Geoff > Status Update

Manny wrote: "Can you post a link to the reports you refer to?
"

Here's the MIT study: https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/p...

The UN report was careful not to call out the responsible parties but there findings about sarin rockets matched those of MIT. Based on the report people drew inferences that the Assad regime was responsible, though there were also questions raised about the integrity of the UN report:

http://21stcenturywire.com/wp-content...

People have become entrenched in their views. It is easy to lay the blame on Assad and exonerate the rebels because this fits our classical understanding of revolution and resistance. Any suggestion that the so-called rebels might have done it raises doubts and disbelief among people than a reasoned debate. The discussion we're having on this comment thread would be impossible elsewhere on the web.

I think the whole case against Assad blows away as soon as it is shown that the rockets could not have come from Assad's forces. Of course. the detractors will come up with more speculation to discredit it. Government forces have a large footprint and I think it is fair to say that it's well nigh impossible to hide an attack of this nature and magnitude when it comes from the regime.

Seymour Hersh came up with a good investigative piece. He says Obama would have responded had there been reasonable grounds to believe it was Assad. Obama and allies reacted with bluster when the news broke but it took three days for the Americans to determine that it wasn't Assad. Hence the backtracking on 'red lines.' Conceding that it might be the rebels would have meant the destruction of American position, so the matter was buried and the impression cultivated that it was Assad.

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour...

David wrote, quoting Kunkel,: "...One US phone call could probably end the starvation of Yemen..."

Alright, I'm getting on the phone. Cross your fingers that it works!

Zadignose wrote: "David wrote, quoting Kunkel,: "...One US phone call could probably end the starvation of Yemen..."

Alright, I'm getting on the phone. Cross your fingers that it works!"

(US public opinion is important, but what's decisive is the US government/security state. If it wasn't clear, what Kunkel is saying is that there could be a non-violent, diplomatic way for our government to end the catastrophe in Yemen, whereas no comparable solution exists for Syria.)

And, to be extra clear, it's not just that our government isn't stopping the crisis in Yemen; it's that it's actively facilitating it.

Regarding the M.I.T. study, there's not much in it regarding how they drew conclusions about the type of rocket used.

Questions that immediately come up:

-Why are they assuming a 122mm GRAD rocket, and assuming an "improvised" device, rather than the previously reported 140mm BM-14?

-Why are their calculations so much at variance with the range estimates given for actual 122mm GRAD rockets, for instance here which gives a maximum range of 21km (!!), and is similar to the wiki article, which states "Rockets armed with high explosive-fragmentation, incendiary, or chemical warheads can be fired 20 kilometers (12 mi). Newer high explosive and cargo (used to deliver anti-personnel or antitank mines) rockets have a range of 30 kilometers (19 mi) and more."

The consistency, in part, with a U.N. report is not surprising because the authors of the M.I.T. study were dependent on information gathered by the U.N. inspectors. Prof. Postol did not directly witness anything in bombing sites, and did not directly handle the remains of rockets.

The reason the U.N. was cautious not to assign blame was that they were specifically tasked only to demonstrate that there was in fact a chemical gas attack, which they did demonstrate. The director of the investigation remained uncertain as to the origin of the rocket fire or who the responsible parties were.

The Human Rights Watch report on the event refers to a 140mm rocket with a minimum firing range of 3.8km and a maximum of 9.8.

It also refers to a second, larger, 330mm rocket from an attack on Damascus. That rocket has a 120mm diameter for most of the length of the rocket's body, being 330mm in the area of the fins, and larger at the warhead end. This looks a lot like what the M.I.T. study examined, and the M.I.T. study makes several explicit references to rocket parts found at Damascus. The Human Rights Watch report states that the 330mm rocket is likely to have been launched from a Falaq-2 333mm, and there are other reports of the Syrian government's use of Falaq-2 333mms.

The maximum range given for the Falaq-2 333mm is 10.8km. RES Armament Research Services.

