anyone else, want this to end as soon as possible and with as little instability as possible.

His/her rebellion? What are you even talking about? This sounds just like childish name calling. Neither side is innocent? Of course, politically speaking, and as I've stated numerous times before, the existing political forces in opposition to the regime do not represent the interests of the working class. But to claim that no one is innocent while disregarding the sheer massacre being carried out is just ghastly.
Does s/he support it or not? If not then that's my mistake, but if you said the Soviet Army was "my army" I wouldn't be offended.

I think that no one is innocent is a basic fact we all have to come to terms with. "Sheer massacre" sounds a great deal like manichaean hyperbole...I think it's quite wrong to paint this as rabid wolves chasing defenseless lambs, because that's not what's happening.

l'EnfermÃ©

5th March 2012, 15:51

Give me a break. I'm criticizing a government which is using heavy artillery on heavily populated areas, cutting them off from water and electricity and then denying medical assistance to those who need it. I suppose for you "leftsolidarity" for you means "solidarity" with a quasi-fascist Baathist despots.

Is Syria "in the sights" of Imperialists you ask ... is that relevant to this issue of a mass medical triage and emergency relief? I don't see how being "in the sights of Imperialists" is a license to massacre civilians. Mussolini was "in the sights" of the old Imperialist Churchill, that doesn't mean the brutalities of Italian Fascism shouldn't have been criticized by Leftists. Homs is being turned into a modern day Guernica by the Syrian state and you really think we should ignore the brutalities of this state? Standing up for the working class does not mean standing up for a government willing to murder the working class en masse to preserve its own power.

Of course there is an Imperialist threat to Syria, as there is to all people around the world. We stop that not by ignoring the suffering of innocent people at the hand of despotic states but by anti-Imperialist activism against the Imperialist states and corporations themselves. Don't be a propagandist for the despots, go protest and raise awareness about the actions of your local Imperialist power. You can oppose NATO attempts to manipulate mass movements there without taking the side of the Assad family. Resistance to Imperialism needs to come from the people and not creepy autocrats.
Mussolini was a close friend of the West until Abyssinia/selling Austria out to Hitler.

Either way, if the side with the most casualties should be supported/opposed less, then we should support/oppose less Assad, since the rebels inflicted more casualties on civilians and Assad's forces. It's a civil war, with 2 different armies, one army is armed and trained by the richest and most powerful military force in world history, NATO, and their satellite states, so let's not be outraged at false reports of massive civilian casualties caused by Assad's regime.

Did anyone consider that perhaps the Red Cross isn't being allowed into Baba Amr because Red Cross volunteers are likely to be killed by rebel snipers? Wasn't the head of the Red Crescent in Syria shot in the head by rebel snipers 2 months or so ago? Most Western Media didn't mention it, but I saw it on BBC.com, and the only thing the article said was that he somehow magically died out of nowhere, the fact that he was shot by rebel snipers wasn't even mentioned.

Sasha

5th March 2012, 15:53

I don't see how a belief that injured Syrian civilians need medical attention immediately and that the use of heavy artillery against civilian areas to end a rebellion is wrong implies support for the FSA. It is certainly unclear whether the FSA would show Alawite or Christian civilians any more respect than the Syrian military has shown to anti-regime populations, and clearly Saudi Arabia and Turkey are trying their best to co-opt them too. They may end up embracing the same kinds of brutal, sectarian, despotic tactics of their state, much as many of the Libyan militias have done, and much as rebel militias did in neighboring Lebanon and Iraq during the civil war and US occupation respectively. But skepticism about the FSA does not excuse the actions by the State. When the USA cracks down on al Qaeda and denies the rights of innocent Muslims at home and abroad in the process, and we oppose it, are we taking a position in favor of al Qaeda? Of course not!

But the point is that the FSA is one of the two main belligerents in this conflict, so in attempting to build Left wing opposition to the Assad government: what does that translate to on the ground?

Actually there was a very interesting article in the newspaper here where civilians and FSA both said that the refusal of both the west and Russia/China to give any worthwhile assistance was what was giving a opportunity to the islamists, the people in homs are so desperate that they feel that the only way they can get both immediately supplies (military and humanitarian) and force the hand of the world to intervene will be to declare a jihad...
Just as we must understand the material reasons people turn to fascism or other reactionary support we must understand what makes people turn to the islamists.
While the Muslim brotherhood certainly have a historic powerbase in homs the salafists certainly dont, which reminds me a lot of chechenia where they even always followed a relativily liberal laidback Islam, it was the complete indifference of the secular world for their suffering that broke fertile ground for the jihadists...

Thirsty Crow

5th March 2012, 16:08

No serious military presence? I wonder how over 60 Syrian soldiers managed to get themselves killed just last December, then.I don't know, why don't you show me some evidence of there being a parallel military matching the one commanded by the Assad regime.

f the Syrian Army was able to simply walk into Homs and take control of it without further bloodshed, they'd do it in a second.
Oh now you can read minds, can you?
I don't think I need to point out just how idealist this idea is. On the contrary, if starting from the premises of simple materialist analysis, and agreeing on facts - that large scale bombardment is taking place in a town where no matching military presence is located - then we'd have to conclude that either the military command fears loss of life (again, going towards the socio-psychological side) and thus determines to bomb the city into dust, or that the bombardment represents a veritable campaign of massacre, which is most likely considering the political and social conditions and the precedent of the massacre in Hama in 1982 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre)

The Pentagon is now talking out loud (http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2012/02/29/starr-syria-us-military-plans.cnn) about plans to invade the country, Syria doesn't want instability, it doesn't want this to continue. It's simply unjustifiable to argue that Syria is trying to postpone this tragic situation, because they, more than anyone else, want this to end as soon as possible and with as little instability as possible.Of course that it is not in the interests of the Syrian bourgoeisie, and its state, as well as the imperialist powers to which these are allied to (imperialist agents on their own), that the instability and conflict continue.
I didn't say anything that the regime takjes active interest in postponing one or another kind of resolution to this situation. Indeed, this massacre can be seen as a very effective solution which would enable stabilization to take place.

