Bashar Al Assad

[willowtooth]

So you're doing what, then, here -- profiling, stereotyping.
Yes, exactly -- you're reinforcing my point *for* me, that they're peripheral to the *major* geopolitical factions.

yes im agreeing with you but im saying that means very little now that the soviet union is gone, there is a second tier of what i guess we could call sub-prime borrowers that are trying to convince their wealthy investors to not invest in London or new york where they will get the best return on their money, but to instead invest at home out of a sense of nationalistic pride. usually (but not always) in exchange for backdoor deals, unnecessary subsidies, tax breaks, cronyism and corruption. this leads to oligarchy not socialism

Hmmmm, maybe you should explain *how* such 'makes sense'.

Assad would be like if Suharto never stepped down and his kid was "president" and had began slaughtering protesters again.

And yet here's the actual history of *anti*-Assad Western efforts:

there's also alot of anti-ISIS western efforts that doesnt mean should support them either

Of course -- I don't consider Syria to be any kind of 'socialist democracy'.

well you are calling it a secular democracy, or atleast nominally secular, even though only muslims can be president, and sharia law is apart of the constitution

If the people / workers of Syria controlled the country maybe such foreign basing arrangements would be changed by them.
So you'd prefer to see an open-ended, never-ending religious sectarian conflict between dethroned Sunnis and now-favored Shiites -- ?

that is exactly what you will get if Assad remains in office. And if no other option is given but join Assad or join ISIS then the masses will join ISIS

Okay, now say the words 'I, willowtooth, fully support the Muslim Brotherhood.'

lol okay only if you say you support Shabiha

This is quite thoroughly secular compared to outright Sharia law:

lol sharia law ....America is under biblical law, abortions, homosexuals, gambling, prostitution, no beer on sundays, there is plenty of biblical laws. Sharia law is no different, Assad wont get anyone to stop wanting strict religious law, he will encourage it, not just by provoking sunnis but by enforcing shiite sharia himself

And what's the significance of this to you -- ? That you're inspired by the geopolitical opinions and positions of the Zionist / adventurist / imperialist State of Israel -- ? (If you're talking about the *people* of Israel you should provide some data reference here.)

ISIS has homemade bombs and stolen weapons, syria and iran are military states, Iran's nuclear weapons are alot more dangerous than some illiterate cave dweller with a homemade pipe bomb made out of an old Pepsi bottle

[ckaihatsu]

yes im agreeing with you but im saying that means very little now that the soviet union is gone, there is a second tier of what i guess we could call sub-prime borrowers that are trying to convince their wealthy investors to not invest in London or new york where they will get the best return on their money, but to instead invest at home out of a sense of nationalistic pride. usually (but not always) in exchange for backdoor deals, unnecessary subsidies, tax breaks, cronyism and corruption. this leads to oligarchy not socialism

I agree that such an economic landscape for capital ownership is not one of real 'choice', and that it is inherently an oligarchical arrangement.

The 'emerging markets' category (as in Pakistan, for example) typically gives higher rates of return, but with greater risks of non-payment / bankruptcy.

Assad would be like if Suharto never stepped down and his kid was "president" and had began slaughtering protesters again.

Okay, that's a decent analogy.

there's also alot of anti-ISIS western efforts that doesnt mean should support them either

Well, this is the *crux* of the issue, I think -- you're obviously of the position that Islamic fundamentalism is comparable to American fundamentalism, and I just can't see the two as really being similar, mostly due to the religious 'core' of strict Sharia law, which is decidedly reactionary.

Western traditions are *still* historically rooted in the European Enlightenment, and bourgeois revolutions, as distant as those may seem under contemporary regressive political-economic conditions.

I can't abide the left-peace blanket position of 'everyone put their weapons down' because I *know* that ISIS won't, and such a position ignores ISIS altogether in a 'know-nothing' kind of way.

And absent a fully effective Rojava-like revolutionary offensive -- that doesn't slip / succumb to sheer militarism, like the initial anti-corruption FSA did -- the only forces physically capable of repelling the Islamic State are the major bourgeois ones like Syria, Russia, Iran, and nominally the U.S.

I don't *like* this particular situation -- I'm just recounting the factual aspects of it.


---

[I] don't consider Syria to be any kind of 'socialist democracy'.

well you are calling it a secular democracy, or atleast nominally secular, even though only muslims can be president, and sharia law is apart of the constitution

Syria *is* nominally secular, which is far-preferable to any kind of strict, fundamentalist implementation of Sharia law.


---

If the people / workers of Syria controlled the country maybe such foreign basing arrangements would be changed by them.

So you'd prefer to see an open-ended, never-ending religious sectarian conflict between dethroned Sunnis and now-favored Shiites -- ?

that is exactly what you will get if Assad remains in office. And if no other option is given but join Assad or join ISIS then the masses will join ISIS

What *is* this -- political blackmail -- ??

You'd rather only describe the 'realpolitik' of the situation, than provide a historical-progressive-type of analysis as a guide towards future understandings and positions.

Again, I really don't see any kind of political equivalence between Assad's Syria, and the Islamic State. The world cannot afford to let this issue linger and should instead take sides on it immediately.


---

Okay, now say the words 'I, willowtooth, fully support the Muslim Brotherhood.'

lol okay only if you say you support Shabiha

This jokey attitude is *not* appropriate here -- look at what you're getting into bed with:

The Brotherhood's stated goal is to instill the Quran and the Sunnah as the "sole reference point for ... ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community ... and state".[13] Its mottos include "Believers are but Brothers", "Islam is the Solution", and "Allah is our objective; the Qur'an is the Constitution; the Prophet is our leader; jihad is our way; death for the sake of Allah is our wish".[14][15][16]

It is financed by members, who are required to allocate a portion of their income to the movement,[17] and was for many years financed by Saudi Arabia, with which it shared some enemies and some points of doctrine.[17][18]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood

---

lol sharia law ....America is under biblical law, abortions, homosexuals, gambling, prostitution, no beer on sundays, there is plenty of biblical laws. Sharia law is no different,

Bullshit -- you're incorrectly equating religious fundamentalist law to Western mostly-secular civil society, including Bill-of-Rights-type progressive reforms and a domestic legacy of anti-racist civil rights movements.

Assad wont get anyone to stop wanting strict religious law, he will encourage it, not just by provoking sunnis but by enforcing shiite sharia himself

Where are you getting this from -- ? You need to provide sources and/or your own reasoning on this.

Regardless this, if true, would just play into unceasing religious sectarian conflict due to its political indecisiveness.

ISIS has homemade bombs and stolen weapons, syria and iran are military states, Iran's nuclear weapons are alot more dangerous than some illiterate cave dweller with a homemade pipe bomb made out of an old Pepsi bottle

Now you're an *apologist* for ISIS -- the Islamic-fundamentalist opposition 'rebels' have been well-provided-for, from Western governments, as I noted in post #78:

International support for Free Syrian Army labeled groups[edit]

The US-led coalition admits militarily supporting some, so-called "moderate", groups fighting under the banner of the FSA. FSA is said to have received substantial weapons, financing and other support from the United States, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states.

Arms deliveries from U.S., Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, others[edit]

Further information: Syrian Train and Equip Program and Timber Sycamore

In December 2012, security officials from the United States, United Kingdom, France, the Gulf Cooperation Council and Jordan were present at an FSA meeting that elected a new leadership council.[103][104][105] By December 2012 the international diplomatic collective ‘Friends of Syria Group’ had pledged non-military aid to unspecified militant rebels.[104]

Since December 2012, Saudi Arabia has supplied FSA labeled groups with weapons from Croatia.[208]

In April 2013, the US promised to funnel $123 million nonlethal aid to Syrian rebels through the Supreme Military Council, a then coordination body of FSA labeled groups.[134]

In June 2013, rebels reported to have received 250 9M113 Konkurs anti-tank missiles with a range of 4 kilometers and accuracy of 90%.[209]

In April 2014, according to Charles Lister at the U.S. Brookings Institution, 40 different rebel groups first began receiving U.S.-made BGM-71 TOW missiles costing $50,000 each, through the CIA.[210] FSA labeled and other rebel groups posted videos of TOW missile launches online.[210] In December 2014, the Institute for the Study of War reported that the U.S.-led Military Operations Command was leading training and assist missions for FSA labeled groups in Dera'a, at the Jordanian border.[138]

The Washington Post stated in late 2014 that the US and European friends had "in recent years" given training, financial and military support to Syrian "rebel groups", more or less suggesting that FSA was among them.[145] Also an ISIL commander then stated that FSA rebels who in 2014 ran over to ISIL had received training from United States’, Turkish and Arab military officers at an NATO base in southern Turkey.[145]

The Dutch government stated in December 2014 that the 59 countries strong US-led coalition that had convened in Brussels that month was militarily supporting “the moderate Syrian opposition”.[211] After being pressed by their Parliament to be more precise, they admitted that ‘moderate Syrian opposition’ meant: some, but not all, groups that are part of the Free Syrian Army – but squarely refused to name the FSA groups that were being supported.[212]

Since 2014, tens of FSA labeled groups in southern, central, and northern Syria have been provided with BGM-71 TOW missiles. In February 2015, The Carter Center listed 23 groups within the Southern Front of the Free Syrian Army that have been documented using US-supplied TOWs.[213] Groups provided with TOWs in northern and central Syria include the Hazzm Movement, the 13th Division, Syria Revolutionaries Front, Yarmouk Army, Knights of Justice Brigade, and the 101st Division.[214]

In 2015 the International Business Times wrote the U.S. has sent weapons shipments to FSA labeled groups through a U.S. CIA program for years.[157] In October 2015 Reuters reported that the U.S. (CIA) and allied countries had broadened the number of rebel groups clandestinely receiving TOW missiles.[215] The International Business Times reported that TOW missile attacks against Syrian government tanks increased by 850% between September and October 2015.[210] Rebel groups associated with the FSA in November 2015 released numerous videos showing them launching TOW missiles against Syrian government forces.[215] According to Russian and Syrian sources, the missiles were delivered through Turkish territory.[215]

In October 2015 Reuters reported that the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Qatar had broadened the number of rebel groups clandestinely receiving TOW missiles.[215] Also the BBC reported in October 2015 that a Saudi official confirmed the delivery of 500 TOW missiles to FSA fighters.[216]

The U.S. supplied a considerable amount of weapons and ammunition, generally of Soviet-type from Easter Europe, to Syrian rebel groups under operation Timber Sycamore. For example Jane's Defence Weekly reported a December 2015 shipment of 994 tonnes of weapons and ammunition (including packaging and container weight) to Syrian rebel groups. A detailed list of weapon types and shipment weights had been obtained from the U.S. government's Federal Business Opportunities website.[217][218]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_S...labeled_groups

[willowtooth]

I agree that such an economic landscape for capital ownership is not one of real 'choice', and that it is inherently an oligarchical arrangement.

The 'emerging markets' category (as in Pakistan, for example) typically gives higher rates of return, but with greater risks of non-payment / bankruptcy.


Okay, that's a decent analogy.

that's where the so called hegemony ends at the bank vault, its like supporting British colonialism over the french. The soviet union kept these governments funded, now that there are no more subsidies coming in, they are forced to privatize, after they privatize like qaddafi did, and like assad did a long time ago, there is no argument for maintaining a single party state, if there is no war there is no excuse for a 50 year military style government. The whole thing falls apart.

Well, this is the *crux* of the issue, I think -- you're obviously of the position that Islamic fundamentalism is comparable to American fundamentalism, and I just can't see the two as really being similar, mostly due to the religious 'core' of strict Sharia law, which is decidedly reactionary.

Western traditions are *still* historically rooted in the European Enlightenment, and bourgeois revolutions, as distant as those may seem under contemporary regressive political-economic conditions.

there's nothing about Christianity thats different about islam its the same fucking religion. there's no argument about religious fundamentalism to be made except that theyre poor.

I can't abide the left-peace blanket position of 'everyone put their weapons down' because I *know* that ISIS won't, and such a position ignores ISIS altogether in a 'know-nothing' kind of way.

interesting because i can repeat this back the other way around "I can't abide the left-peace blanket position of 'everyone put their weapons down' because I *know* that Assad won't, and such a position ignores Assad altogether in a 'know-nothing' kind of way."

And absent a fully effective Rojava-like revolutionary offensive -- that doesn't slip / succumb to sheer militarism, like the initial anti-corruption FSA did -- the only forces physically capable of repelling the Islamic State are the major bourgeois ones like Syria, Russia, Iran, and nominally the U.S.

I don't *like* this particular situation -- I'm just recounting the factual aspects of it.

See this is what i dont understand your saying rojava and kurdish forces are great when they have been in bed with NATO and western imperialist forces for decades, yet your denouncing the entire Syrian revolution because of some conspiracy theories about USA using ISIS to destabilize the whole region and funding these rebels as some kind of secret plot

AS A Syrian who has always identified politically with the left, I am particularly appalled by those men and women who call themselves left-wingers--and are therefore supposed to stand in solidarity with struggles for justice worldwide--and yet openly support the regime of the Assads, father and son, who are chiefly responsible for the Syrian disaster.Following four months of intense bombardment by the Russian Air Force, Bashar al-Assad's army, along with Shiite militias hailing from everywhere and mobilized by the Iranian mullahs, have now finished "liberating" Eastern Aleppo. Liberated from whom? From its inhabitants. More than 250,000 inhabitants were forced to flee their own city to escape massacres, as had the people of Zabadani and Daraya before them, and as will many more Syrians if systematic social and sectarian "cleansing" continues in their country under the cover of a massive media disinformation campaign.
That in Syria itself wealthy residents of Aleppo, belonging to all religious sects, rejoice over having been rid of the "scum"--meaning the poor classes who populated Eastern Aleppo--is not surprising at all. We are accustomed to it: the arrogance of dominant classes is universal.
That Shiite mullahs stuck in another era celebrate the event as a great victory of the true believers over Umayyad disbelievers, or proclaim that Aleppo has been Shiite in the past and will turn Shiite again, can also be understood if one is familiar with their doctrine, as delirious as that of their Sunni counterparts.
Finally, that, in the West, politicians and opinion makers of the far right or the hard right reaffirm, loudly, their support for Assad is also quite natural. Such people have nothing but contempt for Arabs and Muslims, and they believe, today as ever, that these "tribes" must be led with a big stick.

https://socialistworker.org/2017/01/...f-assads-syria

Syria *is* nominally secular, which is far-preferable to any kind of strict, fundamentalist implementation of Sharia law.

not anymore, once the soviet union collapsed every mention of socialism/secularism/democracy was stripped its sharia law now

Syria has never been a secular country and its regime has never been liberal despite the elegance of Assad’s wife, Asmaa. It is naive to describe regimes by judging appearances. If we are to do so, we will conclude that Cuba is an Islamic country because of President Castro’s thickly-grown beard!
Secular?

