Syria's Torture Machine

BlaasForRafa

AlekSmart wrote: »

I think there may be some grounds for TonyEH and others to make a similar request in relation to sweeping generalizations about what the "Syrian People" want in relation to Al-Assad as their leader.

If Assad would allow free and fair elections we'd be able to find out what the Syrian people want....oh wait....

Tony EH

MysticalRain wrote: »

The Alawites make up Assad's powerbase in Syria and the Sunnis see them as heretics...

There have also been reports of Alawi's among the rebels forces too. There are also reports of some Christians in their ranks as well, even though much of the Christian population are fearful of Assad going.

This isn't a simple question of monolithic sides.

Tony EH

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

If Assad would allow free and fair elections we'd be able to find out what the Syrian people want....oh wait....

And what? You honestly think that the groups who want to grab power in Syria from Assad have "free and fair elections" at the heart of their agenda?

How quaint.

Again, I have to point out that this rebellion isn't about "democracy" trumping "dictatorship". This kind of 'Star Wars' fantasy just isn't present.

It's an attempt at a power grab.

MysticalRain

Tony EH wrote: »

There have also been reports of Alawi's among the rebels forces too. There are also reports of some Christians in their ranks as well, even though much of the Christian population are fearful of Assad going.

This isn't a simple question of monolithic sides.

It pretty much is if you consider exactly who is in charge in Syria. It's like the Sunnis Vs Shia in Iraq, except the Alawites make up 10% of the population, not 30% like in Iraq. I don't doubt there are some Alawites among the rebels. But that doesn't change the fact that the Alawites make up the vast majority of the Syrian army officer core, and it's most loyal soldiers. Not to mention most of Assads cronies in government.

The Christians will likely adopt their usual survival strategy by backing the strongest horse in the race for power. The difficulty for the Christians lies in choosing when to switch sides. If they do it too soon, the might end up getting hammered by Assad's forces. If they do it too late, the Sunnis may not be in a very forgiving mood if they gain power.

 

Tony EH

MysticalRain wrote: »

But I do know that indiscriminately shelling innocent civilians is very wrong, and I support the right of the Syrian people to fight back against it, and hopefully overthrow the evil Assad regime. Only the far left will mourn Assad's passing when himself and his cronies finally get what they deserve.

You see, it's this type of nonsense that only fools without critical thought want to buy into.

The insurgents have garrisoned themselves in Homs. The national security forces are shelling the areas that they they are in, or where their intel tells them they are.

THIS IS A STANDARD MILTARY TACTIC, NO MATTER WHO THE ARMY IS.

The US have been bombing and shelling villages, towns and cities all across the ME for the last decade.

In any attempt to extricate an enemy from an urban area by shelling, there will be civilian casualties...ALL THE TIME!

If the FSA etc are so worried about civilian death, then why don't they evacate Homs and come out into the open to fight?

I object wholeheartedly to this childish misrepresentation of the situation in Syria at the moment.

Tony EH

MysticalRain wrote: »

But that doesn't change the fact that the Alawites make up the vast majority of the Syrian army officer core, and it's most loyal soldiers. Not to mention most of Assads cronies in government.

I never said that they didn't.

MysticalRain

Tony EH wrote: »

You see, it's this type of nonsense that only fools without critical thought want to buy into.

The insurgents have garrisoned themselves in Homs. The national security forces are shelling the areas that they they are in, or where their intel tells them they are.

THIS IS A STANDARD MILTARY TACTIC, NO MATTER WHO THE ARMY IS.

The US have been bombing and shelling villages, towns and cities all across the ME for the last decade.

In any attempt to extricate an enemy from an urban area by shelling, there will be civilian casualties...ALL THE TIME!

If the FSA etc are so worried about civilian death, then why don't they evacate Homs and come out into the open to fight?

I object wholeheartedly to this childish misrepresentation of the situation in Syria at the moment.

Well no sh1t. The British army should have levelled Derry to the ground in the 1970's going by that logic. Or the Israelis should have leveled Gaza too while they were at it.