Does s/he support it or not? If not then that's my mistake, but if you said the Soviet Army was "my army" I wouldn't be offended.Be careful, investing your power of identification into something which doesn't exist can produce all sorts of undesirable psychological consequences.

I think that no one is innocent is a basic fact we all have to come to terms with. "Sheer massacre" sounds a great deal like manichaean hyperbole...I think it's quite wrong to paint this as rabid wolves chasing defenseless lambs, because that's not what's happening.
It's nothing like a "Manichean hyperbole", especially because I've stated that I don't support politically the opposition and that I'm aware that this situation represents an armed conflict (that's a great wonder that soliders die in those).
If that's not what's happening, a military engaging in full scale bombardment of a whole city, than show me evidence of an army located in Homs fighting back with equal force (and, speculating, financed by western imperialism and regional powers). It's simple, evidence or GTFO (and no, 60 dead soldiers 3 months ago don't constitute evidence).

Sinister Cultural Marxist

5th March 2012, 16:12

Do you expect a military to not cut off the water supply to an area in open rebellion and defiance?

You seem to think this is an "emergency zone" like Hurricane Katrina or some natural disaster...but it's not, it's more complicated than that, armed conflicts are so often so.
situation.

Um, of course I expect a military not to cut water off to Civilians. It doesn't matter if there are guerrillas in an area, it doesn't matter if its the Americans in Fallujah or the Syrians in Homs, you do not cut off water and medical care to civilians in an area over an insurgency. This is a man-made emergency zone.

The rebels are armed, but they are obviously more lightly armed than the Syrian state. They are in no way able to stand up in a serious way on the battlefield.

But your rebellion can slaughter innocents and still be the white-hat-wearing "good guys", right? Let's not be absurd...neither side here is innocent. As Libya so accurately shows, bringing up imperialism is not irrelevant in such a As I've said again and again and again, this has nothing to do with the rebels being "good guys" this has to do with the fact that the Syrian regime is slaughtering innocent people by using heavy artillery on civilians. Saddam's gassing of the Kurds was despicable, and criticizing the regime's actions regarding that is in no way support for the Kurdish guerrillas. Likewise, as I have said over and over again, the armed Rebels in Syria in the least include questionable elements, but that does not mean we should ignore the brutality of the State.

Bringing up "Imperialism" is not irrelevant in what will happen in Syria in general, but Imperialism is not relevant to the large-scale civilian casualties being suffered.

If the Syrian Army was able to simply walk into Homs and take control of it without further bloodshed, they'd do it in a second. The Pentagon is now talking out loud (http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2012/02/29/starr-syria-us-military-plans.cnn) about plans to invade the country, Syria doesn't want instability, it doesn't want this to continue. It's simply unjustifiable to argue that Syria is trying to postpone this tragic situation, because they, more than anyone else, want this to end as soon as possible and with as little instability as possible.Aww, the poor Syrian State ... yeah, I'm sure they would take it without bloodshed if they could, that does not excuse the fact that they are still willing to cause massive amounts of bloodshed to take it if they must. The Syrian state is not some huge victim in all this, it is an agent in causing all this mess, as it instigated much of the violence by making peaceful opposition to the regime impossible.

Mussolini was a close friend of the West until Abyssinia/selling Austria out to Hitler.

And Assad is a close friend of Russian Imperialism. If it was not for Russian Imperialists being willing to sell Syria arms, the Syrian state would have been unable to survive for long.

manic expression

5th March 2012, 16:22

I don't know, why don't you show me some evidence of there being a parallel military matching the one commanded by the Assad regime.
Parallel has nothing to do with it. The question is whether or not the opposition is engaging in armed resistance.

Oh now you can read minds, can you?
I don't think I need to point out just how idealist this idea is. On the contrary, if starting from the premises of simple materialist analysis, and agreeing on facts - that large scale bombardment is taking place in a town where no matching military presence is located - then we'd have to conclude that either the military command fears loss of life (again, going towards the socio-psychological side) and thus determines to bomb the city into dust, or that the bombardment represents a veritable campaign of massacre, which is most likely considering the political and social conditions and the precedent of the massacre in Hama in 1982 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre)
You don't have to read minds to know that the Syrian government has no interest in prolonging this situation. It's the only reasonable conclusion: the dangers of continued instability are grave, while little to no benefit is offered therein. It is entirely in the interest of the government to retain control of Homs, and it is entirely against the interest of the government to attack the same city needlessly.

Of course that it is not in the interests of the Syrian bourgoeisie, and its state, as well as the imperialist powers to which these are allied to (imperialist agents on their own), that the instability and conflict continue.
I didn't say anything that the regime takjes active interest in postponing one or another kind of resolution to this situation. Indeed, this massacre can be seen as a very effective solution which would enable stabilization to take place.
Why would a "massacre", one that is proposed to be entirely unnecessary (seeing as we're to believe that there is no military presence in Homs), serve their interests?

Be careful, investing your power of identification into something which doesn't exist can produce all sorts of undesirable psychological consequences.
Investment advice from a left communist...now we've heard it all. :D And if you have a problem identifying with something that once did exist, then perhaps you should reconsider the label Marxist, no?

