The Syrian "Revolution": A Farce from Beginning to End
- Thread starter ExposingAmericanLies
- Start date
Well, you're entitled to your opinion...but ...the US has been incredibly prudent throughout this crisis. (IMHO)
You know, this is a strange thing. The USSR is done. Mind you, the KGB is said to have rolled over into the new intel organisation effortlessly, sure, but the succession of international socialist outlook is surely done like dinner. Yet we still see them as the mythical binary boogeyman, don't we? Shortly after the Wall came down, I was in the armoured corps, driving an excuse for a tank. And even then - even after - I'm ashamed to say that I hated those fuckers. The thought of some happy little Ivan bulldozing my shitty little Cougar in northern Norway on his way to Oslo was enough to set my teeth on edge. (Well, everyone hates a conqueror. Sorry, Russians.)
But while they're certainly another power who is not us, they certainly aren't the diabolical, dialectical enemies of the Cold War. Yes, Russia is a little less than ethical in a variety of ways - but so is our military-espionage-industrial multicomplex, and to all appearances it is actually far, far worse. Yet we still persist, myself included sometimes, in this kneejerk reaction to the word "Russian". Just look at some of the comments of one of the posters above: i.e. "comrade". When did we start losing our perspective and turning into Cold War armchair generals again? I don't know if the Russians are doing the right thing or not, but I certainly don't think we're in a position to assume we are by default. Or else I should never have heard of Iraq, or Chile, or Shah-period Iran.
I don't know. This could all be rectified by having a decent UN report come back. Unfortunately, it will be fucked up in some way that will raise more questions.
Bells
Staff member
American Intelligence didn't need to determine that they have it. Assad's Government officials confirmed they had it when they threatened to use it on any foreign force that intervened in their civil war back in February 2012:
Syrian officials warned Monday that they would deploy chemical weapons against any foreign intervention, a threat that appeared intended to ward off an attack by Western nations while also offering what officials in Washington called the most “direct confirmation” ever that Syria possesses a stockpile of unconventional armaments.
The warning came out of Damascus, veiled behind an assurance that the Syrian leadership would never use such weapons against its own citizens, describing chemical arms as outside the bounds of the kind of guerrilla warfare being fought internally.
“Any stock of W.M.D. or unconventional weapons that the Syrian Army possesses will never, never be used against the Syrian people or civilians during this crisis, under any circumstances,” a Foreign Ministry spokesman, Jihad Makdissi, said at a news conference shown live on Syrian state television, using the initials for weapons of mass destruction. “These weapons are made to be used strictly and only in the event of external aggression against the Syrian Arab Republic.”
Mr. Makdissi said that any such weapons were carefully monitored by the Syrian Army, and that ultimately their use would be decided by generals.
The warning came out of Damascus, veiled behind an assurance that the Syrian leadership would never use such weapons against its own citizens, describing chemical arms as outside the bounds of the kind of guerrilla warfare being fought internally.
“Any stock of W.M.D. or unconventional weapons that the Syrian Army possesses will never, never be used against the Syrian people or civilians during this crisis, under any circumstances,” a Foreign Ministry spokesman, Jihad Makdissi, said at a news conference shown live on Syrian state television, using the initials for weapons of mass destruction. “These weapons are made to be used strictly and only in the event of external aggression against the Syrian Arab Republic.”
Mr. Makdissi said that any such weapons were carefully monitored by the Syrian Army, and that ultimately their use would be decided by generals.
And we pretty much just got confirmation that he still has them, because the Russians have taken up Kerry's rhetorical suggestion that he hand them over to the UN to be destroyed, and the Syrians seem to be welcoming said suggestion.
Mr Obama's remarks came after Russia asked Syria to put its chemical weapons stockpiles under international control and then have them destroyed, in an attempt to avoid US military strikes.
The idea appeared to have stemmed from an inadvertent suggestion by US Secretary of State John Kerry.
When asked at a news conference whether there was anything Syrian President Bashar al-Assad could do to avoid a military strike, Mr Kerry replied that he could hand over his entire stockpile of chemical weapons within the next week.