Tunisia was a security regime and Libya, under Qaddafi’s governance, was like Syria under the Assad family’s rule. These regimes were not religious but security ones. People in these countries complained of suppression and police siege.

There is not a single Arab country whose regime can be described as secular or its society as liberal. Even Lebanon which is the less extremist among Arab countries is ruled by Sunni, Shiite, Christian and Druze religious sects.

As for the besieged Assad, he knows since the beginning of war against terrorism that he pushed the opposition towards the extremists. He knows that convincing the world that the opposition are groups that resemble “Al-Qaeda” may turn the public opinion against it, not only in the West but even in Arab areas that fight such groups. Half of Assad’s speech during the interview with the daily was addressed to the Western public opinion. He tried to convince it that he was like the West fighting Islamic extremism! Assad, however, is a supporter of extremist groups. He is a supporter of the extremist Shiite Iranian regime and the very extremist Hezbollah. In addition to this support, there are his ties to extremist Sunni organizations like Fateh al-Islam which fought Hariri’s government in Lebanon as well as ties with Iraqi al-Qaeda movements that committed murders and wreaked havoc in Iraq.
The region’s contradictions

Those who study the affairs of our region cannot overlook the reunion of these contradictions which despite their strangeness are justified. Iran which is an extremist Shiite regime supports al-Qaeda, the extremist Sunni organization, despite the historical enmity among the fanatics from both sects because they agree on the same goals. Most veteran al-Qaeda leaders are currently in Iran. Seif al-Adel, one of al-Qaeda’s leaders in Iran, has been residing there since the 90's. Osama Bin Laden’s children resorted to Iran as well after fleeing Afghanistan and they did not leave it until three years ago.

Although he is religious, Syria’s president is the biggest supporter of jihadi groups that revolve in the orbit of his regime, like the Hamas Movement, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad Movement, the Palestinian Fatah al-Islam in Lebanon, almost all jihadi groups in Iraq and of course the Lebanese Hezbollah.

Assad today is trying to convince the West that he is secular and liberal and that he is fighting Islamic extremism. Those who work in the field of politics, however, know Assad’s regime very well. They know it is nothing more than an extension of the extremist political and religious Iranian regime. His father adopted the case of Arab Baath to justify his seizure of power and continuity of sectarian rule. After him, his son sought the company of long-bearded men from supreme leader Khamenei to Hassan Nasrallah. He resorted to holding Islamic jihadi conferences in Damascus.


After the revolution erupted, he now speaks of secularism and claims it!

https://english.alarabiya.net/views/...05/269716.html

What *is* this -- political blackmail -- ??

You'd rather only describe the 'realpolitik' of the situation, than provide a historical-progressive-type of analysis as a guide towards future understandings and positions.

Again, I really don't see any kind of political equivalence between Assad's Syria, and the Islamic State. The world cannot afford to let this issue linger and should instead take sides on it immediately.

you would never accept this logic with anyother country I know you wouldn't, if the choice was israel or al queda you would not say "lets support netanyahu he's a secularist who believes in democracy". why is it not okay for israel to bomb sunnis but okay for assad to do the same thing for the same reason?

This jokey attitude is *not* appropriate here -- look at what you're getting into bed with:

I could say the same thing to you and the assad family has been around alot longer than ISIS and killed alot more innocent people than the muslim brotherhood or whatever other sunni muslims youve been told to fear, al shabbab, taliban, al queda, boko haram who ever

A number of reports indicated that the Syrian government has attacked civilians at bread bakeries with artillery rounds and rockets in opposition-controlled cities and districts in Aleppo province and Aleppo city, shelling indiscriminately.^[33] HRW said these are war crimes, as the only military targets in the areas were rebels manning the bakeries and that dozens of civilians were killed.^[34]Upon retaking the capital Damascus after the Battle of Damascus (2012), the Syrian government began a campaign of collective punishment against Sunni suburbs in-and-around the capital which had supported FSA presence in their neighborhoods.^[35]
The charity Save the Children conducted interviews in refugee camps with Syrian civilians who had fled the fighting, and released a report in September 2012 containing many accounts of detention, torture and summary execution, as well as other incidents such as the use of civilians as human shields, allegedly including tying children onto advancing tanks so that rebel forces would not fire upon them.^[36]
In a 23 October 2012 statement, Human Rights Watch said that Syrian military denials notwithstanding, HRW had "evidence of ongoing cluster bomb attacks" by Syria’s air force. HRW has confirmed reports "through interviews with victims, other residents and activists who filmed the cluster munitions", as well as "analysis of 64 videos and also photos showing weapon remnants" of cluster bomb strikes.^[37] The use, production, stockpiling, and transfer of cluster munitions is prohibited by the 2008 international Convention on Cluster Munitions treaty. Use of cluster bombs have been considered a grave threat to civilian populations because of the bombs' ability to randomly scatter thousands of submunitions or "bomblets" over a vast area, many of which remain waiting to explode, taking civilian lives and limbs long after the conflict is over.^[38]
David Nott, a British surgeon who volunteered for five weeks in mid-2013 on the ground in Syria at hospitals in conflict zone, reported that victims of government snipers would all display wounds in a particular area on particular days, indicating that they may have intentionally chosen to target a specific area each day as a sort of "game". On at least one occasion a pregnant women was found shot through the uterus, killing her unborn child.^[39]
The Syrian government has reportedly used "barrel bombs" to attack civilian populations in rebel held territories in defiance of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2139 passed on February 22, 2014.^[40] The bombs are "cheaply made, locally produced, and typically constructed from large oil drums, gas cylinders, and water tanks, filled with high explosives and scrap metal to enhance fragmentation, and then dropped from helicopters".^[40] Between February 2014 and January 2015, Human Rights Watch reports that "at least 450 major damage sites" in Syria "showed damage consistent with barrel bomb detonations". A local Syrian group estimates that in the first year after UN resolution 2139 was passed, aerial barrel bomb attacks killed 6,163 civilians in Syria, including 1,892 children.^[40] According to a UN investigation, in September 2016 the Syrian air force dropped barrel bombs from helicopters on a United Nations humanitarian aid convoy at Urum al-Kubra headed to Aleppo. The bombs were followed by rocket fire from jets, and strafing of survivors with machine guns, killing 14 aid workers. In a report issued 1 March 2017, the United Nations found the attack was “meticulously planned” and “ruthlessly carried out” -- and because it was deliberate, a war crime.^[41][42]
According to three eminent international lawyers.^[43] Syrian government officials could face war crimes charges in the light of a huge cache of evidence smuggled out of the country showing the "systematic killing" of about 11,000 detainees. Most of the victims were young men and many corpses were emaciated, bloodstained and bore signs of torture. Some had no eyes; others showed signs of strangulation or electrocution. Experts say this evidence is more detailed and on a far larger scale than anything else that has yet emerged from the 34-month crisis.^[44][45] According to a report by Amnesty International, published in November 2015, the Syrian regime has forcibly disappeared more than 65,000 people (who are yet to be heard from) since the beginning of the Syrian Civil War.^[46] According to a report in May 2016 by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, at least 60,000 people have been killed through torture or died from dire humanitarian conditions in Syrian government jails since March 2011.^[47]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_...rian_Civil_War






---

Bullshit -- you're incorrectly equating religious fundamentalist law to Western mostly-secular civil society, including Bill-of-Rights-type progressive reforms and a domestic legacy of anti-racist civil rights movements.

Islam itself is anti-racist, it took the crazy Christians over 1000 years to match the level of anti-racism that's in Islam. The middle east itself has been home too thousands of cultures ethnicities and religions for thousands years, and welcomes muslims of every race around the world to mecca your so called western secular society can't go more than few decades without a genocide. Ask the jews how they feel about "Western secular civil society" and their progressive reforms. Hell we wouldn't be in this mess if it wasn't for the genocidal white Christians in the first place

Where are you getting this from -- ? You need to provide sources and/or your own reasoning on this.

Regardless this, if true, would just play into unceasing religious sectarian conflict due to its political indecisiveness.





Now you're an *apologist* for ISIS -- the Islamic-fundamentalist opposition 'rebels' have been well-provided-for, from Western governments, as I noted in post #78:

okay so its either support bashar the lion or your with ISIS? "you either love freedom or your with the terrorists" huh? now who's the neocon?

Bashar loves ISIS they kill those american paid rebels you hate for whatever reason, he sends Hezbollah to go train them.... I suppose your going to tell me Hezbollah is also "nominally secular" and will protect us from sharia law?

The regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad has long had a pragmatic approach to the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS), says a Syrian businessman with close ties to the government. Even from the early days the regime purchased fuel from ISIS-controlled oil facilities, and it has maintained that relationship throughout the conflict. “Honestly speaking, the regime has always had dealings with ISIS, out of necessity.”The Sunni businessman is close to the regime but wants to remain anonymous for fear of repercussions from both ISIS supporters and the regime. He trades goods all over the country so his drivers have regular interactions with ISIS supporters and members in Raqqa, the ISIS stronghold in Syria, and in ISIS-controlled areas like Dier-ezzor.
The businessman cites Raqqa’s mobile phone service as an example of how there is commerce between the regime, Syrian businesses, and ISIS. The country’s two main mobile phone operators still work in Raqqa. “Both operators send engineers to ISIS-controlled areas to repair damages at the towers,” he says. In addition, there are regular shipments of food to Raqqa. “ISIS charges a small tax for all trucks bringing food into Raqqa [including the businessman’s trucks], and they give receipts stamped with the ISIS logo. It is all very well organized.”

http://time.com/3719129/assad-isis-asset/

Honestly I understand your desperation for some side in this conflict that looks even slightly reasonable here, and Assad's fathers former alliance with the soviet union makes him seem like a plausible option. but this is not 1982 anymore. Maybe if Assad wanted to govern one little province in western syria I wouldn't mind... in a we've got bigger fish to fry sort of way.

...but he doesn't he wants all of syria and has expanded into lebanon and attempted to expand into Turkey and is just as every bit as adventurist as israel, or Iran. the Iranians want to expand into old Persian empire from Baluchistan to Sana'a to Baku. what the hell does israel want? the golan heights? are they going to try and restore an entire Asiatic empire with nuclear warheads at their back?

https://syriafreedomforever.wordpres...an-revolution/


http://fortune.com/2017/01/20/oil-gas-isis-syria-assad/
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/st...rticle/2565466

[ckaihatsu]

that's where the so called hegemony ends at the bank vault, its like supporting British colonialism over the french. The soviet union kept these governments funded, now that there are no more subsidies coming in, they are forced to privatize, after they privatize like qaddafi did, and like assad did a long time ago, there is no argument for maintaining a single party state, if there is no war there is no excuse for a 50 year military style government. The whole thing falls apart.

I'm not going to argue-for / defend 50-year military-style governments, but at the same time you're ignoring the status quo, which is a world patchwork of mostly-separatist nation-states.

Someone like Assad can legitimately argue for nation-state sovereignty, to say that the West / U.S. / NATO should never have invaded Syria, and on such a flimsy pretext as foreign Western backing of internal militaristic opposition to his democratically elected rule -- producing the international proxy war / Cold War II that exists today.

There's no 'single party state' in Syria, as mentioned in post #69.

there's nothing about Christianity thats different about islam its the same fucking religion. there's no argument about religious fundamentalism to be made except that theyre poor.

They're both monotheistic, but the U.S. is definitely *not* a 'Christian country' the way that the nascent Islamic State is a fundamentalist Islamic state.

You seem to think that the killing of innocent people ('civilians') in the Middle East by the U.S. military somehow justifies the formation of a reactionary caliphate, carved-out from portions of Iraq and Syria.


---

I can't abide the left-peace blanket position of 'everyone put their weapons down' because I *know* that ISIS won't, and such a position ignores ISIS altogether in a 'know-nothing' kind of way.

interesting because i can repeat this back the other way around "I can't abide the left-peace blanket position of 'everyone put their weapons down' because I *know* that Assad won't, and such a position ignores Assad altogether in a 'know-nothing' kind of way."

Your point isn't clear -- I *agree* with this statement of yours empirically, meaning that the 'peace' position just isn't realistic. (I'm not *partisan* to Assad -- I'm on the side of Syrian *self-determination*, as through Assad in the near-term.)

See this is what i dont understand your saying rojava and kurdish forces are great when they have been in bed with NATO and western imperialist forces for decades,

In this particular context Kurdish national self-determination is *justified* because it's the Kurds who are doing the actual fighting ('political labor') against the reactionary Islamic State. If they are aided by a major power -- or several -- like the U.S., all the better because, again, Western secularism, such as it is, is objectively *preferable* (historically-progressive) to a fucking murderous Islamic-fundamentalist regime.

yet your denouncing the entire Syrian revolution because of some conspiracy theories about USA using ISIS to destabilize the whole region and funding these rebels as some kind of secret plot

I'm denouncing the 'Syrian revolution' -- ? What, the Western-proxy FSA -- ? Islamic-fundamentalist Al Qaeda, Al-Nusra, ISIS -- ?

Where's the revolution -- ?

Has the U.S. and NATO been (indirectly) funding these reactionary forces, or haven't they -- ? (See the identical corroborating material at posts #78 and #81.)


And:

Al-Nusra Front [...] is a Salafist jihadist terrorist organization fighting against Syrian government forces in the Syrian Civil War, with the aim of establishing an Islamic state in the country.[37] The group announced its formation on 23 January 2012.[38]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front

---

https://socialistworker.org/2017/01/...f-assads-syria

That Shiite mullahs stuck in another era celebrate the event as a great victory of the true believers over Umayyad disbelievers, or proclaim that Aleppo has been Shiite in the past and will turn Shiite again, can also be understood if one is familiar with their doctrine, as delirious as that of their Sunni counterparts.