Of course, this also demonstrates that Islamist militants are capable of possessing Falaq-2 333mm launchers. So the use of this type of rocket does not determine who used it. It does suggest the M.I.T. study is not very conclusive or trustworthy, it's very plausible that the attack came from much further than 2km distance, and there's nothing to rule out the Syrian military as the perpetrator of the gas attacks.

From what I could gather, blame of Assad is based on assumptions about the difficulty in acquiring and arming Sarin gas of a particular purity, eye-witness accounts, reports on intercepted communications, certainty that the Syrians were in possession of the necessary equipment, and uncertainty and lack of evidence that rebel forces were capable.

David wrote: "And, to be extra clear, it's not just that our government isn't stopping the crisis in Yemen; it's that it's actively facilitating it."

I agree. Though of course it's hyperbole to suggest that it's actually as simple as a phone call, or a dozen, or that diplomacy would necessarily resolve the case. But of course we should have the courage and morals to try.

Sorry, I had to edit somewhat above, particularly in my reference to an "earlier" attack on Damascus. Checking again, I see the Eastern Ghouta attack and Western Ghouta attack that are being analyzed occurred on the same day. Anyway, you can see how it gets confusing.

Even Bernie is on board the "regime change" train now. Is there even a single American politician that DOESN'T want another war in the middle east?

Why would the UN be tasked to demonstrate something the whole world already knew? It would be a pointless exercise if they were just to show that a chemical attack did take place. The UN team documented the incident and gathered evidence of the origin of rockets to establish culpability, but they said it was inconclusive.

Thanks for linking to the HRW report. Checking out their methodology, I don't think they have much of a leg to stand on but they still thought it fit to pronounce the verdict.

The uncertainty about rebel Islamists having access to chemical weapons is deliberately created because it changes the accepted view of the conflict. As things stand, it might not be possible to establish culpability due to lack of incontrovertible evidence either way, but the circumstantial evidence considered together with other developments, notably IS/jihadist sources of funds and weapons, show that we are not being told the full story.

For example, no one in the US government and media is interested in reports coming from Turkey, because that would anger the allies and weaken American position.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/new...

American establishment goes crazy when Russia steps in for Assad but they have been apparently content to let Turkey allow passage to jihadis of all shades and hues to gang up on Syria.

https://bpr.berkeley.edu/2015/12/24/t...

Niklas wrote: "Even Bernie is on board the "regime change" train now. Is there even a single American politician that DOESN'T want another war in the middle east?"

That's not a fair characterization. The two articles that I found reporting Sanders's response show him as reasonable, and demonstrate that he DOESN'T want another war in the middle east. He does, however, call Assad a war criminal, and he does refer to "undeniable criminality of the Syrian regime's crimes." Still, he is critical of the decision to strike, and cautions strongly against getting into a military quagmire. He mainly advocates for openness to resettlement of refugees. Read the whole report to judge whether he's calling for increased U.S. military involvement or demanding regime change:

Bustle.

Medium.

Jibran wrote: "Why would the UN be tasked to demonstrate something the whole world already knew?..."

How did the world already "know." The world already suspected. The investigation was to allow us to know. They were limited in where they could go and what they could investigate, and they reported then and after-the-fact that the scope of their investigation was limited.

It is routine that war-crimes are denied, and at the very least investigators must try to document enough to show that the crime occurred. In this case, the investigators gathered enough evidence to demonstrate that the gassing occurred, but perhaps not enough to prove who the culpable party was.

Zadignose wrote: "How did the world already "know." The world already suspected. The investigation was to allow us to know."

It depends how you define it. The whole world "knew" or "suspected" the attack had taken place. There was circumstantial evidence, live reporting, witness accounts, dead bodies, survivor with symptoms etc.

If the UN team was tasked only to establish the fact that a chemical attack had taken place, then there would have been no question of assigning responsibility in the first place. To determine that there was a chemical attack was a formality, the report was inconclusive because insufficient evidence and practical constraints did not allow them to name the guilty party?