I don't care for the "US did x, y, and z in the ME" whataboutery. Indiscriminate shelling of civilians is a crime against humanity whoever is doing it. I am quite sick and tired hearing a myriad of excuses for the behavior of certain dictators here. I, for one, hope the Syrians get the freedom they deserve, and I certainly won't apologies for that because it goes against some people's political views.

MysticalRain

Oh, and the Assad regime was gunning down civilians in their own streets long before the rebels ever began taking up arms and sheltering in Homs.

Of course I'm sure some people will claim none of that actually happened and it was all an exaggeration by the evil western media industrial complex.

Tony EH

MysticalRain wrote: »

Well no sh1t. The British army should have levelled Derry to the ground in the 1970's going by that logic. Or the Israelis should have leveled Gaza too while they were at it.

I don't care for the "US did x, y, and z in the ME" whataboutery. Indiscriminate shelling of civilians is a crime against humanity whoever is doing it. I am quite sick and tired hearing a myriad of excuses for the behavior of certain dictators here. I, for one, hope the Syrians get the freedom they deserve, and I certainly won't apologies for that because it goes against some people's political views.

Nobody said "should", it remains, however, a standard military tactic. Used by armies all over the world. Syria's armed forces are no exception.

What I object to is the silly attempt by some to class this as simply shelling civilians for the laugh, or for some "Darth Vader" like motive.

It's ridiculous.

I also don't see anyone making excuses for dictators or anyone else anywhere in this debate.

And, as I said before, if the shoe was the other foot and Assad's forces were garrisoned in Homs and being shelled by the insurgent forces, I have no doubt whatsoever that the same bleating sheep prattling on about shelling civvies would be bleating about them using "human shields".

In war, civilains die due to actions by all sides. It isn't good, it isn't acceptable...but it remains a fact.

What is objectionable is the laughable attempt to portray one side in a conflict (any conflict) as angelic and the other as evil incarnate.

BlaasForRafa

Tony EH wrote: »

And what? You honestly think that the groups who want to grab power in Syria from Assad have "free and fair elections" at the heart of their agenda?

How quaint.

Again, I have to point out that this rebellion isn't about "democracy" trumping "dictatorship". This kind of 'Star Wars' fantasy just isn't present.

It's an attempt at a power grab.

Its amazing the lengths some people will to to defend brutal dictatorships no matter what.

And all this claptrap about some shadowy group trying to "grab power", are you trotting out that old "well assad may be bad but at least he's the bad that we're familiar with" line?

Unlike you I don't have a crystal ball, I can't say whether there will be free and fair elections post-Assad but we know for sure that there won't be any while he's there.

MysticalRain

Tony EH wrote: »

Nobody said "should", it remains, however, a standard military tactic. Used by armies all over the world. Syria's armed forces are no exception.

What I object to is the silly attempt by some to class this as simply shelling civilians for the laugh, or for some "Darth Vader" like motive.

It's ridiculous.

I also don't see anyone making excuses for dictators or anyone else anywhere in this debate..

Oh please, I see nothing but excuses from everything you have posted here. Not to mention all kinds of mental gymnastics justifying, or at the very least, trivializing murder.

Massacring innocent civilians might be a standard tactic for certain armies. But it is a crime against humanity, and as such, is punishable under the Geneva Convention. I hate to be the one to spell this out to you: but it most certainly is evil. You can trivialize and deflect the blame all you want with analogies to Darth Vader, but that is the truth of the matter. Unless the free Syrian forces begin engaging in a similar slaughter, then it is Assad who will remain the main aggressor in this situation.


I haven’t said anywhere to my knowledge that the free Syrian forces are without blemish. But they do have a right, in my book, to overthrow an evil regime, and establish their own government in it’s place. Time will tell if that will be a fully fledged democracy. But that doesn’t mean they don’t have a right to self determination.

I can remember a time when most people on the left would have supported the rights of people to overthrow their oppressors, and establish a democratic form of government. I support the rights of the Syrians to liberate themselves for the same reasons I support the Palestinians to rid themselves of their persecutors. If it was the Israelis shelling Gaza, everybody would be up in arms over it. When someone like Assad murders civillians, the attitude is "sh1t happens".