I really don't think that *anyone* on the revolutionary left is saying 'Let's get Syria into the hands of the Shiites, for Shiite rule.'

This author's perspective is *myopic*, blithely ignoring the larger geopolitical situation at hand, one that calls for a halt to the *international* proxy war ongoing on Syrian soil, so that the people of Syria can sort out their own internal affairs without outside interference.

[Assad's] "leftist" supporters nod approvingly under the pretext that there is no other choice: It's either him or ISIS.

This happens to be true, and is properly in-context. That doesn't mean that Assad has to *stay*, but rather that he would be subject to *internal* politics, as from below.

And yet the Syrians who rose in 2011 were the first to vigorously condemn the jihadi groups of all sorts and kinds, and in particular ISIS, that have infested their popular uprising after it was forced into militarization.

Agreed.

But neither jihadi intrusion nor the shortcomings of the self-proclaimed representatives of the Syrian Revolution, nor any argument used to justify the unjustifiable, can invalidate two fundamental facts: that the Syrians had a thousand reasons to revolt, and that they did so with exceptional courage, under conditions of near-universal indifference, countering the ruling clan's limitless terror, Iran's imperial ambitions and, since September 2015, a U.S.-approved Russian military intervention that has already killed several thousand civilians.

This latter part is *beside the point*, though -- the author just acknowledged (in the previous quote here) that the initial popular uprising was 'forced into militarization'. This fact means that there's no longer *any* 'revolution' past the point of international invasion and neocolonialism.

The deaths of Syrian people killed by foreign interventions, and even by Assad's Syrian regime, are deplorable, of course, but none of it changes the *overall* political situation, which is still one of Western-imperialist ongoing interventions in the affairs of the Syrian state, which should never have happened in the first place. Western imperialist forces are not doing *anyone* any favors with their involvement, and they need to stop all of their activities, which happen to be intrinsically at the expense of Syrian sovereignty and popular self-determination.

Until the executioners are defeated and punished, Syria's endless martyrdom risks foreshadowing many others in the world--a world from which Syria will have vanished.

The question, then, is *who* (what forces) should be the ones to 'mete out justice' regarding the barbarities under Assad's rule -- ? The U.S. / West / NATO certainly does not have clean hands, and I wouldn't trust such forces to intervene on strictly *humanitarian*, selfless grounds -- such would-be / is imperialist and neocolonialist.

What I *do* trust outside forces to do is to deny sovereignty to a *worse* national formulation, that of ISIS / ISIL / the Islamic State, as a matter of *priority*. And, unfortunately, that's where things stand right now. World public opinion and political positions need to cohere and demand uniformly that ISIS be denied any foothold, perpetually -- and without further civilian deaths. Until then, those who *do* fight ISIS physically, as from Assad's Syrian internal forces, are justified in their actions that diminish ISIS' strongholds.


---

not anymore, once the soviet union collapsed every mention of socialism/secularism/democracy was stripped its sharia law now

https://english.alarabiya.net/views/...05/269716.html

Whatever.

This is a blatantly partisan news source:

Al Arabiya English is the English language service of the Dubai-based regional Arab newscaster, Al-Arabiya News Channel.

Following an Op-Ed published on 5 March 2015,[15] calling for President Obama to "listen to (Israeli PM) Netenyahu" when it comes to the threat imposed by the Iranian nuclear deal,[15] many pro-Hezbollah Arab, Iranian and even Western media outlets criticized Al Arabiya English's editorial stance. Based on this Op-Ed, The Independent's Robert Fisk wrote a piece[16] on 6 March that the column, which was written by Al Arabiya English's Editor-in-Chief at the time, wouldn't have been published unless it was blessed by the Saudi Monarchy.[16] By doing so, Fisk was echoing unconfirmed claims that Al Arabiya is owned by the Saudi government and as such unable to publish views that weren't aligned with those of Riyadh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Arabiya_English

---

What *is* this -- political blackmail -- ??

You'd rather only describe the 'realpolitik' of the situation, than provide a historical-progressive-type of analysis as a guide towards future understandings and positions.

Again, I really don't see any kind of political equivalence between Assad's Syria, and the Islamic State. The world cannot afford to let this issue linger and should instead take sides on it immediately.

you would never accept this logic with anyother country I know you wouldn't, if the choice was israel or al queda you would not say "lets support netanyahu he's a secularist who believes in democracy".

You're roundly incorrect in your guesswork here -- I'm pro-Palestinian and wouldn't *ever* back Netanyahu. Israel *cooperates* with Islamic-fundamentalist groups like Al Qaeda.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017.../syri-m18.html


Israel air raid targets government positions as Syrian conflict intensifies

By Jordan Shilton

18 March 2017

In yet another sign of the threat of a wider war in the Middle East, the Syrian government fired anti-aircraft missiles early Friday morning at Israeli planes after Tel Aviv launched one of its deepest incursions into the conflict to date, carrying out a raid near the Syrian city of Palmyra.

Although none of the fighter jets were shot down, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) deployed its Arrow missile defense system to take down one of the Syrian missiles north of Jerusalem. Residents were awoken by air raid sirens and pieces of the Syrian missile landed in Jordan, prompting the Israeli army to issue a statement on the incident.

Israeli planes have conducted numerous strikes since 2012 on arms shipments Tel Aviv claims are being sent to Hezbollah in Lebanon. The army has tended to downplay these activities, with initial reports generally appearing in the international media.

But Friday’s attack marked the deepest incursion yet. The positions hit near Palmyra were reportedly occupied by government troops and aligned Hezbollah forces who are advancing on Islamic State fighters to the east.

Israel air raid targets government positions as Syrian conflict intensifies

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/19...92#post2881392

---

why is it not okay for israel to bomb sunnis but okay for assad to do the same thing for the same reason?

You're being vague here -- Israel did not bomb Sunnis, it bombed *Syrian* forces.


---

This jokey attitude is *not* appropriate here -- look at what you're getting into bed with:

The Brotherhood's stated goal is to instill the Quran and the Sunnah as the "sole reference point for ... ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community ... and state".[13] Its mottos include "Believers are but Brothers", "Islam is the Solution", and "Allah is our objective; the Qur'an is the Constitution; the Prophet is our leader; jihad is our way; death for the sake of Allah is our wish".[14][15][16]

It is financed by members, who are required to allocate a portion of their income to the movement,[17] and was for many years financed by Saudi Arabia, with which it shared some enemies and some points of doctrine.[17][18]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood

I could say the same thing to you and the assad family has been around alot longer than ISIS and killed alot more innocent people than the muslim brotherhood or whatever other sunni muslims youve been told to fear, al shabbab, taliban, al queda, boko haram who ever


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_...rian_Civil_War

'Fear' -- ?? How dare you. You're using your presumptuous attitude in a decidedly *condescending* way.

And you're still missing the point -- that of the empirical situation at-hand.

My standing position, from above, is this:

I'm not *partisan* to Assad -- I'm on the side of Syrian *self-determination*, as through Assad in the near-term [due to existing priority geopolitical circumstances and the necessity of defeating ISIS].


---

Islam itself is anti-racist, it took the crazy Christians over 1000 years to match the level of anti-racism that's in Islam. The middle east itself has been home too thousands of cultures ethnicities and religions for thousands years, and welcomes muslims of every race around the world to mecca your so called western secular society can't go more than few decades without a genocide. Ask the jews how they feel about "Western secular civil society" and their progressive reforms. Hell we wouldn't be in this mess if it wasn't for the genocidal white Christians in the first place

You're buying into the fallacy that all of this is just 'cultural', or a 'clash of civilizations'.

No. It's due to Western imperialism, primarily -- Syria should not have been invaded by the U.S.

okay so its either support bashar the lion or your with ISIS?

They're actually diametrically opposite, so it's either Syrian sovereignty or the *takeover* of Syria (and Iraq, etc.) by the Islamic State.

"you either love freedom or your with the terrorists" huh? now who's the neocon?

The neoconservative agenda has been *aimed* at invading Syria, all the way back to before 2003, as referenced (identically) at posts #74 and #78. It's not *my* agenda.

Bashar loves ISIS they kill those american paid rebels you hate for whatever reason,

You're being dramatic, and I don't 'hate' (which is an emotion) -- I *oppose* ISIS rule.

Regarding the facts, ISIS has *coordinated* with American-paid rebels like the FSA and al-Nusra.

Here's from that article:

Assad does not see ISIS as his primary problem, the businessman says. "The regime fears the Free Syrian Army and the Nusra Front, not ISIS. They [the FSA and Nusra] state their goal is to remove the President. But ISIS doesn’t say that. They have never directly threatened Damascus.” As the businessman notes, the strikes on ISIS targets are minimal. “If the regime were serious about getting rid of ISIS, they would have bombed Raqqa by now. Instead they bomb other cities, where the FSA is strong.” That said, the businessman does not believe that the regime has a formal relationship with ISIS, just a pragmatic one. “The more powerful ISIS grows, the more they are useful for the regime. They make America nervous, and the Americans in turn see the regime as a kind of bulwark against ISIS.”

http://time.com/3719129/assad-isis-asset/

I'll note that any given geographic location cannot be occupied by both Syria and by the Islamic State at the same time.

[Assad] sends Hezbollah to go train [ISIS]....

This is quite a claim -- I'll need some kind of reference for this one.

I suppose your going to tell me Hezbollah is also "nominally secular" and will protect us from sharia law?

Why do you rely so much on your spurious assumptions -- ?

Hezbollah is best at being anti-Zionist.

Honestly I understand your desperation for some side in this conflict

This is a *severe* mischaracterization on your part -- global politics is *everyone's* business, and you're making it sound as though people should somehow be *excluded* from addressing situations in the real world, for whatever strange reason you may have for such.

that looks even slightly reasonable here, and Assad's fathers former alliance with the soviet union makes him seem like a plausible option. but this is not 1982 anymore. Maybe if Assad wanted to govern one little province in western syria I wouldn't mind... in a we've got bigger fish to fry sort of way.

...but he doesn't he wants all of syria and has expanded into lebanon and attempted to expand into Turkey and is just as every bit as adventurist as israel, or Iran. the Iranians want to expand into old Persian empire from Baluchistan to Sana'a to Baku. what the hell does israel want? the golan heights? are they going to try and restore an entire Asiatic empire with nuclear warheads at their back?

Well this is why we're *primarily* socialists, and not looking to *back* careerist-type regional political aspirations from *any* separatist national interest. We're having to deal with messy, undesirable geopolitical realities, unfortunately, so we should keep in mind to avoid becoming bourgeois-sectarian ourselves.

https://syriafreedomforever.wordpres...an-revolution/


http://fortune.com/2017/01/20/oil-gas-isis-syria-assad/
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/st...rticle/2565466

[TomLeftist]

Jimmy: I think that the USA ruling class, the mind-manipulation ruling class is aware that the way of thinking among the general population is based on "Argumentum ad populum"

Here is the definition of Argumentum Ad Populum: In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

Definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum


For example: "If the great majority believe that Bashar Al Assad is evil and kills his own people with chemical weapons, than it must be true that Bashar Al Assad is evil and kills his own people with chemical weapons.


Another example: "If the great majority of the population of USA believes that the US government and its Armed Forces are a beacon of light, that capitalism is the most democratic system, and that marxism, communism are evil. Then it must be true that USA, US government, and its political system is the beacon of light, the home of the free"


This type of argument is known by several names, including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, vox populi, and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), fickle crowd syndrome, and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.


And that's why in USA, in any social event, in any public place with regular american joes and janes, you see everybody dressing the same, eating the same thing, with the same behaviour patterns, the same gestures. It's like a majority-tyranny, where things are true if the majority believes it to be true.


And this is still the way most US citizens behave. And unfortunately, maybe the US capitalist-imperialist pro-war political system will be powerful in the USA for many decades to come, unless there is either a leftist coup de etat done by leftist sectors of the US Armed Forces, or if the majority of US citizens experience a mental awakening, as a result of believing a lot more in alternative news (counterpunch, democracynow.org etc and not trusting the corporate regular news anymore)


However if most adult americans begin to read classical literature books (Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Goethe, Hegel, Voltaire, Marx, Feuerbach etc.) maybe there could be a way for people to be aware that literally all traditional mainstream news sources (TV and newspapers) are all liars and work for the upper exploiter classes.


But unfortunately I don't think that a general knowledge book-reading revolution spread to the masses will happen in USA, because of many factors: americans work all day, are super-busy all day and do not have the physical and mental energies to digest classical literature, psychology which could help americans destroy mental-slavery. And the other reasonf of why such a mental awakening won't take place is that books such as philosophy and sociology books, classical books are super expensive for the already low buying power of most regular US workers and regular people who are all economically broke

The anti-war movement was politically weak, but that doesn't mean it was pointless or inevitably weak.

For one thing, the initial large protests broke the idea that the war was unquestionably supported (and showed that the consensus was in Washington and London, not amongst the broader population. Prior to these protests the US was still in a situation where the only acceptable popular expression of opinion was a US flag on a suburban SUV. The anti war protests broke the post 9-11 atmosphere.

The problem was that the movement never got past the Democratic Party who barely had to break a sweat getting ahead of the movement. They "broke" further development of the movement by successfully counter posing war with "reasonable (run by Democrats) war" because of general (if different) weaknesses of liberals (tied to the system so unable to offer alternatives) and the left (unable to wage popular campaigns that can inspire people to fight for an independent option).

Unfortunately we are In the same place but for a much more "confusing" situation. Any anti war sentiment, left to inertia, will likely fall into an anti-trump mode in the short-term and other segments might fall into a crude anti-imperialism that views Assad or Russia as the lesser-evil.

The point of anti-war/imperialism is always more or less aimed domestically. The weak links in terms of ruling class arguments in the US, I think, would be the right's hypocrisy around migrants/refugees as well as a generation-long "war on terror" supported by both parties as well as the same excuse Russia uses for its imperial actions and domestic repression.