It's nothing like a "Manichean hyperbole", especially because I've stated that I don't support politically the opposition and that I'm aware that this situation represents an armed conflict (that's a great wonder that soliders die in those).
If that's not what's happening, a military engaging in full scale bombardment of a whole city, than show me evidence of an army located in Homs fighting back with equal force (and, speculating, financed by western imperialism and regional powers). It's simple, evidence or GTFO (and no, 60 dead soldiers 3 months ago don't constitute evidence).
First, I didn't mean to assert that you're supporting the opposition, I simply meant that we can't go around claiming that one side hasn't done anything wrong and the other side is doing everything wrong.

Second, equal force isn't the point and is never the point. I could make dozens of comparisons off the top of my head on this but it's unnecessary, because what's military and not military is not defined as equal force.

Third, this does not seem to be a "full scale bombardment", not at all.

Fourth, 60 soldiers KIA in one month is certainly evidence that the opposition is capable of mounting martial resistance against the government.

manic expression

5th March 2012, 16:44

Um, of course I expect a military not to cut water off to Civilians. It doesn't matter if there are guerrillas in an area, it doesn't matter if its the Americans in Fallujah or the Syrians in Homs, you do not cut off water and medical care to civilians in an area over an insurgency. This is a man-made emergency zone.
If you want to conduct a military operation, you don't grant water supplies to your enemies. That holds true in any armed conflict, anywhere. It's very ugly but that doesn't change anything.

And it surely is a man-made emergency zone, but it being man-made means that any supplies sent to civilians will almost surely be taken and monopolized by the armed opposition (probably by force). Again, it's very ugly but that's how it goes.

The rebels are armed, but they are obviously more lightly armed than the Syrian state. They are in no way able to stand up in a serious way on the battlefield.You don't get extra credit for being lightly armed...if one resists militarily then one can only expect to receive that which one seeks to give. In a street fight or in a trench, trying to be "fair" is the last thing on anyone's mind.

As I've said again and again and again, this has nothing to do with the rebels being "good guys" this has to do with the fact that the Syrian regime is slaughtering innocent people by using heavy artillery on civilians. Saddam's gassing of the Kurds was despicable, and criticizing the regime's actions regarding that is in no way support for the Kurdish guerrillas. Likewise, as I have said over and over again, the armed Rebels in Syria in the least include questionable elements, but that does not mean we should ignore the brutality of the State.OK, I rescind the point about "good guys". However, to say that the Syrian army is doing this purely to slaughter innocents is just untrue.

What you say on not ignoring all parts of the situation is entirely right, but by the same token we should not try to cast all the actions of the Syrian state in the blackest of terms just because some of those actions have been excessively brutal. I can disagree with a lot of things the Jacobins did without condemning their entire government.

Bringing up "Imperialism" is not irrelevant in what will happen in Syria in general, but Imperialism is not relevant to the large-scale civilian casualties being suffered.I would argue that if imperialism is relevant in what will happen to Syria, it is relevant to every life that has been affected by the tragedy that is presently unfolding.

Aww, the poor Syrian State ... yeah, I'm sure they would take it without bloodshed if they could, that does not excuse the fact that they are still willing to cause massive amounts of bloodshed to take it if they must. The Syrian state is not some huge victim in all this, it is an agent in causing all this mess, as it instigated much of the violence by making peaceful opposition to the regime impossible.It's a matter of consistency. If you say that there is no serious resistance in Homs, then you have to also say that the Syrian state is prolonging the situation purely because it wants to. Obviously, the latter is false (as you admitted above) and so the former must be questioned also. The Syrian state is a victim of circumstance, as are all actors on the stage of politics, but it will become one more victim of imperialism if it is not able to establish stability soon enough...it is through that lens that we must view the ongoing conflict.

I condemn how peaceful protestors were/are mistreated in Syria, yes, but that should not make us lose sight of some larger issues.

Kassad

5th March 2012, 17:38

Parallel has nothing to do with it. The question is whether or not the opposition is engaging in armed resistance.

Of course, as Marxists, we oppose armed resistance. :rolleyes:

l'EnfermÃ©

5th March 2012, 18:01

Actually there was a very interesting article in the newspaper here where civilians and FSA both said that the refusal of both the west and Russia/China to give any worthwhile assistance was what was giving a opportunity to the islamists, the people in homs are so desperate that they feel that the only way they can get both immediately supplies (military and humanitarian) and force the hand of the world to intervene will be to declare a jihad...
Just as we must understand the material reasons people turn to fascism or other reactionary support we must understand what makes people turn to the islamists.
While the Muslim brotherhood certainly have a historic powerbase in homs the salafists certainly dont, which reminds me a lot of chechenia where they even always followed a relativily liberal laidback Islam, it was the complete indifference of the secular world for their suffering that broke fertile ground for the jihadists...
Prior to the conquest of the Caucasus by the Czars, most of the currently Islamic populations practiced mostly their own pagan religions, with a few communities here and there being influenced by Georgian Christian missionaries and Turkish/Persian Muslims. The Chechens, Ingush, Dagestanians, Circassians(for their resistence against the Czar, 400,000 were killed, 500,000 forcefully deported to the Ottoman Empire and only about 100,000 in their land)and others adopted Islam only because the Ottomans promised aid(and of course, didn't deliver it), and still then, Muslims became the vast majority of these nations only after the conquest of the Caucasus was completed. And even then, in the era of the October Revolution, the Chechen Capital Grozny was a major Bolshevik center in the Caucasus, like Baku. Even during the years of the Soviet Union, in Chechnya at least, Chechen ethnic customs and traditions dominated over Islamic traditions, like a famous Chechen terrorist said; Islam, prior to the post-Soviet wars, was only important during weddings and funerals.