And, as I said before, if the shoe was the other foot and Assad's forces were garrisoned in Homs and being shelled by the insurgent forces, I have no doubt whatsoever that the same bleating sheep prattling on about shelling civvies would be bleating about them using "human shields"

Well they aren’t. So all you have here is your own conjecture. Not facts.

Tony EH

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Its amazing the lengths some people will to to defend brutal dictatorships no matter what.

And all this claptrap about some shadowy group trying to "grab power", are you trotting out that old "well assad may be bad but at least he's the bad that we're familiar with" line?

Unlike you I don't have a crystal ball, I can't say whether there will be free and fair elections post-Assad but we know for sure that there won't be any while he's there.

Where have I defended any dictatorship?

Assad's form of government is abhorrent to my way of thinking. I don't believe any power base should have total control for an indefinite amount of time.

But, likewise, so is the childish and frankly stupid idea that anyone opposing such a regime are automatically on the side of the angels.

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

If you can't post in a civil manner, I suggest you quit while you are ahead.

Tony EH

MysticalRain wrote: »

Oh please, I see nothing but excuses from everything you have posted here. Not to mention all kinds of mental gymnastics justifying, or at the very least, trivializing murder.

Rubbish.

MysticalRain wrote: »

Massacring innocent civilians might be a standard tactic for certain armies. But it is a crime against humanity, and as such, is punishable under the Geneva Convention.

Unfortunately, it's only a "crime", or "evil" when certain armies do it. A fantastic double standard.

Perhaps America should face Geneva Convention protocols for their indiscriminate shelling of Fallujah in 2004? Or the IDF for their indiscriminate shelling of various towns and cities?

Oh, but they won't, will they.

When such fancy notions and standards are applied across the board, then more people will be willing to buy into them. It's a great principle and one that deserves to be enforced.

However, at present, the application goes only one way and as such, it's worthless.

Certain quarters in the UN (US) are also calling for the heads of government members, if they stand down (somewhat prematurely IMO). However, they haven't made the same demand for members of the insurgency.

Another appalling double standard, as if the killing has only gone one way.

Frankly, it's sickening to hear the likes of Hilary Clinton waffling on with their disingenuous claptrap.

MysticalRain wrote: »

I haven’t said anywhere to my knowledge that the free Syrian forces are without blemish. But they do have a right, in my book, to overthrow an evil regime, and establish their own government in it’s place.

Sure they do.

But, the flip side to that is that the ruling power also has the right to defend itself from that attempt to seize power.

It's called war. You should look it up.

MysticalRain wrote: »

I can remember a time when most people on the left would have supported the rights of people to overthrow their oppressors, and establish a democratic form of government. I support the rights of the Syrians to liberate themselves for the same reasons I support the Palestinians to rid themselves of their persecutors. If it was the Israelis shelling Gaza, everybody would be up in arms over it...

Well, it may have something to do with the nature of the revolt and the groups behind it.

Again, I repeat...this isn't a popular uprising of "the people" against a ruling power. The majority of the people, the majority of the NATION aren't even involved. It isn't a case, no matter how it is attempted to be framed, of a national revolution.

It's an EXTREMELY TINY, disjointed minority involved in trying to overthrow Assad and his government and it's been localised to a very small area of the country.

The FSA and their buddies DON'T speak for the Syrians in general.

Perhaps the despatch of Kofi Annan to the region may help broker some sort of ceasefire or at least a halt to the conflict.

AlekSmart

Tony EH wrote: »

Frankly, it's sickening to hear the likes of Hilary Clinton waffling on with their disingenuous claptrap.

.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20123348-503544.html

I'd certainly agree with any suggestion of keeping this dreadful woman away from the scene.....

The Irin Lady,she sure ain't.

MysticalRain

I couldn't give too sh1ts about the "double standards" whataboutery. A crime against humanity is crime against humanity whoever carries it out. I would be happy to see both George Bush and Assad tried in the Hague.

Sure they do.

But, the flip side to that is that the ruling power also has the right to defend itself from that attempt to seize power.