Solidarity isn't all that possible because there isn't a domestic force capable of providing any real aid or mass strikes etc at the moment. But if people mean identification, then that's not a bad starting point. Islamophobic arguments were not uncommon in the broader anti Iraq-war protests and groups, but it may be easier, post Arab-spring, to push back against this if a movement develops.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[willowtooth]

I'm not going to argue-for / defend 50-year military-style governments, but at the same time you're ignoring the status quo, which is a world patchwork of mostly-separatist nation-states.

Someone like Assad can legitimately argue for nation-state sovereignty, to say that the West / U.S. / NATO should never have invaded Syria, and on such a flimsy pretext as foreign Western backing of internal militaristic opposition to his democratically elected rule -- producing the international proxy war / Cold War II that exists today.

There's no 'single party state' in Syria, as mentioned in post #69.

Assad the alawi cannot argue for any nation state sovereignty, if there were a law that allowed religious minortities to be president, and then he was elected as suspiciously as assad was, then him staying in power for one term would be suspicious, him staying in power for 50 years is outright tribalism. I wonder if Assad was christian would you be saying the same thing? The foreigners didn't invade Syria they created it.... and that includes Russia.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...reat-game-asia

They're both monotheistic, but the U.S. is definitely *not* a 'Christian country' the way that the nascent Islamic State is a fundamentalist Islamic state.

You seem to think that the killing of innocent people ('civilians') in the Middle East by the U.S. military somehow justifies the formation of a reactionary caliphate, carved-out from portions of Iraq and Syria.

It might not justify it, but it does explain it, and it should be expected again, look how much difficulty me and you have at assessing these things, how do you think a sunni muslim living in the hills outside baghdad would react to this clusterfuck? Most of ISIS are illiterate alot of them are drug addicts escaped mental patients and liberated prisoners. Even more are Saddams old soldiers. Did you support Saddam?

Your point isn't clear -- I *agree* with this statement of yours empirically, meaning that the 'peace' position just isn't realistic. (I'm not *partisan* to Assad -- I'm on the side of Syrian *self-determination*, as through Assad in the near-term.)

I understand that point, but I'm saying you shouldn't be, because syria isn't a country, its a colony like the British east india company

In this particular context Kurdish national self-determination is *justified* because it's the Kurds who are doing the actual fighting ('political labor') against the reactionary Islamic State. If they are aided by a major power -- or several -- like the U.S., all the better because, again, Western secularism, such as it is, is objectively *preferable* (historically-progressive) to a fucking murderous Islamic-fundamentalist regime.

who are you to say what's preferable? If the people vote "democratically" to restore 6th century islamic laws, should we send american troops to stop them? Maybe you'd prefer if the troops were ethnically russian?

I'm denouncing the 'Syrian revolution' -- ? What, the Western-proxy FSA -- ? Islamic-fundamentalist Al Qaeda, Al-Nusra, ISIS -- ?

Where's the revolution -- ?

yes and your fighting an up hill battle for an unworthy cause, Assad will step down/ be shot eventually and Americans wont be the ones doing it

Has the U.S. and NATO been (indirectly) funding these reactionary forces, or haven't they -- ? (See the identical corroborating material at posts #78 and #81.)

they've been there in one form or another ever since the invention of the automobile

I really don't think that *anyone* on the revolutionary left is saying 'Let's get Syria into the hands of the Shiites, for Shiite rule.'

I sure hope not...

This author's perspective is *myopic*, blithely ignoring the larger geopolitical situation at hand, one that calls for a halt to the *international* proxy war ongoing on Syrian soil, so that the people of Syria can sort out their own internal affairs without outside interference.

This happens to be true, and is properly in-context. That doesn't mean that Assad has to *stay*, but rather that he would be subject to *internal* politics, as from below.

in order to "stay out of it" they would have to give up that sweet sweet oil money which they wont do, not to mention all the money that comes from rebuilding all these bombed out cities, there's a few big paychecks to hand out there too.

This latter part is *beside the point*, though -- the author just acknowledged (in the previous quote here) that the initial popular uprising was 'forced into militarization'. This fact means that there's no longer *any* 'revolution' past the point of international invasion and neocolonialism.

This might sound like an ignorant question but seriously, what's so wrong with being militarized?

The deaths of Syrian people killed by foreign interventions, and even by Assad's Syrian regime, are deplorable, of course, but none of it changes the *overall* political situation, which is still one of Western-imperialist ongoing interventions in the affairs of the Syrian state, which should never have happened in the first place. Western imperialist forces are not doing *anyone* any favors with their involvement, and they need to stop all of their activities, which happen to be intrinsically at the expense of Syrian sovereignty and popular self-determination.

The existence of the country of Syria is the only thing that should've never happened in the first place

The question, then, is *who* (what forces) should be the ones to 'mete out justice' regarding the barbarities under Assad's rule -- ? The U.S. / West / NATO certainly does not have clean hands, and I wouldn't trust such forces to intervene on strictly *humanitarian*, selfless grounds -- such would-be / is imperialist and neocolonialist.

russia seems happy to do it? they like oil money, they like building stuff, they love hummus its a perfect fit

What I *do* trust outside forces to do is to deny sovereignty to a *worse* national formulation, that of ISIS / ISIL / the Islamic State, as a matter of *priority*. And, unfortunately, that's where things stand right now. World public opinion and political positions need to cohere and demand uniformly that ISIS be denied any foothold, perpetually -- and without further civilian deaths. Until then, those who *do* fight ISIS physically, as from Assad's Syrian internal forces, are justified in their actions that diminish ISIS' strongholds.

your taking the opportunistic aims of the USA, and coincidental evidence to mean that USA is 200% in charge of al queda that Osama's real name is timothy, and that Baghdadi is an undercover CIA agent. You've gone from great man theories about assad into fullblown rothschilds conspiracy land, holocaust denial is around the corner. And assad is a holocaust denier by the way, Syria is one of the leaders in distribution of antisemitic propaganda and is supported directly by neonazis around the world from the KKK to Golden dawn, theyve even gone from greece to fight for him

Whatever.

This is a blatantly partisan news source:

better than syrian state TV

You're roundly incorrect in your guesswork here -- I'm pro-Palestinian and wouldn't *ever* back Netanyahu. Israel *cooperates* with Islamic-fundamentalist groups like Al Qaeda.

Palestinians have cooperated alot more with islamic fundamentalist than Israel, Osama stated his main reason for attacking USA was the plight of the Palestinians. Israelis regularly label every muslim with an attitude an al-queda terrorist just like Assad does, and Assad has cooperated with ISIS way more than netanyahu has, last I checked Israel wasn't buying oil from them

You're being vague here -- Israel did not bomb Sunnis, it bombed *Syrian* forces.

they bombed muslims they didn't care what flag they were waving, it was brutal, almost like they were fighting for holocaust revenge against an unmatched enemy

They're actually diametrically opposite, so it's either Syrian sovereignty or the *takeover* of Syria (and Iraq, etc.) by the Islamic State.

i have a feeling there's more than two options

The neoconservative agenda has been *aimed* at invading Syria, all the way back to before 2003, as referenced (identically) at posts #74 and #78. It's not *my* agenda.

the agenda has been aimed at getting that sweet oil money, the country of syria was created to help drill for it, who cares who's the boss of it?

I'll note that any given geographic location cannot be occupied by both Syria and by the Islamic State at the same time.

the syrian government can barely control these red lines

Well this is why we're *primarily* socialists, and not looking to *back* careerist-type regional political aspirations from *any* separatist national interest. We're having to deal with messy, undesirable geopolitical realities, unfortunately, so we should keep in mind to avoid becoming bourgeois-sectarian ourselves.

which is hard in a region where the majority of the people is a member of religion we are told to hate, Sunni islam is technically the largest religion in the world, and is only growing, if we hate every sunni with a gun we are jumping in on this psuedo-christian crusade which millions of Christians believe in, christian dominion theory is widely believed in the DOD

[ckaihatsu]

Assad the alawi cannot argue for any nation state sovereignty,

'Argue' -- ??

Assad isn't one of us here at RevLeft, jockeying in a theoretical space. He has *power* and can determine to some extent how Syria operates within the larger geopolitical context, which you're leaving out here in this electoralist-minded treatment of yours.

if there were a law that allowed religious minortities to be president, and then he was elected as suspiciously as assad was, then him staying in power for one term would be suspicious, him staying in power for 50 years is outright tribalism. I wonder if Assad was christian would you be saying the same thing?

I'm not religious, and I'm *not partisan* to Assad:

(I'm not *partisan* to Assad -- I'm on the side of Syrian *self-determination*, as through Assad in the near-term.)

---

The foreigners didn't invade Syria they created it.... and that includes Russia.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...reat-game-asia

Yes, you're describing the modern era, but now how about focusing on *contemporary* developments, like the start of the U.S.-led *proxy war* into Syria:

American-led intervention in Syria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the closely related operations in Iraq, see American-led intervention in Iraq (2014–present).

During the Syrian Civil War, which began in 2011, the United States first supplied the rebels of the Free Syrian Army with non-lethal aid (including food rations and pickup trucks), but quickly began providing training, cash, and intelligence to selected Syrian rebel commanders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americ...ntion_in_Syria

---

They're both monotheistic, but the U.S. is definitely *not* a 'Christian country' the way that the nascent Islamic State is a fundamentalist Islamic state.

You seem to think that the killing of innocent people ('civilians') in the Middle East by the U.S. military somehow justifies the formation of a reactionary caliphate, carved-out from portions of Iraq and Syria.

It might not justify it, but it does explain it,

Okay, so we agree on this empirical dynamic.

To be *political*, however, one has to face *forward* and take positions on how the terrain of Syria and Iraq *should* be -- so far you've only indicated that you see the Shiite and Sunni factions as being equivalent, and that they can just continue their intra-regional warring *indefinitely*. This isn't being political, and is actually *misidentifying* the groupings since the *political* distinctions would be about the FSA, al-Nusra, ISIS, Western (and Gulf) support for the same, versus the geopolitical states of Syria, Russia, and Iran on the *other* side.

and it should be expected again,

The dynamic is ongoing.

look how much difficulty me and you have at assessing these things,

What *is* this -- a fatalistic attitude -- ? Either we figure out the descriptions of what we're talking about, for any given scale, or we don't.

how do you think a sunni muslim living in the hills outside baghdad would react to this clusterfuck? Most of ISIS are illiterate alot of them are drug addicts escaped mental patients and liberated prisoners.

Why are you maligning people's abilities to understand political dynamics -- ? This is more of your trite profiling and stereotyping at work.

Even more are Saddams old soldiers. Did you support Saddam?

I would support local popular self-determination, over any localist comprador- or separatist bourgeois rule and/or internationalist bourgeois hegemony from without.

Of course such is easier said than done.


---

Your point isn't clear -- I *agree* with this statement of yours empirically, meaning that the 'peace' position just isn't realistic. (I'm not *partisan* to Assad -- I'm on the side of Syrian *self-determination*, as through Assad in the near-term.)

I understand that point, but I'm saying you shouldn't be, because syria isn't a country, its a colony like the British east india company

No, that's not a correct characterization:

Politics of Syria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Politics in the Syrian Arab Republic takes place in the framework of a semi-presidential republic with multiparty representation. President Bashar al-Assad's family and his Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party have remained dominant forces in the country's politics since a 1970 coup.[1][2]

Until the early stages of the Syrian uprising, the president had broad and unchecked decree authority under a long-standing state of emergency. The end of this emergency was a key demand of the uprising, and decrees are now subject to approval by the People's Council, the country's legislature.[3] The Ba'ath Party is Syria's ruling party and the previous Syrian constitution of 1973 stated that "the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party leads society and the state."[4] At least 167 seats of the 250-member parliament were guaranteed for the National Progressive Front, which is a coalition of the Ba'ath Party and several other much smaller allied parties.[2] The new Syrian constitution of 2012 introduced multi-party system based on the principle of political pluralism without guaranteed leadership of any political party.[5] The Syrian army and security services maintained a considerable presence in the neighbouring Lebanese Republic from 1975 until 24 April 2005.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Syria

The modern Syrian state was established after the end of centuries of Ottoman control in World War I as a French mandate, and represented the largest Arab state to emerge from the formerly Ottoman-ruled Arab Levant. It gained independence as a parliamentary republic on 24 October 1945 when Syria became a founding member of the United Nations, an act which legally ended the former French Mandate – although French troops did not leave the country until April 1946. The post-independence period was tumultuous, and a large number of military coups and coup attempts shook the country in the period 1949–71. In 1958, Syria entered a brief union with Egypt called the United Arab Republic, which was terminated by the 1961 Syrian coup d'état. The Arab Republic of Syria came into being in late 1961 after December 1 constitutional referendum, and was increasingly unstable until the Ba'athist coup d'état, since which the Ba'ath Party has maintained its power. Syria was under Emergency Law from 1963 to 2011, effectively suspending most constitutional protections for citizens. Bashar al-Assad has been president since 2000 and was preceded by his father Hafez al-Assad, who was in office from 1970 to 2000.[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria

---

In this particular context Kurdish national self-determination is *justified* because it's the Kurds who are doing the actual fighting ('political labor') against the reactionary Islamic State. If they are aided by a major power -- or several -- like the U.S., all the better because, again, Western secularism, such as it is, is objectively *preferable* (historically-progressive) to a fucking murderous Islamic-fundamentalist regime.

who are you to say what's preferable?

Welcome to politics, wt -- I have as much wherewithal to make judgment calls on the state of the world as anyone else does.

You're stuck in the position of viewing secularism and clericalism as being value-interchangeable, which they *aren't*.

If the people vote "democratically" to restore 6th century islamic laws, should we send american troops to stop them?

Well that's not how ISIS / the Islamic State came about -- the formulation / emergence of nation-states isn't always so formal and formally-democratic.

And, yes, once again, Western secularism is objectively qualitatively *better* than fundamentalist religious-sectarian clericalism, to the point where the use of military force would be justified, as against ISIS.

Maybe you'd prefer if the troops were ethnically russian?

You should know better than this -- you're sinking to the level of 'cultural determination', as though it's the 'clash of civilizations' -- as with 'Shiite vs. Sunni' -- that determines history, instead of that of discrete political interests within the dynamic of historical / materialist / dialectical determinism.