It's interesting to note, that like in all the other "fundamentalist" Islamic countries(Perhaphs a good exception is Saudi Arabia, and Iran, though in Iran there's still the connection with the great Imperialist powers; the fundamentalists and clerics filled in the void left by the left which was crushed by US's puppet, the Shah), Chechnya was Islamised by fundamentalists who've been proven to be working for FSB and GRU.

Thirsty Crow

5th March 2012, 18:28

Parallel has nothing to do with it. The question is whether or not the opposition is engaging in armed resistance.By "parallel", I merely wished to imply the difference between the official military regime operated by the state apparatus, and the supposed military force operated by the opposition, parallel (since there are effectively two bodies of armed men within one country) and opposed to the existing regime.

And your response speaks volumes. The question is one of armed resistance, and it cannot be a matter of excessive force (indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets). You're refusing to distinguish between armed oppositionists and the civilian population, thus leading to your complete denial of the massacre of civilian population in Homs.

You don't have to read minds to know that the Syrian government has no interest in prolonging this situation. It's the only reasonable conclusion: the dangers of continued instability are grave, while little to no benefit is offered therein. It is entirely in the interest of the government to retain control of Homs, and it is entirely against the interest of the government to attack the same city needlessly.To retain control of Homs? So you believe that the existing regime has its hold on the city? From what I've gathered, the situation is more complex than this, and it seems that Homs represents a hotbed of opposition, so in fact it is entirely in the interests of the ruling regime to act decisevely against it, as they have been doing for months now, "decisevely" meaning lethally, in fact.

Why would a "massacre", one that is proposed to be entirely unnecessary (seeing as we're to believe that there is no military presence in Homs), serve their interests?Because not all capitalist states deal with dissent and opposition in the same way, which by the way, doesn't have anything to do with supposed lack of democratic culture (the obvious thesis peddled by supporters of western imperialism).
In other words, this attack is hardly unnecessary given the fact that there is pressure on the regime to back down and and allow for constitutional changes, which would mean that the political structure changes considerably (albeit, within the confines of bourgeois democracy).
You're telling me that you don't see how physical extermination of the opposition, while also functioning as a campaign of terror, serves the interests of the particular faction of the ruling class in Syria currently in power?

Investment advice from a left communist...now we've heard it all. :D And if you have a problem identifying with something that once did exist, then perhaps you should reconsider the label Marxist, no?I'm fairly sure that Marxism wasn only constituted as a body of theory after Marx's death. And that Marxism also exists today. But nice try.

First, I didn't mean to assert that you're supporting the opposition, I simply meant that we can't go around claiming that one side hasn't done anything wrong and the other side is doing everything wrong.And you directed this at...whom? The phantoms on this board claiming that the Syrian opposition is the greatest thing in the world? C'mon now, I don't think there's need to inslut people's intelligence, because it's painfully obvious that you cannot either prove your points by offering evidence or to acknowledge the fact that civilian populations is targeted and killed off. Nowhere in this thread have you done anything which would imply that you're aware of the bloodshed that's going on, and that is, quite frankly, disgusting.

I'm not a fan of moral arguments, but you seem to lack the basic humanity and decency which I think anyone would expect from a self-described communist, at least here.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

5th March 2012, 19:56

If you want to conduct a military operation, you don't grant water supplies to your enemies. That holds true in any armed conflict, anywhere. It's very ugly but that doesn't change anything.

You deny the enemy bullets, you don't deny everybody in the whole area water. That's called collective punishment. The logic you are using is the same logic which the Israeli state uses to deny avocados to the Gaza Strip.

And it surely is a man-made emergency zone, but it being man-made means that any supplies sent to civilians will almost surely be taken and monopolized by the armed opposition (probably by force). Again, it's very ugly but that's how it goes.
I'd rather it get monopolized by armed opposition and still distributed to people than have innocent men, women and children get sick or die of hunger. Al Shabab controls half of Somalia, I guess the people there shouldn't get food relief because those psychotic Islamists will monopolize it?

You don't get extra credit for being lightly armed...if one resists militarily then one can only expect to receive that which one seeks to give. In a street fight or in a trench, trying to be "fair" is the last thing on anyone's mind.
This has nothing to do with the two sides having "fair" rules of war, this has to do with the fact that no State should ever use organized violence against civilians in such a way and under such circumstances.

OK, I rescind the point about "good guys". However, to say that the Syrian army is doing this purely to slaughter innocents is just untrue.
It doesn't matter why they are doing it, it matters that they are doing it on an obscene scale.

What you say on not ignoring all parts of the situation is entirely right, but by the same token we should not try to cast all the actions of the Syrian state in the blackest of terms just because some of those actions have been excessively brutal. I can disagree with a lot of things the Jacobins did without condemning their entire government.
Ah, just like I guess we should be forgiving of the French Monarchs too, after all, the French Monarchs were just responding to the material conditions they faced! We should not remember Louis in the blackest of terms!

I would argue that if imperialism is relevant in what will happen to Syria, it is relevant to every life that has been affected by the tragedy that is presently unfolding.
If we're going to talk about Imperialism in such terms, we should stop pretending that Assad is some figure resisting Imperialism but is himself an active participant in the whole order.