Although US officials subsequently said Mr Kerry had made a "rhetorical argument" rather than a serious officer, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov later said he presented the proposal during talks with his Syrian counterpart, Walid Muallem.
Mr Lavrov revealed that he had urged Mr Muallem to "not only agree on placing chemical weapons storage sites under international control, but also on their subsequent destruction".
He said he had also told Mr Muallem that Syria should then fully join the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Mr Muallem told reporters through an interpreter that Syria welcomed the initiative, and he praised Russia for "attempting to prevent American aggression against our people".
The idea appeared to have stemmed from an inadvertent suggestion by US Secretary of State John Kerry.
When asked at a news conference whether there was anything Syrian President Bashar al-Assad could do to avoid a military strike, Mr Kerry replied that he could hand over his entire stockpile of chemical weapons within the next week.
Although US officials subsequently said Mr Kerry had made a "rhetorical argument" rather than a serious officer, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov later said he presented the proposal during talks with his Syrian counterpart, Walid Muallem.
Mr Lavrov revealed that he had urged Mr Muallem to "not only agree on placing chemical weapons storage sites under international control, but also on their subsequent destruction".
He said he had also told Mr Muallem that Syria should then fully join the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Mr Muallem told reporters through an interpreter that Syria welcomed the initiative, and he praised Russia for "attempting to prevent American aggression against our people".
So care to try again?
Well, I wish I could respond, but it strikes me as a little unsafe. People getting blasted all over the place for stuff. Sorry.
I totally understand you)
Bogey, Boogey, Booger
Oh, I know. It's such a controversial and complicated question.
Very well. I understand that some people are frightened by the prospect of having to be honest.
Depends on who you're talking about. Paranoid, ill-educated people with no grasp of basic history? Yeah, some of them do. See Mitt Romney, for instance.
As for others, I don't know. But most people I know, regardless of their political label, don't regard Russia in such a binary context.
While some American sentiments against Russia are increasing, it's not necessarily an old-school, cold war dualism. Rather, it's fairly issue-specific.
That Vladimir Putin is an asshole is what it is. That he is an embarrassment to Russia is what it is. But for those of us who actually remember the Cold War? You know, those of us who actually paid attention to the realities of history? No, this isn't anything like it. He's just a half-witted brute, and when I think of Americans, for instance, who give him credibility? Well, they're not exactly reliable intellects.
So, in the end—
—if you mean Americans, well, you're mostly wrong—at least, outside that strange cultural notion of "middle America", since it's never clear what that bloc of society actually believes, and their political party loathed Putin up until recently when he started cracking down on women, gays, free speech, and human rights.
The old binary boogeyman was a commie bear.
These days, it's an angrily-repressed closeteer.
Big difference.
GeoffP said:
Oh, I know. It's such a controversial and complicated question.
Very well. I understand that some people are frightened by the prospect of having to be honest.
Depends on who you're talking about. Paranoid, ill-educated people with no grasp of basic history? Yeah, some of them do. See Mitt Romney, for instance.
As for others, I don't know. But most people I know, regardless of their political label, don't regard Russia in such a binary context.
While some American sentiments against Russia are increasing, it's not necessarily an old-school, cold war dualism. Rather, it's fairly issue-specific.
That Vladimir Putin is an asshole is what it is. That he is an embarrassment to Russia is what it is. But for those of us who actually remember the Cold War? You know, those of us who actually paid attention to the realities of history? No, this isn't anything like it. He's just a half-witted brute, and when I think of Americans, for instance, who give him credibility? Well, they're not exactly reliable intellects.
So, in the end—
"Yet we still see them as the mythical binary boogeyman, don't we?"
—if you mean Americans, well, you're mostly wrong—at least, outside that strange cultural notion of "middle America", since it's never clear what that bloc of society actually believes, and their political party loathed Putin up until recently when he started cracking down on women, gays, free speech, and human rights.
The old binary boogeyman was a commie bear.
These days, it's an angrily-repressed closeteer.
Big difference.
Baiting much?