History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

---

I'm denouncing the 'Syrian revolution' -- ? What, the Western-proxy FSA -- ? Islamic-fundamentalist Al Qaeda, Al-Nusra, ISIS -- ?

Where's the revolution -- ?

yes

Yes, *what* -- ??

and your fighting an up hill battle for an unworthy cause, Assad will step down/ be shot eventually and Americans wont be the ones doing it

Again you're misconstruing my position -- I'm not *partisan* to Assad:

(I'm not *partisan* to Assad -- I'm on the side of Syrian *self-determination*, as through Assad in the near-term.)

---

Has the U.S. and NATO been (indirectly) funding these reactionary forces, or haven't they -- ? (See the identical corroborating material at posts #78 and #81.)

they've been there in one form or another ever since the invention of the automobile

So then the call should be for the geopolitical *sovereignty* of Syria as a first step, and the *defeat* of the reactionary Islamic State / fundamentalist militarist groupings.


---

I really don't think that *anyone* on the revolutionary left is saying 'Let's get Syria into the hands of the Shiites, for Shiite rule.'

I sure hope not...

---

This author's perspective is *myopic*, blithely ignoring the larger geopolitical situation at hand, one that calls for a halt to the *international* proxy war ongoing on Syrian soil, so that the people of Syria can sort out their own internal affairs without outside interference.

This happens to be true, and is properly in-context. That doesn't mean that Assad has to *stay*, but rather that he would be subject to *internal* politics, as from below.

in order to "stay out of it" they would have to give up that sweet sweet oil money which they wont do, not to mention all the money that comes from rebuilding all these bombed out cities, there's a few big paychecks to hand out there too.

You're misunderstanding -- I'm not saying that Assad should *voluntarily* 'stay out of [rule]', but rather that there needs to be an end to the reactionary Islamic State, and all reactionary Islamic-fundamentalist groups, and an end to outside (Western / Gulf) support and backing for the same.

Once the situation is more-or-less back to a pre-2011 state of things, the people of Syria themselves can decide what to do about Assad, and for the country as a whole, on their own -- popular sovereignty.


---

This latter part is *beside the point*, though -- the author just acknowledged (in the previous quote here) that the initial popular uprising was 'forced into militarization'. This fact means that there's no longer *any* 'revolution' past the point of international invasion and neocolonialism.

This might sound like an ignorant question but seriously, what's so wrong with being militarized?

It detracts from a mass-popular base, or -- better yet -- a mass *proletarian* base, as we saw briefly among workers in the Suez region of Egypt during the Arab Spring:


http://www.egyptindependent.com/news...against-abuses

Workers unite, rally against abuses

Author: Jano Charbel

A labor conference was held at the Journalists Syndicate on Thursday with the aim of detailing the condition of more than 10,000 workers at the Ceramica Cleopatra company, whose employer has confronted them with a lock-out, after police forces assaulted and detained a group of protesting workers in Suez City on Tuesday evening. Following the conference, the ceramic workers led a march through the streets of downtown Cairo.

Over 100 workers from Ceramica Cleopatra attended the conference, while tens of other struggling workers from the United Sugar Company, the Nile Textile Company and the Egyptian Petroleum Services Company (EPSCO) were also in attendance. Unionists, students, labor activists and lawyers also addressed the conference.

Ceramica Cleopatra’s workers have been subjected to a lock-out for over a week, while over 10,000 workers at two companies (located in 10th of Ramadan Industrial City and the Red Sea Town of Ain Sokhna) are threatened with mass unemployment if the company owner, ceramics tycoon Mohammed Abul Enein, moves ahead with his alleged plans to liquidate these companies.

The multi-millionaire Abul Enein was a former MP from Hosni Mubarak’s now-defunct National Democratic Party, and ex-chairman of the dissolved Parliament’s Industrial Committee. His company was the biggest producer of ceramic tiles and sanitary ware in Egypt.

This bigwig of the former ruling regime is still being investigated on charges of instigating armed attacks against protesters in Tahrir Square on 2 and 3 February, commonly known as the Battle of the Camel, which left 13 protesters dead and more than 1,000 injured.

Ceramica Cleopatra’s angry workers chanted against Abul Enein: “If you slipped away from the [trial of the Battle of the] Camel, you won’t be able to slip away from the workers.”

“Abul Enein claims that we [workers] are thugs and thieves for demanding our basic rights, yet he is behind the mobilization of thugs who attacked protesters in the square, and who have also attacked us,” said Amr Suleiman, a unionist from Ceramica Cleopatra’s Ain Sokhna branch.

Addressing the audience, Suleiman added, “He claims that we are harming the economy with our protests, yet he is the one harming and threatening the national economy through the liquidation of our companies.”

Abdallah Hussein, a worker from the 10th of Ramadan Company, commented, “Both of the companies have come to a standstill since last week. Abul Enein and his administration have stopped sending busses to transport us to work and back. We fear that we are not going to get paid this month, and we fear that he will shut down the factories for several more weeks, if not months.”

“We don’t know how we will feed ourselves and our families during the holy month of Ramadan,” Hussein added.

Cleopatra’s workers chanted, “There is no God but Allah, and Abul Enein is Allah’s enemy.” Others chanted slogans in support of Egypt’s new president: “There is no God but Allah, and President Morsy is Allah’s beloved.”

Fatma Ramadan, a labor activist and leading member of the Egyptian Federation of Independent Trade Unions, said, “Abul Enein was an influential figure within the old regime. We must make sure that the does not become a member of the new ruling regime. We must not allow him, or his likes, to continue stealing the rights of workers.”

Khaled Ali, a prominent labor lawyer and a former presidential candidate, addressed President Mohamed Morsy, saying, “Just like you met with businessmen to assess their needs and to protect their interests, so too must you meet with workers to protect their rights.”

“I call on President Morsy to avoid the manipulations of Egypt’s businessmen, and to avoid being controlled, used or influenced by corrupt businessmen,” Ali continued. “If such businessmen decide to shut down their factories and sack thousands of workers, then we must nationalize these factories.” This statement was met with thundering applause and chants from the workers in attendance.

Ali concluded by saying that workers can best protect their rights if they unite and stand in solidarity with each other. He recommended that workers visit the 23,000 striking workers at the Misr Spinning and Weaving Company in Mahalla City to express their solidarity with them during Ramadan, if their strike continues.

Workers at the conference chanted, “Sugar, ceramics, and textile workers are one hand.”

A striking worker from the Nile Textile Company, Mohamed Ibrahim, commented that he and his fellow workers express their solidarity with workers at Ceramica Cleopatra, Misr Spinning and Weaving, the United Sugar Company, EPSCO and all other struggling workers. Workers at the Nile Company have been striking for the past 16 days in demand of overdue bonuses, profit-sharing payments and overtime payments, among other demands.

"In his presidential address before Tahrir Square, President Morsy spoke of upholding the rights and dignity of Egypt’s workers, both at home and abroad,” Ibrahim said. “We are holding the president accountable for his promises to us.”

“Our rights and dignity should be above all other considerations. Yet our rights continue to be neglected and our dignity is being trampled on. This is evident as we have seen with the case of Ceramica Cleopatra’s workers who were brutally assaulted by police forces in Suez,” he continued.

More than two weeks after having met with Morsy and his staff at the presidential palace in hopes of resolving their grievances, hundreds of protesting workers from the Ain Sokhna branch of Ceramica Cleopatra embarked on a protest march to the Suez Governorate headquarters on Tuesday, 17 July.

Authorities and some media reports accused Ceramica Cleopatra’s workers of attempting to storm and occupy the governorate building, while other reports claimed that the disgruntled workers attempted to burn it down.

After crossing a barbed-wire fence workers began to throw rocks, and were met with volleys of teargas canisters and beatings administered by security forces. At least two workers were injured at the hands of the police, and five were detained for several hours before being released.

Ahmed Salah, a conservative worker with a long beard, shaved mustache and a bandaged head, addressed a group of journalists, saying, “Yes, we crossed the barbed-wire fence. Yet there were a few instigators, not workers, among us who began throwing rocks at the Central Security Forces.” Salah said he was clubbed and beaten in the head with the butt of a rifle, and also stabbed in the back with knives some police officers had in their possession.

Tareq Ali, another bearded worker who was assaulted, unbuttoned his shirt to reveal numerous shallow cuts on his chest. “We were cursed, slapped, knifed, and beaten with clubs, tree branches, metal pipes, rifle butts, fists and boots,” he said, adding that both he and Salah were singled out for physical and verbal abuse because they are Islamists.

“Security forces in Egypt haven’t changed since the revolution. They remain as brutal and abusive as they were before,” Ali added. “We were not seeking trouble or clashes at the governorate, we were only seeking our rights and a resolution to our grievances.”

EPSCO workers claimed that they had been subjected to similar assaults on Wednesday, 18 July, but at the hands of company security personnel, not police forces.

EPSCO worker Wael Ibrahim showed a video he had captured on his cell phone. The video shows security personnel beating protesting workers with clubs and belts outside the petroleum company’s branch in the Maadi district of Cairo.

“We were cursed and mercilessly beaten by company security for demanding improved wages and working conditions. We cannot speak of social justice for workers and employees under these oppressive circumstances.”

Following the conference, over 100 workers — primarily from Ceramica Cleopatra — took to the streets of downtown Cairo where they marched and chanted slogans against Abul Enein. They demanded the re-opening of their companies and that production resume. “Revolution, revolution until victory; revolution against the thieves of Egypt,” they chanted.

A number of these workers beat a large photo of Abul Enein with their shoes. Others chanted, “Close down factories or burn them down; the workers’ voice is rising.”

Publishing Date: Thu, 19/07/2012 - 21:15
Source URL (retrieved on 19/04/2017 - 16:02): http://www.egyptindependent.com/node/997316

---

The deaths of Syrian people killed by foreign interventions, and even by Assad's Syrian regime, are deplorable, of course, but none of it changes the *overall* political situation, which is still one of Western-imperialist ongoing interventions in the affairs of the Syrian state, which should never have happened in the first place. Western imperialist forces are not doing *anyone* any favors with their involvement, and they need to stop all of their activities, which happen to be intrinsically at the expense of Syrian sovereignty and popular self-determination.

The existence of the country of Syria is the only thing that should've never happened in the first place

This isn't valid, because you're wanting to turn-back-the-clock to a previous time -- you're sidestepping current conditions, which, again, isn't being political at all.

russia seems happy to do it? they like oil money, they like building stuff, they love hummus its a perfect fit

This is the correct position:

The “longer-term status of President Assad,” Tillerson said, “will be decided by the Syrian people,” a euphemism used by Damascus, Moscow, and Tehran to indicate that he isn’t going anywhere.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-uses-gas.html

---

What I *do* trust outside forces to do is to deny sovereignty to a *worse* national formulation, that of ISIS / ISIL / the Islamic State, as a matter of *priority*. And, unfortunately, that's where things stand right now. World public opinion and political positions need to cohere and demand uniformly that ISIS be denied any foothold, perpetually -- and without further civilian deaths. Until then, those who *do* fight ISIS physically, as from Assad's Syrian internal forces, are justified in their actions that diminish ISIS' strongholds.

your taking the opportunistic aims of the USA, and coincidental evidence to mean that USA is 200% in charge of al queda that Osama's real name is timothy, and that Baghdadi is an undercover CIA agent.

No, these imputations of yours are sheer fabrications.

You've gone from great man theories about assad

I haven't used any 'Great Man' formulations regarding Assad.

into fullblown rothschilds conspiracy land, holocaust denial is around the corner.

No, you're going off on tangents, and none of this speculation of yours is valid.

And assad is a holocaust denier by the way, Syria is one of the leaders in distribution of antisemitic propaganda and is supported directly by neonazis around the world from the KKK to Golden dawn, theyve even gone from greece to fight for him

Well, that's unfortunate, but, again, from the revolutionary left the point is *national self-determination*, which requires non-intervention from the forces of imperialism.


---

Whatever.

This is a blatantly partisan news source:

better than syrian state TV

I disagree.


---

You're roundly incorrect in your guesswork here -- I'm pro-Palestinian and wouldn't *ever* back Netanyahu. Israel *cooperates* with Islamic-fundamentalist groups like Al Qaeda.

Palestinians have cooperated alot more with islamic fundamentalist than Israel, Osama stated his main reason for attacking USA was the plight of the Palestinians. Israelis regularly label every muslim with an attitude an al-queda terrorist just like Assad does, and Assad has cooperated with ISIS way more than netanyahu has, last I checked Israel wasn't buying oil from them

Just because many sectarian interests use the Palestinian plight opportunistically doesn't mean that the Palestinian cause itself is *invalid*, as you're suggesting here.

Yes, profiling and stereotyping happen -- and you do it yourself -- but all of that is *tangential* to the subject of the politics itself.

Regarding the latter part, economic relationships are distinctly different from political / geopolitical ones -- Assad still wants to curtail and eliminate ISIS / IS, as far as I can tell, but until that actually happens his state is currently in an economic situation wherein trading with that entity is materially *advantageous* for Syria.

And, for another example, despite the Cold-War-II hostile rhetoric from the U.S. towards Russia, there continues to be economic trade between the two countries:

"Last year [2015] was not particularly favorable for trade between Russia and the U.S. Our overall 2015 turnover was $21 billion, a decline of 27.9 percent," said a senior Russian official in April 2016.[176]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia...#Economic_ties

---

why is it not okay for israel to bomb sunnis but okay for assad to do the same thing for the same reason?

You're being vague here -- Israel did not bomb Sunnis, it bombed *Syrian* forces.

they bombed muslims they didn't care what flag they were waving, it was brutal, almost like they were fighting for holocaust revenge against an unmatched enemy

You're going off on a tangent again -- Israel interference is as bad as Western / U.S. / NATO / Gulf involvement.


---

They're actually diametrically opposite, so it's either Syrian sovereignty or the *takeover* of Syria (and Iraq, etc.) by the Islamic State.

i have a feeling there's more than two options

Your feeling is incorrect and misleading.