It's a matter of consistency. If you say that there is no serious resistance in Homs, then you have to also say that the Syrian state is prolonging the situation purely because it wants to. Obviously, the latter is false (as you admitted above) and so the former must be questioned also. The Syrian state is a victim of circumstance, as are all actors on the stage of politics, but it will become one more victim of imperialism if it is not able to establish stability soon enough...it is through that lens that we must view the ongoing conflict.
They are not the "victims of circumstance" they are active agents in the whole situation. They tried and failed to crack down on a protest movement by force, and when that failure led to armed insurrection they panicked and only increased the military crackdown. You can call them a "victim of circumstance", I call them "people using force to protect their economic and political interests."

The Syrian State will not be a victim of Imperialism, the Syrian people will be. Insofar as the state is, it is only because these violent excesses by the Syrian military make elements of the opposition desperate for some support. Even if the Syrian regime does last, then the people have still been a victim of Imperialism-the Russian Imperialists who sold the Syrian regime the weapons used to deny popular (i.e. real) sovereignty to the masses.

As a Marxist, we should ask, what on earth would motivate someone to take up arms against their government? Do their motives make sense? And do the government's policies or economic contradictions play a major role in their decision? Why would a massive city like Homs decide that Assad was no longer their President?

I condemn how peaceful protestors were/are mistreated in Syria, yes, but that should not make us lose sight of some larger issues.The largest issue is the humanitarian issue, insofar as humanitarianism stems from the maximal number of people attaining the basic necessities of existence and the ability to work and own the rights to their work without risk to their own personal safety. The cost of Imperialist intervention or exploitation is also to a large extent a humanitarian one as it is the denial of economic empowerment and access to basic necessities. This has a practical level as well as a moral level, which is essential for any Marxist to consider-when you have a Syrian regime obliterating a city like Homs, you have a situation where many will actually seek out foreign intervention out of desperation, because even the manipulation by outside Imperialists brings less cost to their lives than the actions of their own State.

Your approach is utterly paternalistic. Basically, the implication is that the only group which can represent the people of third world countries against Imperialist aggression are armed bourgeois elites with a willingness to shed the blood of thousands to preserve their power. That denies agency to the Syrian people and the people who live in the Imperialist powers, where it is the people of Syria and the people of the NATO countries who should resist Imperialism

GoddessCleoLover

5th March 2012, 20:03

I don't see how the Red Cross is acting as an imperialist proxy by offering to provide humanitarian relief to Syrian civilians. The problem with such an analysis is that it is so overbroad that any organized attempt to provide relief to the suffering civilians could be stigmatized as an imperialist proxy. In effect, it dooms these civilians to suffering and death because any international organization capable of providing relief is somehow an imperialist proxy. That seems to be a gross misunderstanding of imperialism.

manic expression

5th March 2012, 20:22

By "parallel", I merely wished to imply the difference between the official military regime operated by the state apparatus, and the supposed military force operated by the opposition, parallel (since there are effectively two bodies of armed men within one country) and opposed to the existing regime.

And your response speaks volumes. The question is one of armed resistance, and it cannot be a matter of excessive force (indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets). You're refusing to distinguish between armed oppositionists and the civilian population, thus leading to your complete denial of the massacre of civilian population in Homs.
What evidence is there to say that there is a massacre of the civilian population of Homs? Excessive force might certainly be arguable, and in other instances the Syrian government was clearly guilty of that, but I'd rather not make that judgment on hear-say alone.

To retain control of Homs? So you believe that the existing regime has its hold on the city? From what I've gathered, the situation is more complex than this, and it seems that Homs represents a hotbed of opposition, so in fact it is entirely in the interests of the ruling regime to act decisevely against it, as they have been doing for months now, "decisevely" meaning lethally, in fact.
And evidently enough, armed groups have been acting decisively enough against the government. Agree with their cause or not, that is something the opposition can say to have accomplished.

Because not all capitalist states deal with dissent and opposition in the same way, which by the way, doesn't have anything to do with supposed lack of democratic culture (the obvious thesis peddled by supporters of western imperialism).
In other words, this attack is hardly unnecessary given the fact that there is pressure on the regime to back down and and allow for constitutional changes, which would mean that the political structure changes considerably (albeit, within the confines of bourgeois democracy).
You're telling me that you don't see how physical extermination of the opposition, while also functioning as a campaign of terror, serves the interests of the particular faction of the ruling class in Syria currently in power?
The "physical extermination of the opposition" would require means and ends that would only add to instability, thereby giving imperialism a greater opportunity to strike. A "campaign of terror" (and to be perfectly honest, we should both recognize that some elements of the opposition have engaged in terrorism), too, would undermine the Syrian government's ability to rule.

Surely, some governments think it appropriate to do away with all opposition in one blow (such that Machiavelli suggested)...but that ship sailed a looooong time ago. Such a maneuver requires that it be done quickly and relatively quietly, and there's no way that's happening in Syria now. Basically my point is that even if the Syrian government wanted to do it, they wouldn't be able to.

I'm fairly sure that Marxism wasn only constituted as a body of theory after Marx's death. And that Marxism also exists today. But nice try.
I'm fairly sure that Karl Marx is no longer alive, and that we still uphold his legacy.

And you directed this at...whom? The phantoms on this board claiming that the Syrian opposition is the greatest thing in the world? C'mon now, I don't think there's need to inslut people's intelligence, because it's painfully obvious that you cannot either prove your points by offering evidence or to acknowledge the fact that civilian populations is targeted and killed off. Nowhere in this thread have you done anything which would imply that you're aware of the bloodshed that's going on, and that is, quite frankly, disgusting.

I'm not a fan of moral arguments, but you seem to lack the basic humanity and decency which I think anyone would expect from a self-described communist, at least here.
I directed it generally, because the thread seemed to lack very much recognition of how elements of the opposition have been far from angels.