Excuses, excuses...

It's called war. You should look it up.

No sh1t. That's the same argument the Israelis use when they hammer the Palestininians.

Well, it may have something to do with the nature of the revolt and the groups behind it.

Again, I repeat...this isn't a popular uprising of "the people" against a ruling power. The majority of the people, the majority of the NATION aren't even involved. It isn't a case, no matter how it is attempted to be framed, of a national revolution.

It's an EXTREMELY TINY, disjointed minority involved in trying to overthrow Assad and his government and it's been localised to a very small area of the country.

The FSA and their buddies DON'T speak for the Syrians in general.

Perhaps the despatch of Kofi Annan to the region may help broker some sort of ceasefire or at least a halt to the conflict.

With all due respect, you are not posting from Syria. So you can't claim know that the opposition movement is "EXTREMELY TINY" and has no support, despite evidence to the contrary. You are after all the one who confused Sunnis with Alwaites, so can't claim to be that much of an expert on whats' going on in Syria.

And yes, only a minority of people are involved in the uprising. That is always the case with rebellions however legitimate they are. We would still be living under British rule here if you applied that logic to Ireland during the war of Independence.

The basic truth here is that among certain section of the left, some freedom movements are more equal than others, and if there is so much as a hint of US or Western support, they will oppose a movement like this for their own partisan reasons. It's pathetic and every bit as hypocritical as anything the right does.

Sunnyisland

MysticalRain wrote: »

The basic truth here is that among certain section of the left, some freedom movements are more equal than others, and if there is so much as a hint of US or Western support, they will oppose a movement like this for their own partisan reasons. It's pathetic and every bit as hypocritical as anything the right does.

Plus 1

davoxx

MysticalRain wrote: »

And yes, only a minority of people are involved in the uprising. That is always the case with rebellions however legitimate they are. We would still be living under British rule here if you applied that logic to Ireland during the war of Independence.

that's not true and you know it. rebellions are not always a small minority, they can the majority as well.

and the legitimacy is directly related to the relative size of the rebellion.

by your broken logic, any small group could have a 'legitimate' uprising with the help of helpful external countries ...

MysticalRain wrote: »

The basic truth here is that among certain section of the left, some freedom movements are more equal than others, and if there is so much as a hint of US or Western support, they will oppose a movement like this for their own partisan reasons. It's pathetic and every bit as hypocritical as anything the right does.

no, i think you'll find any movement desired by the people (majority) is worthy, and anything backed by a untrustworthy country will and should raise alarm bells.

remember vietnam? that was backed by the usa, but instead of freedom, which was clearly legitimate, usa bombed and massacred civilians ... funny how those among a special area of the right forget history when convenient to them.

the simple and correct answer is let them solve their own problems by themselves.
if they ask for help, help them, if genocide is happening, jump in with an un resolution, otherwise stay out of it and fix your own countries issues.

Tony EH

MysticalRain wrote: »

I couldn't give too sh1ts about the "double standards" whataboutery. A crime against humanity is crime against humanity whoever carries it out. I would be happy to see both George Bush and Assad tried in the Hague.

It doesn't matter a jot what you don't give "too sh1ts" about. The point still stands. Until such high and noble standards are applied across the board and not just in one direction, then only a mockery will made.

If one side has carte blanche on a given item, it gives reason for the other side to act in the same manner.

A level playing field should be cast first before any application of law.

MysticalRain wrote: »

Excuses, excuses...

It's not an excuse, it's a fact and something you need to wake up to or you'll just end up wearing a clown suit.

Just because it doesn't suit your comfort zone, doesn't make it any less of a fact.

If a side choses to take up arms against a ruling power in an attempt to wrestle power from that entity, than that entity will strike back.

MysticalRain wrote: »

With all due respect, you are not posting from Syria. So you can't claim know that the opposition movement is "EXTREMELY TINY" and has no support, despite evidence to the contrary. You are after all the one who confused Sunnis with Alwaites, so can't claim to be that much of an expert on whats' going on in Syria.