---

The neoconservative agenda has been *aimed* at invading Syria, all the way back to before 2003, as referenced (identically) at posts #74 and #78. It's not *my* agenda.

the agenda has been aimed at getting that sweet oil money, the country of syria was created to help drill for it, who cares who's the boss of it?

Syrian popular sovereignty and self-determination should be favored over U.S. imperialist interests.

You're using initial Great Powers imperialism as a political justification / apologia for *present-day* Western imperialism.


---

I'll note that any given geographic location cannot be occupied by both Syria and by the Islamic State at the same time.

the syrian government can barely control these red lines

[IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Syrian%2C_Iraqi%2C_and_Lebanese_insurgencies.png[IMG]

You're going off on a tangent yet again -- you're merely being *empirical* at best, and not *political*.


---

Well this is why we're *primarily* socialists, and not looking to *back* careerist-type regional political aspirations from *any* separatist national interest. We're having to deal with messy, undesirable geopolitical realities, unfortunately, so we should keep in mind to avoid becoming bourgeois-sectarian ourselves.

which is hard in a region where the majority of the people is a member of religion we are told to hate, Sunni islam is technically the largest religion in the world, and is only growing, if we hate every sunni with a gun we are jumping in on this psuedo-christian crusade which millions of Christians believe in, christian dominion theory is widely believed in the DOD

You obviously have to find a historically-progressive line / position regarding all of this -- you're defaulting to an acceptance of the status-quo, which is definitely *not* revolutionary.

You also need to focus on the *political* entities at-play, and not the religious-ethnic-cultural ones.

[willowtooth]

You obviously have to find a historically-progressive line / position regarding all of this -- you're defaulting to an acceptance of the status-quo, which is definitely *not* revolutionary.

You also need to focus on the *political* entities at-play, and not the religious-ethnic-cultural ones.

Lets take a step back we both agree that a US military invasion in Syria either like Iraq or Libya should be opposed. More importantly I think we can both agree that a military invasion is extremely unlikely under the current US administration. If we were to promote any activism it should be under the general anti-war agenda, rather than "Assad forever" "Assad or we burn the country" slogans like you hear his supporters scream in Syria. I think we agree on these things for majorly different reasons but we agree nonetheless

However I will add that you cannot denounce western imperialism, while simultaneously championing so called western secularism. It is those ideals that created western imperialism. Or as we should call it white christian imperialism and white christian secularism.

Whatever country we are talking about the decisions have already been made, so while we may collectively be able to prevent this attack by the US, the military will simply move on to the next country, as we speak troops are moving into Somalia, regime change is being openly supported in Venezuela, Erdogan of Turkey is being labelled a dictator by US media. So they may leave Syria alone for now but they will be back later, and in the meantime will simply attack another country. the US military itself needs to be defunded, and that goes for every major world power. Since in reality every bullet needs to be fired, and every million dollar aircraft needs to fire its missiles atleast once, so without shutting down the military entirely we will only be chasing the coat tails of the militarists, meaning we will only be playing catch up forever chasing after dead bodies like the Red Cross.

Here's to another 15 years of war! In a place that most of us enlightened westerners can't even find on a map

[ckaihatsu]

Lets take a step back we both agree that a US military invasion in Syria either like Iraq or Libya should be opposed.

The tricky part of this is that the U.S. has been using *proxies* (FSA, al-Nusra, even ISIS), so the 'invasion' of Syria has already happened, and as a result there is a portion of both Syria and Iraq that has been carved-out for the nascent 'Islamic State', which must be opposed.

Trickier still, the U.S. *has* provided some efforts to *dislodge* ISIS (through the SDF), and Syria, the Kurds, and Russia have all contributed to this anti-fundamentalist-terror campaign, to their credit.

That's why I don't uphold a generic 'anti-war' line, because the situation has *not* been empirically resolved yet. All geopolitical and local military efforts against the Islamic State should be welcomed.

More importantly I think we can both agree that a military invasion is extremely unlikely under the current US administration.

Remember this -- ?


Trump government attacks Syria

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/19...-attacks-Syria


---

If we were to promote any activism it should be under the general anti-war agenda, rather than "Assad forever" "Assad or we burn the country" slogans like you hear his supporters scream in Syria. I think we agree on these things for majorly different reasons but we agree nonetheless

I, at least, am not saying 'Assad forever'. Please recall my position:

(I'm not *partisan* to Assad -- I'm on the side of Syrian *self-determination*, as through Assad in the near-term.)

---

However I will add that you cannot denounce western imperialism, while simultaneously championing so called western secularism. It is those ideals that created western imperialism. Or as we should call it white christian imperialism and white christian secularism.

No, untrue -- you're succumbing to 'cultural determination' again. Regardless of whatever Western culture happens to look like, there are *material* reasons for imperialism:

Summary[edit]

In his Prefaces, Lenin states that the First World War (1914–1918) was "an annexationist, predatory, plunderous war"[2] among empires, whose historical and economic background must be studied "to understand and appraise modern war and modern politics".[3]

In order for capitalism to generate greater profits than the home market can yield, the merging of banks and industrial cartels produces finance capitalism—the exportation and investment of capital to countries with underdeveloped economies. In turn, such financial behaviour leads to the division of the world among monopolist business companies and the great powers. Moreover, in the course of colonizing undeveloped countries, business and government eventually will engage in geopolitical conflict over the economic exploitation of large portions of the geographic world and its populaces. Therefore, imperialism is the highest (advanced) stage of capitalism, requiring monopolies (of labour and natural-resource exploitation) and the exportation of finance capital (rather than goods) to sustain colonialism, which is an integral function of said economic model.[4][5] Furthermore, in the capitalist homeland, the super-profits yielded by the colonial exploitation of a people and their economy permit businessmen to bribe native politicians, labour leaders and the labour aristocracy (upper stratum of the working class) to politically thwart worker revolt (labour strike).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperi...talism#Summary

Western secularism is objectively historical-progressive and *preferable* to reactionary clericalist religious fundamentalism.


---

Whatever country we are talking about the decisions have already been made, so while we may collectively be able to prevent this attack by the US, the military will simply move on to the next country, as we speak troops are moving into Somalia,

Opposing U.S. attacks on Somalia isn't historically-progressive, either, because doing so would put one into the Al-Shabaab camp -- a reactionary fundamentalist regime.

regime change is being openly supported in Venezuela,

Yeah, Venezuela is on the U.S. shit-list, too, and U.S. imperialist intervention there should be opposed since Venezuela is secular and relatively historical-progressive (especially compared to the U.S. / West).

Erdogan of Turkey is being labelled a dictator by US media.

I would like to see some references on this -- Turkey has been a solid ally and I doubt there'd be a schism anytime soon.

So they may leave Syria alone for now but they will be back later, and in the meantime will simply attack another country. the US military itself needs to be defunded, and that goes for every major world power. Since in reality every bullet needs to be fired, and every million dollar aircraft needs to fire its missiles atleast once, so without shutting down the military entirely we will only be chasing the coat tails of the militarists, meaning we will only be playing catch up forever chasing after dead bodies like the Red Cross.

Here's to another 15 years of war! In a place that most of us enlightened westerners can't even find on a map

[willowtooth]

I would like to see some references on this -- Turkey has been a solid ally and I doubt there'd be a schism anytime soon.

I'm pretty sure this is all from this year, from both the right and the left







https://www.thenation.com/article/tr...-dictatorship/
http://www.newsweek.com/how-erdogan-...ictator-586108
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-d...ely-a-dictator
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alon-b...b_9932160.html
https://www.democracynow.org/2017/4/...orship_erdogan
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...n-dictatorship

[ckaihatsu]

I'm pretty sure this is all from this year, from both the right and the left







https://www.thenation.com/article/tr...-dictatorship/
http://www.newsweek.com/how-erdogan-...ictator-586108
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-d...ely-a-dictator
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alon-b...b_9932160.html
https://www.democracynow.org/2017/4/...orship_erdogan
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...n-dictatorship

Hmmmm, okay, thanks -- maybe the U.S. has a mind to put him out to pasture, as with Saddam Hussein, et al....

There *has* already been a precedent for this direction:

On 15 July 2016, a coup d'état was attempted in Turkey against state institutions, including, but not limited to the government and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.[29] The attempt was carried out by a faction within the Turkish Armed Forces that organized themselves as the Peace at Home Council. They attempted to seize control of several key places in Ankara, Istanbul, and elsewhere, but failed to do so after forces loyal to the state defeated them. The Council cited an erosion of secularism, elimination of democratic rule,[30] disregard for human rights, and Turkey's loss of credibility in the international arena as reasons for the coup.[31][32] The government[33][34] accused the coup leaders of being linked to the Gülen movement,[30] which is designated as a terrorist organization by the Republic of Turkey and led by Fethullah Gülen, a Turkish businessman[35][36][37][38] and cleric[39][40][41] who lives in Pennsylvania, United States.[42][43][44][45]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_T...%A9tat_attempt

[ckaihatsu]

http://www.investigaction.net/en/att...n-speaking-up/


AGENDA

Attack against Syria and the region speaking up

18 Apr 2017 ANDRE VLTCHEK



[Andre Vltchek in Beirut] – As the US Tomahawk missiles were raining on Syria, the entire Middle East was shaken to its core. Here, even the name itself – Syria – triggers extremely complex and often contradictory sets of emotions. To some, Syria is synonymous with pride and a determined struggle against Western imperialism, while others see it as an uncomfortable reminder of how low their own rulers and societies have managed to sink, serving foreign interests and various neo-colonialist designs.

Many people are hiding their heads in the sand, obediently repeating the official Western narrative, while others are gradually resorting to the alternative sources of information that are coming from outlets such as RT Arabic, Al-Mayadeen and Press TV.

Here in the Middle East and in fact all over the entire Arab world, feelings towards the Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad are always ‘strong’; no one appears to be ‘neutral’. But even the divisions are often ‘pre-defined’, carved along pan-Arab versus pro-Western, or Sunni versus Shi’a lines. It is rarely being mentioned that the Syrian state is constructed mainly on secular and socialist principles.

The recent opportunistic statements by certain badly informed and biased Western ‘progressive’ intellectuals, calling the Syrian system “disgraceful” has confused things even further.



***



Overall, in the countries encircling Syria, there is very little support among the general population as well as among the intellectuals, for the Western assaults on the country, conducted directly, and indirectly by proxies. Pro-Western regimes and governments are currently governing Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, and all of them are officially supporting the Western military actions. So is, naturally, Israel. The leaders of both Turkey and Israel would actually like to see more military actions, and more attacks against one of the last Arab countries, which is still upholds its independence.


Incirlik NATO air base in Turkey near Syria

But ask the thinkers from all over the region, and the reaction is near unanimously against the assaults that are being conducted by the West.

An Iraqi educationalist, prominent journalist and researcher, Ms Zeinab Al-Saffar explained:

“I believe that the attacks against Syria that we are now witnessing, are a pre-orchestrated flagrant imperialist violation of a sovereign state, a flexing of muscles which is supposed to prove that the US is still the global power. Why on earth would the Syrian government perform a chemical attack knowing that the fingers would be immediately pointed at it, consequently thwarting an ongoing political process? Only fools could buy such narratives that are reminiscent of the 2003 US-led aggression to destroy the WMDs in Iraq, which only resulted in the devastation of Iraq, in the ruining of its people, and wiping out of its culture.”

After the US missile assault on Syria, the Bolivian Ambassador to the United Nations, Sacha Llorenti, lashed out at Trump’s decision, which he defined as, “an extremely serious violation of international law.”

Llorenti reminded the Council of February 5th, 2003, when the then US secretary of State Colin Powell, “came to this room to present to us, according to his own words, convincing proof that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.”

Such views are not held in Iraq only; I encountered fairly similar logic and recollection of the events even in Turkey, from where a well-known columnist Feryal Çeviköz wrote to me:

“The real question is: “who orchestrated that chemical attack?” It seems that only the US could benefit from this chemical assault. The US had finally found the ‘reason’, the pretext for its direct attack against Syria. There were already many similar incidents in the region and in other parts of the world, and the screenplay is always the same. It seems that only the players, the actors keep changing.”

In Latin America, Russia, China, much of Africa and of course in the neighboring Iran, people are beginning to see clearly both the pattern and predictability of the Western foreign policy.

A young prominent Iranian researcher, columnist and filmmaker, Hamed Ghashghavi, gave me his opinion on the recent developments:

“It seems to me that the US behaves like an injured wolf that is close to its death, but before vanishing is trying to hurt others. The more aggressively the US behaves, the closer, it appears to be at its end. The recent attack against Syria, whatever the reasons and consequences, has symbolically proven how and why the so-called US Empire is declining. What the US did is also sending a strong signal to Iran and its project of the military base near the Syrian town of Khmeimim, but it is also a message to an anti-Trump wing of neocons who have been accusing him of being too much ‘pro-Putin’ and ‘pro-Assad’.”

What is now clearly detectable in the region is not just a condemnation of the US and Western actions, it is also a deep fatigue of having to endure the same type aggression which brings absolutely nothing except misery to the people of the Middle East and the world.

In Syria, the sentiments are clear. My friend, a Syrian educator Ms. Fida Bashour summarized it all, I believe:

“I feel sad and worried. I want this war to finally stop, no blood any more, I want peace and to have my safe existence. I don’t want others to interfere in our life. Why doesn’t Trump let us live as we want to; why is he doing this to us?”


Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Three of his latest books are revolutionary novel “Aurora” and two bestselling works of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire” and “Fighting Against Western Imperialism”. View his other books here. Andre is making films for teleSUR and Al-Mayadeen. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo. After having lived in Latin America, Africa and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter.