I don't think the civilian population is being "killed off". Just because there's horrible bloodshed going on that I can't even begin to comprehend doesn't mean anyone's trying to genocide Homs. And really, what evidence do we have for this? That the water was shut off? Any army of any ideology on the planet would have done the same.

If it appeared as though I was insulting your intelligence, my apologies, that wasn't my intention. But don't try to say that I lack humanity. We're both trying to grapple with things that neither of us have seen or felt. So please don't try to tell me that I'm less decent or less human than you.

The Cheshire Cat

5th March 2012, 20:32

It's weird that you appreciate the state-financed media of an imperialist state, but you don't like the BBC!

Why? RT shows the other side of the news and reports quite interesting and often correct news regarding actions of the US in other nations. In this matter, US supports the FSA. RT shows the bad things about FSA and reports the things that people who do not side with the FSA say. I do appreciate that they show the other side.

I'm not saying we should trust everything they say immediatley. As they are financed by a state, they are not independent. I know that. I just don't get it why people do trust it immediatley when BBC (which is ocourse also an unindependent media of a imperialist state) says that the Syrian army stops the Red Crescent, but when RT show that other people say it's the FSA who stops the Red Crescent, most of you don't believe it.

You believe BBC instead.

While it is proven many times that BBC lies almost always regarding US actions and US supported groups in other nations. It's not just that, some of you even ridicule others who prefer to listen to RT's story instead of BBC's story. It just seems hypocrite to me.

manic expression

5th March 2012, 20:37

You deny the enemy bullets, you don't deny everybody in the whole area water. That's called collective punishment. The logic you are using is the same logic which the Israeli state uses to deny avocados to the Gaza Strip.
Israel has no claim to Gaza, so the same logic can't apply. Anyway, it's not collective punishment because it's a matter of denying supplies to the enemy, which is one of the basic rules of war. If an enemy has taken up position in a city with civilians there's no way to pick and choose who gets water...it all has to go off.

I'd rather it get monopolized by armed opposition and still distributed to people than have innocent men, women and children get sick or die of hunger. Al Shabab controls half of Somalia, I guess the people there shouldn't get food relief because those psychotic Islamists will monopolize it?
There's a very good chance it wouldn't get distributed to many outside of the armed opposition.

It's very different from food relief because the organizations sending food aren't also trying to take control of half of Somalia. If they were, they certainly wouldn't be sending much food into areas under the control of Al Shabab because the first and likely only people to eat it in a state of war would be soldiers.

This has nothing to do with the two sides having "fair" rules of war, this has to do with the fact that no State should ever use organized violence against civilians in such a way and under such circumstances.
Cutting off water to a city isn't organized violence. Shelling you have an argument on, but even there it's hardly the black-and-white thing you make it out as.

It doesn't matter why they are doing it, it matters that they are doing it on an obscene scale.
So first it was about targeting civilians for fun, and now it's about "scale"?

Ah, just like I guess we should be forgiving of the French Monarchs too, after all, the French Monarchs were just responding to the material conditions they faced! We should not remember Louis in the blackest of terms!
Actually you probably shouldn't remember Louis XVI in the blackest of terms...he was very clearly someone who wasn't at all ready to rule shoved into an almost-impossible position. His fatal flaw was foolishness, not ruthlessness.

Anyway, men make history, but not as they like it. To think the Syrian government is acting completely independently of circumstances outside of their control is very limited thinking. They know what just happened in Libya and they're not blissfully unaware that it could happen in the Levant as well.

If we're going to talk about Imperialism in such terms, we should stop pretending that Assad is some figure resisting Imperialism but is himself an active participant in the whole order.
He and the rest of the Syrian people are resisting imperialism. I even admit that elements of the opposition are anti-imperialist, and I applaud them for it. Just because they're all victims of circumstance doesn't change their responses to that circumstances.

They are not the "victims of circumstance" they are active agents in the whole situation. They tried and failed to crack down on a protest movement by force, and when that failure led to armed insurrection they panicked and only increased the military crackdown. You can call them a "victim of circumstance", I call them "people using force to protect their economic and political interests."

The Syrian State will not be a victim of Imperialism, the Syrian people will be. Insofar as the state is, it is only because these violent excesses by the Syrian military make elements of the opposition desperate for some support. Even if the Syrian regime does last, then the people have still been a victim of Imperialism-the Russian Imperialists who sold the Syrian regime the weapons used to deny popular (i.e. real) sovereignty to the masses.

As a Marxist, we should ask, what on earth would motivate someone to take up arms against their government? Do their motives make sense? And do the government's policies or economic contradictions play a major role in their decision? Why would a massive city like Homs decide that Assad was no longer their President?
Yes, they're active agents as well, but they're not making decisions in a vacuum.

The largest issue is the humanitarian issue, insofar as humanitarianism stems from the maximal number of people attaining the basic necessities of existence and the ability to work and own the rights to their work without risk to their own personal safety. The cost of Imperialist intervention or exploitation is also to a large extent a humanitarian one as it is the denial of economic empowerment and access to basic necessities. This has a practical level as well as a moral level, which is essential for any Marxist to consider-when you have a Syrian regime obliterating a city like Homs, you have a situation where many will actually seek out foreign intervention out of desperation, because even the manipulation by outside Imperialists brings less cost to their lives than the actions of their own State.
Some might seek out imperialist intervention, but that hardly makes it a good decision...at least so far as the interests of the masses go. Fortunately not everyone in the opposition is, and that must be noted with approval by all progressives.