But you know the list goes on with many market openings, his involvement with Russia in WTC, at G8, at G20 meetings, at numerous times he has helped the country in crisis and heard the call of normal workers in villages and improved their lives.
I know, I know your goal is to have him your usual Seattle gay-Putin with evil schemes image, but that is not true. Putin will forever be known as a great president and I personally love the fact that Russia has been blessed to have such a great president.
Putin is a Denigration of Russa and Russians
Only insofar as the truth is bait.
Well, okay. Asshole isn't exactly objective. But, yes, he's an embarrassment to and denigration of Russia and Russians.
Yes, it's a fine trade-off, isn't it? Rumors of good works compared to the observable evil he is cultivating?
Tell me something: If you had a date with an American woman, and when she invited you back to her place for some intimacy you were bound, tortured sexually, and the video released to the internet identifying you as a rapist properly put in his place, and the government was encouraging this by making it illegal for anyone to complain, how would you feel?
Just, you know ... don't complain.
What is more important to you? Your money, or your human rights?
YourEyes said:
Only insofar as the truth is bait.
Well, okay. Asshole isn't exactly objective. But, yes, he's an embarrassment to and denigration of Russia and Russians.
Yes, it's a fine trade-off, isn't it? Rumors of good works compared to the observable evil he is cultivating?
Tell me something: If you had a date with an American woman, and when she invited you back to her place for some intimacy you were bound, tortured sexually, and the video released to the internet identifying you as a rapist properly put in his place, and the government was encouraging this by making it illegal for anyone to complain, how would you feel?
Just, you know ... don't complain.
What is more important to you? Your money, or your human rights?
Where have I heard this before? Ah yes . . .
08/26/2002, Dick Cheney - "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."
9/18/2002, Donald Rumsfeld - "We do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons. His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons -- including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas. ... His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons—including anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly smallpox."
10/7/2002, George W. Bush - "The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
11/15/2002, Donald Rumsfeld - "Five days or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last longer."
01/10/2003, Donald Rumsfeld - "... something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question.”
03/22/2003, General Tommy Franks -"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them."
Good thing we are just as sure this time.
It's really not. But since you as a moderator have threatened to ban him because you felt he could not prove a point, he (rightly) feels answering you is unsafe. Which is a good call on his part.
Mod Hat — Response
Mod Hat — Response
As you would like to discuss moderation, you're on:
Would you please explain to me how habitual libel of others is the same as clarifying his own words?
No, really, I'm quite interested in your answer.
Certainly, one might hope that he is more reluctant to libel people in the future, but I really don't see how libeling others is the same as clarifying his own statements about himself.
(My general advice to people who are unaware of a years-long history of misconduct at Sciforums ought to tread very, very carefully when expressing value judgments, especially when they are so stupid as to suggest that potential punishment for libel is a proper reason to feel unsafe clarifying what he's saying about himself.)
So, Bill, you're on. I would very much like your answer: How is repeated libel of others is the same as clarifying his own words?
No, really, don't be afraid of being off topic in your response. I'm asking you a direct question to which I would like an answer in order to better facilitate the moderation of this thread and website, now and in the future. So certainly take the time to think about it, and offer up your best response without fear that I will flag that response as off topic. Well, of course, as long as you're not answering by citing the price of mutton in India, or something irrelevant to the question.
Mod Hat — Response
As you would like to discuss moderation, you're on:
Billvon said:
Would you please explain to me how habitual libel of others is the same as clarifying his own words?
No, really, I'm quite interested in your answer.
Certainly, one might hope that he is more reluctant to libel people in the future, but I really don't see how libeling others is the same as clarifying his own statements about himself.
(My general advice to people who are unaware of a years-long history of misconduct at Sciforums ought to tread very, very carefully when expressing value judgments, especially when they are so stupid as to suggest that potential punishment for libel is a proper reason to feel unsafe clarifying what he's saying about himself.)
So, Bill, you're on. I would very much like your answer: How is repeated libel of others is the same as clarifying his own words?