Cover photo: Zeinab Al-Saffar – Iraqi thinker and journalist

First published by NEO

Source: Investig’Action



Follow us on Facebook



A lire aussi :
Behind the attack on Syria Swedish Doctors for Human Rights: White Helmets Video, Macabre Manipulation of Dead Children and Staged Chemical Weapons Attack to Justify a “No-Fly Zone” in Syria Reflecting on Syria Turkey and Syria: Blood, Tears and Walls
Derniers articles d'Investig'Action :
AURELIEN MONDON
The Mélenchon Factor
ANDRE VLTCHEK
Trump – in North Korea you will be murdering human beings!
ANDRE VLTCHEK
Attack against Syria and the region speaking up
JOSHUA FRANK
Snipers and Infiltrators at Standing Rock: Quashing Protests at Taxpayer Expense
Latest videos :
1 MINUTE!
French Presidential Election – Stick or Twist?
1 MINUTE!
Chilean muralists in 1 Minute
1 MINUTE!
1 Minute: Huey Newton and the Black Panther Party
1 MINUTE!
Blockade and humanitarian crisis in Gaza in 1 minute
BOOKS AND DVD’S
MICHEL COLLON’S COLUMN
SAID BOUAMAMA’S COLUMN
ARCHIVES


NEWSLETTER
Subscribe / Unsubscribe


OUR AUTHORS
Grégoire Lalieu
Grégoire Lalieu
Why we lost the battle against terrorism and how we can win it

Alex Anfruns
Alex Anfruns
Hands off Venezuela!

SEE THE AUTHOR'S INDEX
©Copyright investig'action 2015
-
ShareThis Copy and Paste - See more at: http://www.investigaction.net/en/att....2uqWVWlL.dpuf

[Jimmie Higgins]

Jimmy: I think that the USA ruling class, the mind-manipulation ruling class is aware that the way of thinking among the general population is based on "Argumentum ad populum"

Here is the definition of Argumentum Ad Populum: In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

Definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum


For example: "If the great majority believe that Bashar Al Assad is evil and kills his own people with chemical weapons, than it must be true that Bashar Al Assad is evil and kills his own people with chemical weapons.


Another example: "If the great majority of the population of USA believes that the US government and its Armed Forces are a beacon of light, that capitalism is the most democratic system, and that marxism, communism are evil. Then it must be true that USA, US government, and its political system is the beacon of light, the home of the free"


This type of argument is known by several names, including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, vox populi, and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), fickle crowd syndrome, and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.


And that's why in USA, in any social event, in any public place with regular american joes and janes, you see everybody dressing the same, eating the same thing, with the same behaviour patterns, the same gestures. It's like a majority-tyranny, where things are true if the majority believes it to be true.


And this is still the way most US citizens behave. And unfortunately, maybe the US capitalist-imperialist pro-war political system will be powerful in the USA for many decades to come, unless there is either a leftist coup de etat done by leftist sectors of the US Armed Forces, or if the majority of US citizens experience a mental awakening, as a result of believing a lot more in alternative news (counterpunch, democracynow.org etc and not trusting the corporate regular news anymore)


However if most adult americans begin to read classical literature books (Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Goethe, Hegel, Voltaire, Marx, Feuerbach etc.) maybe there could be a way for people to be aware that literally all traditional mainstream news sources (TV and newspapers) are all liars and work for the upper exploiter classes.


But unfortunately I don't think that a general knowledge book-reading revolution spread to the masses will happen in USA, because of many factors: americans work all day, are super-busy all day and do not have the physical and mental energies to digest classical literature, psychology which could help americans destroy mental-slavery. And the other reasonf of why such a mental awakening won't take place is that books such as philosophy and sociology books, classical books are super expensive for the already low buying power of most regular US workers and regular people who are all economically broke

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. First I don't think US justifications are an opportunistic appeal to popular ideas. If it were then many wars never would have been argued for, we'd have universal healthcare, Clinton would have sounded more like Sanders from day one, etc.

The us ruling class devotes a great deal of energy to arguing A) there are one or two "realistic" (i.e. Currently neoliberal ) options for most situations B) that their goals are "popular". Trump's "silent majority" is actually a loud and confident electoral minority. Trump, congress and the DNC have record-low approvals, etc.

But if people hate trump and the dnc... what's the viable alternative? If your boss says you have to accept cuts but your union agrees and says that they will try and minimize the pain... what's the viable alternative? We know there are potential working class alternatives... but we should also realize that they are not in existence in a generalized sense at this time.

The US military exists and agitates on its behalf, backed by the ruling class... a revolutionary international does not. Bosses and sometimes business-unionist labor organizations exist... independent rank and file militant organizations largely do not at this time.

This, independent class movements, is the unknown quantity. This is the wildcard that, if it can build steam, becomes a viable alternative outside the ruling class deck of cards. When this has happened in the US it has been "overnight explosions"... the late 30s and late 60s. But I don't think ideas were the spark (ideas are important, but not in isolation) it was that labor or black power began to be seen as credible alternatives which caused a rapid popularization of radical ideas and activities.

"Stable" capitalist countries contain or repress this alternative. But capitalism is unstable which creates the potential for these movements to be born.

On a side note, I don't think the broad population is the source of the problem. If people all eat the same food at public events (which I wish there were more of in the US) it likely has much more to do with the power of a few large chains... if coke was simply "popular" it would be a waste of effort to try and monopolize market spaces or buy food chains that only sell your drinks. People eat mass-produced food because it's cheap and engineered to be a sugary thrill that lasts 30 seconds and then leaves you craving more.

Professionals, on the other hand, pride themselves on adventurous dining and daring cuisine... and they are some of the dullest most conformist people with the crappiest politics in the US.

As far as reading philosophy, in the absence of actual class forces and movements, marx's high stage of communism is about as viable as plato's slaveocracy. Both are simply tomes of ideas. Existing class consciousness and struggle give Marxism weight beyond an idea. Maybe I project my own experiences too much, but personally I read Marx only after getting involved in movements because this made what he wrote practical and relevant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ckaihatsu]

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017.../turk-a27.html


Turkish warplanes hit Washington’s Kurdish proxy forces in Syria

By Bill Van Auken

27 April 2017

Turkish cross-border attacks against Kurdish militia positions in Syria and Iraq continued for a second day Wednesday, following dozens of airstrikes on Tuesday that left at least 70 people, including both Kurdish fighters and civilians, dead.

The attacks were met with protests from both Washington and Moscow, as well as the Syrian government. One of the main targets of the strikes was the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), which constitutes the backbone of so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which serves as the main proxy ground force in the US intervention against ISIS in Syria.

The US State Department said Tuesday that it was “deeply concerned” about the airstrikes, which it charged were launched “without proper coordination” and had “led to the unfortunate loss of life of our partner forces.”

A spokesman for the US-dominated anti-ISIS “coalition” told a Pentagon teleconference Wednesday that Turkey had provided less than an hour’s warning before bombs fell on Iraq and Syria.

“That’s not enough time and this was notification, certainly, not coordination as you would expect from a partner and an ally in the fight against ISIS,” US Air Force Col. John Dorrian said.

The spokesman added that the hour’s notice combined with the “vague” character of the Turkish warning made it impossible to “ensure safety of our forces on the ground.” US troops were reportedly deployed within six miles of the areas targeted.

The unilateral military intervention by Turkey, Washington’s NATO ally, targeting forces armed and trained by the Pentagon, has further escalated the multi-sided conflict provoked by the six-year-old US-orchestrated war for regime change in Syria. It further threatens to turn it into a region-wide and even global conflict. Tensions had already escalated sharply in the wake of the US launching cruise missiles against a Syrian government airbase on April 7, on the pretext of retaliating to a chemical weapons attack that Washington blamed on the Syrian government.

Russia, which has also sought ties with the YPG and sent military advisors into the Kurdish-controlled areas of northern Syria, denounced the Turkish bombings, issuing a statement warning that “in a situation where the war on terror in Iraq and Syria is far from over, such actions clearly do not contribute to the consolidation of anti-terrorist efforts.”

In reality, the bombings only underscore the fact that, in the name of the “war on terror,” Washington, Turkey and Russia are all intervening in Syria to further their own, opposing interests.

Washington has sought since 2011 to effect “regime change” in Syria in order to impose a more pliant puppet regime in Damascus to further its drive for hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East. Russia has sent forces to back the government of President Bashar al-Assad, its principal ally in the Middle East, against the Al Qaeda-linked militias supported by Washington and its regional allies, including Turkey. For its part, Ankara has sought to further its own regional ambitions and, most crucially, to prevent the consolidation of an autonomous Kurdish region along its southern border.

Turkish officials have rejected the US protests over the attacks. Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu said on Wednesday that his government had given both the US and Russia notice “two hours” before launching the airstrikes. Speaking to reporters in Uzbekistan, Çavuşoğlu also claimed that Turkey had discussed its planned attacks over the “last few weeks” with Washington.

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan bluntly defended the actions, saying that Turkey would continue its attacks in both Iraq and Syria “until the last terrorist is eliminated” and that it would “drain the swamp.”

The Erdoğan government claims that its military actions are aimed against the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party), a Kurdish guerrilla group that has waged a decades-long fight for an independent Kurdish state inside Turkey and has been outlawed by Ankara. The Turkish authorities consider the Syrian YPG a branch of the PKK.

The Turkish airstrikes in Iraq were supposedly aimed against the PKK, which has had a presence in the Sinjar region near the Syrian border since it intervened there in 2014, backed by US air power, to drive out ISIS. Ankara has allied itself with the Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), controlled by the Barzani clan, against the PKK.

Tuesday’s air strikes, however, killed at least six members of the KRG’s peshmerga forces, something that Ankara said it regretted. The attacks may serve to deepen hostility among Iraqi Kurds to the Barzanis’ close ties to Turkey.

Wednesday also saw clashes on the Syrian-Turkish border between the YPG and Turkish troops as well exchanges of artillery fire across the border, with the Turkish military targeting both the YPG and Syrian government forces, allegedly in retaliation for attacks against Turkey.

Clashes were also reported in northern Aleppo between the YPG and Turkish-backed militias, which are dominated by the Islamist Ahrar al-Sham, whose forces in Idlib province have joined the Syrian Al Qaeda affiliate.

Meanwhile, the Syrian Kurdish forces have called on the US-led “coalition” to establish a no-fly zone over northern Syria, a measure that would entail a qualitative escalation of the US military intervention, intensifying the threat of a military confrontation with Russia, whose warplanes operate in Syrian airspace.

Copyright © 1998-2017 World Socialist Web Site - All rights reserved

[ckaihatsu]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.9018c3c71aec

https://news.google.com


Checkpoint

In blow to U.S.-Turkey ties, Trump administration approves plan to directly arm Syrian Kurds against Islamic State

By Thomas Gibbons-Neff and Missy Ryan May 9 at 1:40 PM

President Trump has approved a plan to directly arm Kurdish forces fighting in Syria as part of a U.S. military plan to capture Raqqa, the Syrian city that is the Islamic State’s de facto capital, the Pentagon said on Tuesday.

Pentagon spokesperson Dana W. White said the president made the decision on Monday and described the Kurdish People’s Protection Units, or YPG, as “the only force on the ground that can successfully seize Raqqa in the near future.”

“We are keenly aware of the security concerns of our coalition partner Turkey,” White said in a statement. “We want to reassure the people and government of Turkey that the U.S. is committed to preventing additional security risks and protecting our NATO ally.”

The decision, which was first reported by NBC, is sure to enrage Turkey, the NATO ally that views the YPG as a threat and has rebuked the United States for partnering with the group in its fight against extremists in Syria.

White provided no details on what kind of weaponry would be provided to the Kurdish fighters or when. The YPG, which dominates a diverse group of fighters known as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), has emerged as the United States’ premier partner force against the Islamic State in Syria.

That partnership has generated ongoing friction with Ankara, which sees the YPG as an extension of the banned Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, which is considered a terrorist group by both Turkey and the United States.

The Turkish position has created a dilemma for U.S. military officials, who see no viable alternative force in Syria capable of and willing to mount an assault on the Islamic State’s final stronghold. Already, the YPG has received air support from the United States and, indirectly through Arab fighters, some U.S. weaponry.

Neither the Trump administration, nor the Barack Obama administration before it, had made any secret of its intention to give the Syrian Kurds a primary role in isolating Raqqa leading up to the planned offensive. Defense officials have said repeatedly that such a role would require direct weapons shipments and upgrading the equipment provided to move through what are expected to be vast minefields and other obstacles leading into Raqqa.

Turkish officials have privately acknowledged that the matter appeared to be decided. But they have continued to complain publicly about what they framed as a counterproductive U.S. strategy that amounted to enlisting a terrorist group to fight another terrorist group.

Turkey has continued to lobby the Trump administration to change course in the days leading up to Erdogan’s visit, dispatching top Turkish officials, including General Hulusi Akar, the military chief of staff, and Hakan Fidan, the intelligence chief, to Washington. A Turkish delegation briefly met with President Trump on Monday, according to a report in the Turkish Daily Sabah newspaper.

Trump is expected to officially inform Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of his decision next Tuesday, when Erdogan visits the White House.

To soften the blow, senior administration and military officials have been in near constant contact with their Turkish counterparts to assure them the Kurds will not be part of the force that enters Raqqa and will not dominate the establishment of a new local government. That force, U.S. officials have said, will be comprised of the Arab fighters who are part of the Kurdish-Arab Syrian Democratic Forces.

Turkey has charged that the political wing of the YPG has moved in behind the SDF forces who have taken territory from the Islamic State across northern Syria and forced out Arab and Turkmen populations. Their goal, Erdogan has said, is to create a Kurdish canton that can join with Turkish Kurds of the Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, separatists who have been at war with the Turkish government—and which both the United States and Turkey have designated as a terrorist organization.

Turkish forces moved into northern Syria late last year, ostensibly to fight against the Islamic State, but equally to ensure that YPG forces did not consolidate their control of the border. Erdogan has said that he will now send his troops, and Syrian rebels fighting with them, to Raqqa, eliminating the need for the United States to depend on Kurdish forces.

Defense Sec. Jim Mattis, speaking earlier on Tuesday, suggested that the United States hoped to continue some sort of military partnership with Turkey in Syria.

“Our intent is to work with the Turks, alongside one another to take Raqqa down,” Mattis said during a news conference in Denmark. “We’re going to sort it out, we’ll figure out how to do it, but we’re all committed to it.”

Mattis would not elaborate on the possible Turkish involvement or if that meant Turkish troops would enter Raqqa. “NATO allies stick together,” he said. “That’s not to say we all walk into the room with same appreciation of the problem.”