Your approach is utterly paternalistic. Basically, the implication is that the only group which can represent the people of third world countries against Imperialist aggression are armed bourgeois elites with a willingness to shed the blood of thousands to preserve their power. That denies agency to the Syrian people and the people who live in the Imperialist powers, where it is the people of Syria and the people of the NATO countries who should resist Imperialism
The people of Syria are right now resisting imperialism on both sides of the conflict. My implication could not be further from yours.

manic expression

5th March 2012, 20:42

Of course, as Marxists, we oppose armed resistance. :rolleyes:
It's not about opposing it necessarily, it's about understanding what it brings. Legitimate or illegitimate (and I think we can all agree that there are legitimate and illegitimate uses of armed resistance), the immediate consequences are oftentimes quite similar.

GoddessCleoLover

5th March 2012, 20:47

But this thread was originated to deal with the issue of allowing the Red Cross to provide humanitarian relief to civilians. Can't we agree that civilians ought not be deprived of essentials such as water and food merely because they live in an area of armed conflict?

brigadista

5th March 2012, 20:57

some of you here should read this..

http://english.al-akhbar.com/blogs/angry-corner/“bashar-assad-rapes-children”-bbc-propaganda

freepalestine

5th March 2012, 21:27

seems the best engish site for news from leftistson syria

http://angryarab.blogspot.com/

also http://english.al-akhbar.com/

l'EnfermÃ©

5th March 2012, 21:40

13 French Army Officers have just been caught in Syria.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

5th March 2012, 22:26

Israel has no claim to Gaza, so the same logic can't apply. Anyway, it's not collective punishment because it's a matter of denying supplies to the enemy, which is one of the basic rules of war. If an enemy has taken up position in a city with civilians there's no way to pick and choose who gets water...it all has to go off.

Why does Assad's Syrian dictatorship have any more right to dictate policy to Homs than some Zionist regime in Israel if the people there reject the supposed claims of authority? Why do you take the Baathist claim for legitimacy at face value when it is based on bourgeois constructs like State Capitalism? As for "basic rules of war" what are you talking about? There's no "basic rule of war" that says you need to deny water to civilians who live in a conflict zone. Have armies done that in the past to attain victory? Yes. Does that mean such a strategy should be supported? No! What you are basically saying is that Total War is the only way to reasonably fight in such scenarios.

There's a very good chance it wouldn't get distributed to many outside of the armed opposition.
The same allegations are made about food aid given in all conflict zones, and with about as much evidence. The reality is that these movements want public support and that even from a strategic point of view there is a huge incentive to actually distribute the food. And even if they don't, then the FSA will have the blame and the Homsis can hate them instead of the Baathists.

It's very different from food relief because the organizations sending food aren't also trying to take control of half of Somalia. If they were, they certainly wouldn't be sending much food into areas under the control of Al Shabab because the first and likely only people to eat it in a state of war would be soldiers.

There's a huge civil war against al Shabab right now. The Red Cross is independent of the Somali government and the AU but it is also independent of the Syrian regime/FSA so I don't see how that excuse is applicable.

Cutting off water to a city isn't organized violence. Shelling you have an argument on, but even there it's hardly the black-and-white thing you make it out as.
There's no way for an artillery shell to discriminate between an armed FSA insurgent and men, women and children that have nothing to do with the uprising (aside from possible moral support that they may have for the insurgents), so I do think that it is a pretty black-and-white issue. This isn't WWII, there's no fascist regime seeking world conquest, it's a bunch of guerrillas who have occupied a major city.

So first it was about targeting civilians for fun, and now it's about "scale"?
I never said they did it for fun. They are doing it to preserve political and economic advantages.

Actually you probably shouldn't remember Louis XVI in the blackest of terms...he was very clearly someone who wasn't at all ready to rule shoved into an almost-impossible position. His fatal flaw was foolishness, not ruthlessness.
Fair enough, but in that case there's really no regime which we cannot pull ourselves back from and try to understand the moral perspective of their leaders (with a few exceptions in the case of regimes led by what appears to be some kind of social pathology like ultra-nationalism).

Assad might not be a baby-eating demon, but his government is certainly creating morally reprehensible conditions for its own people.

Anyway, men make history, but not as they like it. To think the Syrian government is acting completely independently of circumstances outside of their control is very limited thinking. They know what just happened in Libya and they're not blissfully unaware that it could happen in the Levant as well.
They should have seen what happened in Libya and realized that machinegunning protesters only creates an opportunity for foreign intervention.

He and the rest of the Syrian people are resisting imperialism. I even admit that elements of the opposition are anti-imperialist, and I applaud them for it. Just because they're all victims of circumstance doesn't change their responses to that circumstances.
No, he's resisting the loss of his economic and political standing. He was happy to work with the US, Russia and EU in the past when he thought that it helped his regime.

Some might seek out imperialist intervention, but that hardly makes it a good decision...at least so far as the interests of the masses go. Fortunately not everyone in the opposition is, and that must be noted with approval by all progressives.
I agree it's a bad choice to find support from such sources, however insofar as it is the brutality of the Syrian regime which is a primary cause then military victory by the Syrian state will only expand that. The discontent created by organized State violence against protesters is in fact a huge opportunity for foreign Imperialists.

And at the point where the State is using such violence, the issue is that the costs of their state actually begin to outweigh the costs of Imperialism for the masses in the short term.