No, really, don't be afraid of being off topic in your response. I'm asking you a direct question to which I would like an answer in order to better facilitate the moderation of this thread and website, now and in the future. So certainly take the time to think about it, and offer up your best response without fear that I will flag that response as off topic. Well, of course, as long as you're not answering by citing the price of mutton in India, or something irrelevant to the question.
Bells
Staff member
Perhaps you missed the part where his officials said they would use chemical weapons against any foreign forces that intervened? You know, they said they would use it? And then when the suggestion is made that they hand their WMD's over to the UN to be destroyed, that they seem welcoming to it.. Again, they are saying they have them and are considering it as an option.
When you say you are going to use something, it is usually generally accepted that you have the thing that you are threatening to use. Or are you suggesting that they (the Syrians) and the Russians are lying about what they have?
Reading.. Comprehension.. Not that hard.
Don't answer him, Geoff.
Watch out Billvon, he could strike out at anyone, the mood he's in.
Danger, Will Robinson! Moderator Malfunction. Danger!
Last edited:
Certainly US knew Saddam had chemical weapons. He killed a lot of Kurds with them, but that was "wrong" - I.e. he did not have US's OK, like using them against the Iranian soldiers in the Iran/Iraq war did.
Those Iranian soliders were constantly moving* so gassing them needed real time location data - which the US satellites supplied as US was still quite angry with Iran for holding many US citizens, even diplomats, for about a year. Here is photo of the famous handshake between Rumsfield and Saddam taken 20 December1983, where US agreed to help Saddam, who had long been supported by the US CIA as he keep Iraq free of terrorist who might do damage to US interests in the Middle East.
Note the date in the embedded text from NYT's article of when the Iranian soldiers were gassed - Once Saddam got real time accurate location data about were Iranian troops were concentrated, he soon used it (two days after getting real time data download terminal set up). With US real time US satellite targeting data supplied just after (or during?) Rumsfield's second visit to Saddam the gas attacks were successful and Saddam basically won the Iraq/Iran war, much to US's delight. I.e. the Iranian troops who had crossed the river in the long disputed boundary area, which served as the de-facto boundary, had captured a few producing oil wells, but with real time targeting data, Saddam cut off the invador's supply lines and they retreated back across the river into Iran.
Saddam made the same mistake that every CIA installed or supported dictator, except the Shaw of Iran, did. I.e. grew "too big for his britches" and bit the hand that feed him. In Saddam's case the mistake was very serious - he threatened to destroy the PetroDollar system by selling his oil for currency other than dollars. Saudia Arabia, one of the world's worst dictatorial regimes, especially for women to live under, was firmly supported by US and did the US's bidding. So first thing that happen after Saddam got out of line was the Saudi oil was pumped at more than the sustainable capacity (Their wells were damaged, and production levels, still had not recovered.**) That flood of oil drove the price down well below Saddam's cost of production - actually for a few weeks the price of oil was less than $10/ barrel! Saddam effectively said to CIA: "I'm sorry, I only sell oil for dollars." but the damage was done - he was no longer a dependable puppet for the CIA and had to be replaced.
In his old age, even when long out of power and very sick, the CIA leaned on Egypt to see that the Shaw of Iran got the very best of medial care in one of Egypt's military hospitals.
Moral of all this for CIA dictators to learn, is never get out of line. Your britches are not as big as the CIA's.
During the cold war, the CIA destroyed ALL of the developing democracies in South America and installed smarter dictators, none of whom got out of line. They started by killing Salvador Allende, the democratically elected president of Chile, who open declared himself to be a communist. These local dictators did not trust or like each other, so the "terrorists" who wanted return to democracy, and 50,000 died fighting for it, some times could get shelter by crossing the border, where if they keep quiet they could live - local dictator did not return them.