The White House decision comes as Turkey ramps up its military operations against PKK and YPG fighters in Iraq and Syria. Last month, Turkish warplanes launched assaults on Kurdish fighters in Iraq and Syria, killing more than a dozen people, and prompting a public condemnation from Washington. In the latest airstrikes, on Tuesday, Turkey said that it had destroyed “PKK terrorist camps” in northern Iraq, according to Turkey’s semi-official Anadolu News Agency.

Currently, the SDF troops are locked in a pitched battle with the Islamic State around the Syrian town of Tabqa on the Euphrates River.

U.S. officials have championed the fight there as a key part of the operation to retake Raqqa and an example of the group’s prowess.

The U.S.-backed campaign against the Islamic State is just one of several parallel conflicts unfolding in Syria after more than six years of civil war.

It was not immediately clear whether the decision by Trump means the YPG will receive heavier weapons, including anti-tank missiles and armored vehicles. Both are likely to be needed if Kurdish troops are to successfully penetrate Raqqa, well-fortified by Islamic State militants.

Kareem Fahim and Karen DeYoung contributed to this report. Gibbons-Neff reported from Vilnius and Fahim reported from Istanbul.

[pastradamus]

Then you're not an anti-imperialist.

That's very unfair. He is allowed to abstain from such matters and still call himself an anti-imperialist. We can't choose what they do, but we can certainly not choose sides under a conflict involving them.

[pastradamus]

There are numerous factions involved here. We have the SAA (Syrian Arab Army) under the leadership of Assad. Thank god its only Bashir we are dealing with and not his brother Bassel-Al-Assad. Basically it all started when Bashir was studying in London, met his wife and settled down. Then suddenly his brother Bassel died and he was the chosen replacement. He takes over Syria and starts applying more libertarian laws to the country but this back-fires, protests become more common and he then resorts to punishing people profusely. One common method, in order to punish someone quickly was to beat their bare feet publicly with heavy canes.

Arab Spring comes along. Assad's troops open fire on protesters, giving the general population a reason to revolt. Many army officers defect. A group falls in place calling itself the "Free Syrian Army".

The "Rebels": Made up today of 99% Islamist's they have fought Assads regime main from the Idlib province. They have become almost totally overtaken by the Al-Nusra faction, HET (or whatever the fuck they call themselves this week). The Rebels are the most dangerous here IMO.

ISIS - Fuck ISIS.

YPG /YPJ/SDF - I'm simply in love with these comrades. They have proven themselves many times, especially in Kobane. They have taken on the Turkish-Sponsored jihadists around Al-bab and Jarablus and despite losing turf to the Turks they dealt Erdogan a bloody-nose in doing-so. They recently crossed 50km south of this canton and took land there moving toward Tabqa which they now control 90%. Trump has advised the media that he will arm them in their movement towards Raqqa. Raqqa is going to be dangerous though. Its a vastly pre-dominant Sunni Arab city. This new mantle of the SDF allows Arabs to participate but, even though I believe they will take Ar-Raqqa, the American's and the Russians will eventually throw them under the bus and betray them. As a huge YPG supporter I certainly hope this doesn't happen but I am more discouraged by the KRG in Iraq blaming the PKK for the stikes on Sinjar. It's splintering before our eyes. But yeah.....her biji kurdistan.

ypg_ypj_by_freegraff-d82zjhj.jpg

[ckaihatsu]

There are numerous factions involved here. We have the SAA (Syrian Arab Army) under the leadership of Assad. Thank god its only Bashir we are dealing with and not his brother Bassel-Al-Assad. Basically it all started when Bashir was studying in London, met his wife and settled down. Then suddenly his brother Bassel died and he was the chosen replacement. He takes over Syria and starts applying more libertarian laws to the country but this back-fires, protests become more common and he then resorts to punishing people profusely. One common method, in order to punish someone quickly was to beat their bare feet publicly with heavy canes.

Arab Spring comes along. Assad's troops open fire on protesters, giving the general population a reason to revolt. Many army officers defect. A group falls in place calling itself the "Free Syrian Army".

The "Rebels": Made up today of 99% Islamist's they have fought Assads regime main from the Idlib province. They have become almost totally overtaken by the Al-Nusra faction, HET (or whatever the fuck they call themselves this week). The Rebels are the most dangerous here IMO.

ISIS - Fuck ISIS.

YPG /YPJ/SDF - I'm simply in love with these comrades. They have proven themselves many times, especially in Kobane. They have taken on the Turkish-Sponsored jihadists around Al-bab and Jarablus and despite losing turf to the Turks they dealt Erdogan a bloody-nose in doing-so. They recently crossed 50km south of this canton and took land there moving toward Tabqa which they now control 90%. Trump has advised the media that he will arm them in their movement towards Raqqa. Raqqa is going to be dangerous though. Its a vastly pre-dominant Sunni Arab city.

This new mantle of the SDF allows Arabs to participate but, even though I believe they will take Ar-Raqqa, the American's and the Russians will eventually throw them under the bus and betray them.

Yup -- it's obvious:

[S]enior administration and military officials have been in near constant contact with their Turkish counterparts to assure them the Kurds will not be part of the force that enters Raqqa and will not dominate the establishment of a new local government. That force, U.S. officials have said, will be comprised of the Arab fighters who are part of the Kurdish-Arab Syrian Democratic Forces.

As a huge YPG supporter I certainly hope this doesn't happen but I am more discouraged by the KRG in Iraq blaming the PKK for the stikes on Sinjar. It's splintering before our eyes. But yeah.....her biji kurdistan.

ypg_ypj_by_freegraff-d82zjhj.jpg

---

Couldn't socialists perhaps not offer support to any sides in the Syrian Civil War?

Then you're not an anti-imperialist.

That's very unfair. He is allowed to abstain from such matters and still call himself an anti-imperialist. We can't choose what they do, but we can certainly not choose sides under a conflict involving them.

No, I don't think this sentiment is valid -- as revolutionaries we should *always* be able to provide some kind of position regarding the geopolitical (bourgeois) arena. If we don't we're *forfeiting* / abstaining-from political involvement.

In geopolitics nothing will be revolutionary, but we can identify which side of capital is relatively more-historically-progressive than all of the others. ISIS is a priority to be dealt with, so it really doesn't matter *who* does the military work of fighting them off -- even U.S. involvement is to be welcomed for this since the threat of fundamentalist Islamic rule is *worse* than Western-type bourgeois imperialism (since it at-least tends to be secular and has a domestic history of civil rights movements).

Anti-imperialism, in this current real-world context, *implies* being against Islamic clerical rule, and then also against U.S. / NATO / Western imperialism and opportunism in the Middle East -- hence the defense of Syrian national sovereignty against U.S. predations.

[willowtooth]

I think its important to point out that successful labor revolutions in the middle east a major source of our energy and trade, would create a major impact, imagine if every oil rig worker, shipyard, and railworker went on strike in the middle east for even a day

[ckaihatsu]

I think its important to point out that successful labor revolutions in the middle east a major source of our energy and trade, would create a major impact, imagine if every oil rig worker, shipyard, and railworker went on strike in the middle east for even a day

From post #86:


http://www.egyptindependent.com/news...against-abuses

Workers unite, rally against abuses

Author: Jano Charbel

A labor conference was held at the Journalists Syndicate on Thursday with the aim of detailing the condition of more than 10,000 workers at the Ceramica Cleopatra company, whose employer has confronted them with a lock-out, after police forces assaulted and detained a group of protesting workers in Suez City on Tuesday evening. Following the conference, the ceramic workers led a march through the streets of downtown Cairo.

Over 100 workers from Ceramica Cleopatra attended the conference, while tens of other struggling workers from the United Sugar Company, the Nile Textile Company and the Egyptian Petroleum Services Company (EPSCO) were also in attendance. Unionists, students, labor activists and lawyers also addressed the conference.

Ceramica Cleopatra’s workers have been subjected to a lock-out for over a week, while over 10,000 workers at two companies (located in 10th of Ramadan Industrial City and the Red Sea Town of Ain Sokhna) are threatened with mass unemployment if the company owner, ceramics tycoon Mohammed Abul Enein, moves ahead with his alleged plans to liquidate these companies.

The multi-millionaire Abul Enein was a former MP from Hosni Mubarak’s now-defunct National Democratic Party, and ex-chairman of the dissolved Parliament’s Industrial Committee. His company was the biggest producer of ceramic tiles and sanitary ware in Egypt.

This bigwig of the former ruling regime is still being investigated on charges of instigating armed attacks against protesters in Tahrir Square on 2 and 3 February, commonly known as the Battle of the Camel, which left 13 protesters dead and more than 1,000 injured.

Ceramica Cleopatra’s angry workers chanted against Abul Enein: “If you slipped away from the [trial of the Battle of the] Camel, you won’t be able to slip away from the workers.”

“Abul Enein claims that we [workers] are thugs and thieves for demanding our basic rights, yet he is behind the mobilization of thugs who attacked protesters in the square, and who have also attacked us,” said Amr Suleiman, a unionist from Ceramica Cleopatra’s Ain Sokhna branch.

Addressing the audience, Suleiman added, “He claims that we are harming the economy with our protests, yet he is the one harming and threatening the national economy through the liquidation of our companies.”

Abdallah Hussein, a worker from the 10th of Ramadan Company, commented, “Both of the companies have come to a standstill since last week. Abul Enein and his administration have stopped sending busses to transport us to work and back. We fear that we are not going to get paid this month, and we fear that he will shut down the factories for several more weeks, if not months.”

“We don’t know how we will feed ourselves and our families during the holy month of Ramadan,” Hussein added.

Cleopatra’s workers chanted, “There is no God but Allah, and Abul Enein is Allah’s enemy.” Others chanted slogans in support of Egypt’s new president: “There is no God but Allah, and President Morsy is Allah’s beloved.”

Fatma Ramadan, a labor activist and leading member of the Egyptian Federation of Independent Trade Unions, said, “Abul Enein was an influential figure within the old regime. We must make sure that the does not become a member of the new ruling regime. We must not allow him, or his likes, to continue stealing the rights of workers.”

Khaled Ali, a prominent labor lawyer and a former presidential candidate, addressed President Mohamed Morsy, saying, “Just like you met with businessmen to assess their needs and to protect their interests, so too must you meet with workers to protect their rights.”

“I call on President Morsy to avoid the manipulations of Egypt’s businessmen, and to avoid being controlled, used or influenced by corrupt businessmen,” Ali continued. “If such businessmen decide to shut down their factories and sack thousands of workers, then we must nationalize these factories.” This statement was met with thundering applause and chants from the workers in attendance.

Ali concluded by saying that workers can best protect their rights if they unite and stand in solidarity with each other. He recommended that workers visit the 23,000 striking workers at the Misr Spinning and Weaving Company in Mahalla City to express their solidarity with them during Ramadan, if their strike continues.

Workers at the conference chanted, “Sugar, ceramics, and textile workers are one hand.”

A striking worker from the Nile Textile Company, Mohamed Ibrahim, commented that he and his fellow workers express their solidarity with workers at Ceramica Cleopatra, Misr Spinning and Weaving, the United Sugar Company, EPSCO and all other struggling workers. Workers at the Nile Company have been striking for the past 16 days in demand of overdue bonuses, profit-sharing payments and overtime payments, among other demands.

"In his presidential address before Tahrir Square, President Morsy spoke of upholding the rights and dignity of Egypt’s workers, both at home and abroad,” Ibrahim said. “We are holding the president accountable for his promises to us.”

“Our rights and dignity should be above all other considerations. Yet our rights continue to be neglected and our dignity is being trampled on. This is evident as we have seen with the case of Ceramica Cleopatra’s workers who were brutally assaulted by police forces in Suez,” he continued.

More than two weeks after having met with Morsy and his staff at the presidential palace in hopes of resolving their grievances, hundreds of protesting workers from the Ain Sokhna branch of Ceramica Cleopatra embarked on a protest march to the Suez Governorate headquarters on Tuesday, 17 July.

Authorities and some media reports accused Ceramica Cleopatra’s workers of attempting to storm and occupy the governorate building, while other reports claimed that the disgruntled workers attempted to burn it down.

After crossing a barbed-wire fence workers began to throw rocks, and were met with volleys of teargas canisters and beatings administered by security forces. At least two workers were injured at the hands of the police, and five were detained for several hours before being released.

Ahmed Salah, a conservative worker with a long beard, shaved mustache and a bandaged head, addressed a group of journalists, saying, “Yes, we crossed the barbed-wire fence. Yet there were a few instigators, not workers, among us who began throwing rocks at the Central Security Forces.” Salah said he was clubbed and beaten in the head with the butt of a rifle, and also stabbed in the back with knives some police officers had in their possession.

Tareq Ali, another bearded worker who was assaulted, unbuttoned his shirt to reveal numerous shallow cuts on his chest. “We were cursed, slapped, knifed, and beaten with clubs, tree branches, metal pipes, rifle butts, fists and boots,” he said, adding that both he and Salah were singled out for physical and verbal abuse because they are Islamists.

“Security forces in Egypt haven’t changed since the revolution. They remain as brutal and abusive as they were before,” Ali added. “We were not seeking trouble or clashes at the governorate, we were only seeking our rights and a resolution to our grievances.”

EPSCO workers claimed that they had been subjected to similar assaults on Wednesday, 18 July, but at the hands of company security personnel, not police forces.

EPSCO worker Wael Ibrahim showed a video he had captured on his cell phone. The video shows security personnel beating protesting workers with clubs and belts outside the petroleum company’s branch in the Maadi district of Cairo.

“We were cursed and mercilessly beaten by company security for demanding improved wages and working conditions. We cannot speak of social justice for workers and employees under these oppressive circumstances.”

Following the conference, over 100 workers — primarily from Ceramica Cleopatra — took to the streets of downtown Cairo where they marched and chanted slogans against Abul Enein. They demanded the re-opening of their companies and that production resume. “Revolution, revolution until victory; revolution against the thieves of Egypt,” they chanted.

A number of these workers beat a large photo of Abul Enein with their shoes. Others chanted, “Close down factories or burn them down; the workers’ voice is rising.”

Publishing Date: Thu, 19/07/2012 - 21:15
Source URL (retrieved on 19/04/2017 - 16:02): http://www.egyptindependent.com/node/997316