The people of Syria are right now resisting imperialism on both sides of the conflict. My implication could not be further from yours.Not further from mine? I'm not saying those people are or are not resisting Imperialism, merely that shelling a city into rubble and cutting off its civilians from water does nothing whatsoever to stop Imperialism.

manic expression

5th March 2012, 23:31

Why does Assad's Syrian dictatorship have any more right to dictate policy to Homs than some Zionist regime in Israel if the people there reject the supposed claims of authority? Why do you take the Baathist claim for legitimacy at face value when it is based on bourgeois constructs like State Capitalism? As for "basic rules of war" what are you talking about? There's no "basic rule of war" that says you need to deny water to civilians who live in a conflict zone. Have armies done that in the past to attain victory? Yes. Does that mean such a strategy should be supported? No! What you are basically saying is that Total War is the only way to reasonably fight in such scenarios.
Because no one is claiming that the Syrian government stole the land that Homs sits upon. Therefore, the question is entirely different: in one case, the state commits clear theft against an entire people by its very presence and authority; in the other, the state commits no such thing. It is the refusal to confront the national question that brings us to this.

Further, you do not need to deny water to an opposing city, but it would probably be a bad idea not to. That's far from "total war".

The same allegations are made about food aid given in all conflict zones, and with about as much evidence. The reality is that these movements want public support and that even from a strategic point of view there is a huge incentive to actually distribute the food. And even if they don't, then the FSA will have the blame and the Homsis can hate them instead of the Baathists."Hate" doesn't counteract fresh supplies. While the FSA controls the city it controls the populace with more blunt force than we find in most situations with most states. Even if we are to sympathize with the FSA, they would inevitably use any supplies for their own first and foremost...practically any armed force would.

There's a huge civil war against al Shabab right now. The Red Cross is independent of the Somali government and the AU but it is also independent of the Syrian regime/FSA so I don't see how that excuse is applicable.It's not an excuse, these are two different situations. With the targeting of Red Crescent personnel recently Syria is not facing a common set of circumstances. Finally I have to admit I don't know much about Somalia so my contributions can only be cursory.

There's no way for an artillery shell to discriminate between an armed FSA insurgent and men, women and children that have nothing to do with the uprising (aside from possible moral support that they may have for the insurgents), so I do think that it is a pretty black-and-white issue. This isn't WWII, there's no fascist regime seeking world conquest, it's a bunch of guerrillas who have occupied a major city.It's not as if the FSA's weapons discriminate between civilian and soldier either, so you should apply the same black-and-white critique of them as well. Like I keep saying, both sides have committed inhumane acts and we should not let one off and put all the blame on the other. I look to see a working-class movement in Syria, and to that end I hope to see progressive elements of the opposition become more prominent and anti-imperialist forces throughout all of Syria, but that does not mean I am going to pretend that the Syrian army is doing more than it actually is.

I never said they did it for fun. They are doing it to preserve political and economic advantages.So instability (that invites imperialist ambitions) preserves their political and economic advantages?

Fair enough, but in that case there's really no regime which we cannot pull ourselves back from and try to understand the moral perspective of their leaders (with a few exceptions in the case of regimes led by what appears to be some kind of social pathology like ultra-nationalism).

Assad might not be a baby-eating demon, but his government is certainly creating morally reprehensible conditions for its own people.Very interesting points. In my mind the most basic thing is to understand the world in which decisions are made. Sometimes regimes act with moral goals, sometimes they act without them, but if we can get a better picture of all the pressures and concerns and motivations we can make better judgments and figure out the moral dimension more accurately.

To your point, Assad's government is broadly responsible for the conditions of the country, but at the same time it is in a state of unrest and so that responsibility is limited by pure lack of control. The responsibility in that arena* is one of regaining control over the regions in question and doing it in a manner that causes as little pain as possible. In this last query the Syrian government is guilty of excessive brutality, but that aside we can hardly be surprised that the government is attempting to regain control over Homs.

*Please note that I'm not saying it's good or positive or progressive when any government does this, only that it's how governments inevitably operate. Some governments seek to fulfill this in horrible ways, some in less inhumane ways.

They should have seen what happened in Libya and realized that machinegunning protesters only creates an opportunity for foreign intervention.They should not have fired on protestors, that much is very true. However, unless I am mistaken, it was the prolonged instability in Libya that allowed imperialism to get their pieces in place.

No, he's resisting the loss of his economic and political standing. He was happy to work with the US, Russia and EU in the past when he thought that it helped his regime.Yes, but along with that he's resisting imperialism (along with members of the opposition). Working with imperialists is very different from submitting to them. Russia had to deal with Syria on Syria's terms...it so happened that their interests coincided, but it wasn't a case of Russia dictating terms to Syria. That has proven important in the region.

I agree it's a bad choice to find support from such sources, however insofar as it is the brutality of the Syrian regime which is a primary cause then military victory by the Syrian state will only expand that. The discontent created by organized State violence against protesters is in fact a huge opportunity for foreign Imperialists.

And at the point where the State is using such violence, the issue is that the costs of their state actually begin to outweigh the costs of Imperialism for the masses in the short term.Neither of us can say what a governmental victory would bring with 100% certainty. Still, imperialist entry into the country would be a defeat for every Syrian everywhere. The cost of imperialism would be the sovereignty of Syria...in effect, the cost would be the country itself. We must therefore laud elements of the opposition who reject imperialism while remembering how those same elements were silenced so recently in Libya.

Not further from mine? I'm not saying those people are or are not resisting Imperialism, merely that shelling a city into rubble and cutting off its civilians from water does nothing whatsoever to stop Imperialism.Using artillery and cutting off water supplies is a way to regain control of a city, which could potentially close the opportunity for invasion that imperialism has right now. I think Syria may be fortunate in that the US isn't in a great condition to launch such an intervention at the moment, and that Syria's own borders would make the imperialists a bit hesitant...but you can never count imperialism out.