Of course it's a TINY minority of the nations population, otherwise it wouldn't be so confined. You can choose ignore that, if you wish, but it doesn't strengthen your already weak argument. This revolt is not that widespread. If it was, Assad's government would have gone by now. That doesn't mean that it won't grow, of course, in the future. But, for the time being, it's remains a small proportion.

Also, I DID NOT CONFUSE THE SUNNI'S WITH THE ALAWITES AT ALL. I SAID THAT THERE ARE ALAWITES AMONG THE REBEL FORCES.

You perhaps should read the post carefully before deciding to respond. It's helpful.

MysticalRain wrote: »

And yes, only a minority of people are involved in the uprising. That is always the case with rebellions however legitimate they are.

Not true.

MysticalRain wrote: »

The basic truth here is that among certain section of the left, some freedom movements are more equal than others, and if there is so much as a hint of US or Western support, they will oppose a movement like this for their own partisan reasons.

This happens across the political spectrum, not just on the left. There are right wingers and conservatives, too, who both support and oppose the insurgents in Syria.

Your point is neither here nor there.

But, you know what...some revolts are not worth supporting.

gurramok

Tony EH wrote: »

It's an EXTREMELY TINY, disjointed minority involved in trying to overthrow Assad and his government and it's been localised to a very small area of the country.

The FSA and their buddies DON'T speak for the Syrians in general

How do you know?

davoxx

gurramok wrote: »

How do you know?

i'd imagine it is based on the coverage of this event in the news ...

why do you think otherwise?

gurramok

davoxx wrote: »

i'd imagine it is based on the coverage of this event in the news ...

why do you think otherwise?

Which news? I've seen news of protests in the last year consisting of millions of people.

davoxx

gurramok wrote: »

Which news? I've seen news of protests in the last year consisting of millions of people.

and that must mean that they wanted to overthrow the government, last year? how did that work out for the greeks?

i haven't seen any millions of people this year protesting for regime change, i did see (on bbc?) some people protesting with a slide over picture of those two poor journalists who got killed.

it is all a bit iffy the lack of fair and balanced reporting, but then again anything to drag attention away from domestic issues right?

gurramok

davoxx wrote: »

and that must mean that they wanted to overthrow the government, last year? how did that work out for the greeks?

i haven't seen any millions of people this year protesting for regime change, i did see (on bbc?) some people protesting with a slide over picture of those two poor journalists who got killed.

it is all a bit iffy the lack of fair and balanced reporting, but then again anything to drag attention away from domestic issues right?

There have been millions protesting in each major town and city over the last year in nearly every part of Syria.

You cannot overthrow a govt who will massacre you at unarmed peaceful protests.

Tony EH

gurramok wrote: »

Which news? I've seen news of protests in the last year consisting of millions of people.

Millions?

Don't be absurd.

Thousands perhaps.

"Millions" is stretching it.

The highest I heard of was 1.2 million in July, or so, made up of two large groups and that figure came from the protestor side, so there may have been a bit of upping going on. It's certainly significant, but it's not indication that the majority of the country or even the majority of the protestors wanted a civil war on their doorstep, or that they wanted the FSA and their pals to start a shooting war in their name.


However, the insurgents that have taken up arms against the government are the "tiny minority", I am talking about

gurramok

Tony EH wrote: »

Millions?

Don't be absurd.

Thousands perhaps.

"Millions" is stretching it.

Millions across the country. There was one single protest back in July in Hama that attracted 450,000 people where travel to and from the city was severely restricted. Thats just one place, every town and city has attracted hundreds of thousands at each demo, do the figures and it adds to millions. There would be more attending if they were not shot at and murdered. That speaks volumes over simply 'thousands'.

Tony EH

It's still no indication that the majority of Syria's citizens want a shooting war to topple Assad, or that they are looking to the US on their doorstep offering their "humanitarian aid".

The peaceful protestors are a very different animal to the FSA led war on the government and they are certainly not speaking for 23 million Syrians, otherwise, as has been said before, the rebellion would be far more widespread and in all likelyhood Assad would have been gone by now.

gurramok

"FSA led war on the govt", where did you spring that one from?