The CIA did not like that as many in South America did hate the US (Yankee go home, etc.) and would again vote for communists if given the change to vote. So CIA with its good computers and data base and spying agents, set up Operation Condor (I'll let you read about it at wiki as this post is long already but basically it kept tabs on where the "evil democracy lovers" were.) Fortunately, from the POV of South Americans wanting a return to democracy, the US got its hands full with the Vietnam War, and could not give as many, jeeps, tanks, water cannons, tear gas cartages etc. to their S.A. dictators so democracy slowing returned. It is interesting, and very well known in all of S.A. that via supported right wing locals, Allende was killed on 11 September - that CIA made 9/11 killed more than 10 times as many as the US suffered in its "9/11."
The exact number of those who died for democracy is not known, as many thousand were drugged in jail, loaded into US supplied helicopters, and dumped into the sea. They are called the "disappeared." Women freedom lovers were repeated raped in jail and allowed to live a few months after the baby was born, before being killed. The baby was given to childless couples who supported the dictators. Now several hundred middle age Chilians know they are not biologically related to the parents. Usually they lean this via need of a transfusion, which neither of their "parents" can give. There is even a DNA data base now, where parents of the "disappeared" can give samples of their DNA for those who want to learn who their real mother was.
* This also had the side effect of clearing mine fields, which amazingly to westerners, these "soon to be martyrs" very willing did even when there was no danger of being gassed.
** Under ground oil is in porous rocks. If it is removed more rapidly than it can flow in towards the well pipe from more distant parts of the oil deposit, then those rocks collapse and the max extraction rate from that well is greatly reduced. - More wells need to be drilled to get access to the oil that once flowed from the damaged well.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sarin is a fairly simple molecule. It doesn't store well, so is made fresh from a mixture of two other chemicals.
If Syria has chemical factories, then they could make the chemicals required from scratch within weeks.
If it was all destroyed, they could make new batches of them.
It requires continual and unlimited inspection to make sure they keep clean of it.
Saddam had no WMD, but he wouldn't allow free inspection.
I still have no idea why he did that.
Added later
Article about report released by the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism's (ICT) World Summit on Counter-Terrorism.
Syria's biggest chemical factory is at Al Safira, about 20 kilometers south of Aleppo, the report said, and contains the country's biggest stash of Sarin. This site was established in the 1980s with the help of Russia, and contains some of Syria's biggest military secrets.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/171724#.Ui8V59Kcfzk
That will be one of the primary targets, I am sure.
Possibly for inspectors.
If Syria has chemical factories, then they could make the chemicals required from scratch within weeks.
If it was all destroyed, they could make new batches of them.
It requires continual and unlimited inspection to make sure they keep clean of it.
Saddam had no WMD, but he wouldn't allow free inspection.
I still have no idea why he did that.
Added later
Article about report released by the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism's (ICT) World Summit on Counter-Terrorism.
Syria's biggest chemical factory is at Al Safira, about 20 kilometers south of Aleppo, the report said, and contains the country's biggest stash of Sarin. This site was established in the 1980s with the help of Russia, and contains some of Syria's biggest military secrets.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/171724#.Ui8V59Kcfzk
That will be one of the primary targets, I am sure.
Possibly for inspectors.
So does this constitute a raising of the bar that cannot be reached? Set the bar so high that no one can actually reach that goal? Require constant surveillance, and anytime the sites inspected are pronounced clean, just claim that that is PROOF that something is being hidden elsewhere.
Then they can look in the next place.
They would be independent inspectors.
They would need to be people that both sides trusted,
not to tell lies, and not to act as spies, and to act within their remit.
Perhaps Saddam thought the latter was impossible,
but that is paranoid, surely?
Is impeccability still to be found.
I think so.
They would be independent inspectors.
They would need to be people that both sides trusted,
not to tell lies, and not to act as spies, and to act within their remit.
Perhaps Saddam thought the latter was impossible,
but that is paranoid, surely?
Is impeccability still to be found.
I think so.
Last edited:
Giambattista, the whole point of establishing protocols for verification is to ensure that the international community is never put in the position of having to just accept the word of parties whose interests are in diametric opposition to their own. To achieve this requires protocols that guarantee completely unhindered access and therefore must necessarily be extraordinarily invasive. So that's where the bar is set. Nothing of real consequence can be achieved unless the Syrians unconditionally agree to this.