The peaceful demonstrators have been murdered by Assad's forces for the past year. Some of them have had enough and have taken up arms, their brothers in the security forces have defected to their side to help defend them.

The rebellion is far more widespread, its actually spreading day by day as more people get confidence to speak out without getting shot at. Just look at the amount of towns and cities all over the country where the trouble is. Coincidently, its only the majority Alawite areas along with some Sunni middle class strongholds where there has been no rebellion. The latter is suffering right now financially and will join the rebellion just like in Libya where money talks on which side to be on.

Jaafa

gurramok wrote: »

"FSA led war on the govt", where did you spring that one from?

The peaceful demonstrators have been murdered by Assad's forces for the past year. Some of them have had enough and have taken up arms, their brothers in the security forces have defected to their side to help defend them.

The rebellion is far more widespread, its actually spreading day by day as more people get confidence to speak out without getting shot at. Just look at the amount of towns and cities all over the country where the trouble is. Coincidently, its only the majority Alawite areas along with some Sunni middle class strongholds where there has been no rebellion. The latter is suffering right now financially and will join the rebellion just like in Libya where money talks on which side to be on.

The protests were hijacked from very early on. I don't know who shot first (probably the government forces in fairness) but the opposites quickly took up arms aswell. In about may, perhaps a little before, the weapons started spilling across the boarder from Lebanon. The US itself admits that al qaeda has infiltrated the SNC and FSA, and we have seen the reports of hundreds of ex-libyan and Iraqi fighters crossing the boarder to fight. Google any of the above and you'll find it.

However if you would like a specific recent example of how the FSA are nothing more than insurgents, then this is good article showing how easily one can be fooled by the media in regards to Syria.
http://english.al-akhbar.com/blogs/sandbox/high-tech-trickery-homs

US State Department satellite images of the embattled city were posted on Facebook last Friday by US Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford, who complains: “A terrible and tragic development in Syria is the use of heavy weaponry by the Assad regime against residential neighborhoods.”

The “satellite photos,” says Ford, “have captured both the carnage and those causing it -- the artillery is clearly there, it is clearly bombing entire neighborhoods…We are intent on exposing the regime's brutal tactics for the world to see.”.........But within 24 hours, the blog Moon of Alabama had taken a hammer to the ambassador’s claims. A detailed examination of satellite imagery by the bloggers revealed numerous discrepancies in Washington’s allegations. Mainly, their investigations point to the fact that Ford’s satellite images were “of guns training within military barracks or well known training areas and not in active deployment.”

The US envoy’s questionable claims don’t stop at satellite images, however. In his Facebook post, Ford insists: “There is no evidence that the opposition -- even those opposition members who have defected from the military -- has access to or has employed such heavy weapons. “ By this, he means the “artillery” used “to pound civilian apartment buildings and homes from a distance.”

Now a broadcast by Johnathan king on CNN, reporting on what he claimed was bombing of Baba Amir, an anti-reigme neighborhood, however:

But all three satellite images shown by King are in al-Zahra neighborhood, a pro-regime area consisting mainly of Alawis, who belong to the same Muslim minority sect as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad........That is a stunning revelation. Pro-regime civilians in Homs and other Syrian areas have complained of attacks, kidnappings and killings by armed opposition groups for months now, with little attention received by foreign media.

They go through the pictures in the article so you can see the lies for yourself, please do read through it all carefully, all the proof is layed out in front of you.

AlekSmart

gurramok wrote: »

Coincidently, its only the majority Alawite areas along with some Sunni middle class strongholds where there has been no rebellion. The latter is suffering right now financially and will join the rebellion just like in Libya where money talks on which side to be on.

Probably the most accurate summation of the entire policy vacuum I've seen.

The popularity of the popular rebellion against Col Gadaffi's regime was somewhat questionable until Mr Obama set about sequestering Libyan Government financial assets.

It is only when wages,salaries and social payments actually cease that the "silent majorities" tend to find themselves forced into taking the side of those offering the means to feed one's family.....never was the "Kings Shilling" a more relevant term.