Niklas wrote: "Even Bernie is on board the "regime change" train now. Is there even a single American politician that DOESN'T want another war in the middle east?"

To say that all American politicians want another war in the Mideast, or even that most do, is incredibly ridiculous.

While reasonable people can have reasonable objections to the U.S. missile strike against the Syrian airfield, again I am surprised that the unreasonable right-wing nationalists and bigots have also turned against trump over this. Of course, nationalists don't want to pursue military adventures that don't promote national interests, but there's more to it.

One comment from Nigel Farage has started to enlighten me, and maybe I'm seeing an angle that I hadn't contemplated before, as obvious as it may be:

"Whatever Assad's sins, he is secular."

I.e., Better a Stalin than a Khomeini. He's a devil we can deal with. As long as the gas attacks on civilians and torture-deaths of political prisoners take only Syrian Muslim victims, it's not our problem, man. We're scared shitless of Islamic State in particular and Muslims in general, but Assad's never been a threat to us. Just bottle up the problem and let the Syrians find their own final solution.

Zadignose wrote: "Better a Stalin than a Khomeini. "

Exactly. Tell that to the (minimum) 20-million Russians that Stalin liquidated.

Is there a 'neither' option?

Hopefully Syria's "final solution" isn't the same as another Final Solution that a certain Austrian emigre aimed for in the 30s and 40s.

I'm with Niklas here. 'Humanitarian' intervention is not a call for peace; it's a call for war. In this case, it means more war in the most volatile region in the world.

David wrote: "I'm with Niklas here..."

Well, that makes one. I think such fatuous generalizations couldn't fill the head of a pin. It's ludicrous to presuppose ALL politicians want even intervention, much less war.

Well, I guess I wouldn't have said all, but it's true that our government's disastrous policies in the Middle East have had overwhelming bipartisan support these past few decades.

David wrote: "Well, I guess I wouldn't have said all, but it's true that our government's disastrous policies in the Middle East have had overwhelming bipartisan support these past few decades."

So what IS the solution? What approach do you propose?

In this case, the solution would have been to not bomb Syria.

In Yemen, it would be to intervene diplomatically and suspend military aid to Saudi Arabia.

In Israel/Palestine, the US has enormous leverage to end the occupation. We've been unilaterally locking any peaceful solution for decades and decades in the UN.

(Anyway, why get offended on behalf of US politicians? Even if Niklas is exaggerating somewhat, they're surely an uninspiring lot. The issue is the bombing of Syria. That's where I was saying I agree with him.)

I agree with all of your points, David. I've been rankled with him since he called us The Great Satan. Such aggrandizements fail to factor in people, like you and I and our friends, who are just trying to make it through it all. It's lazy, childish sloganeering.

No worries: )

I guess I'm strangely partial to unusual ideological formations. In that sense, Niklas intrigues me.

(Not talk about you in the third person. Niklas, if you're there, you intrigue me.)

David wrote: "No worries: )

I guess I'm strangely partial to unusual ideological formations. In that sense, Niklas intrigues me.

(Not talk about you in the third person. Niklas, if you're there, you intrigue me.)"

I wouldn't characterize it as anything other than empty rhetoric that has been bled dry. What next, The Serpent? It's hardly original.

I would err more on the side of 'America: Consistently Fucking Up Since 1776 but Nice People'

Haha - it's just the idea of a principled antiwar Trump supporter I find kind of interesting. Sorry, this thread goes back a long ass time. Niklas and I had a curious exchange shortly after Inauguration Day.

But, agree, 'great Satan' leaves something to be desired. Better to speak of the depredations of the ruling class.

Yeah, the Trump supporter thing is definitely a twist. I'm still coming to terms with women's suffrage.

Zadignose wrote: "While reasonable people can have reasonable objections to the U.S. missile strike against the Syrian airfield, again I am surprised that the unreasonable right-wing nationalists and bigots have als..."

Yeah, it's so unreasonable for nationalists not to want another pointless neocon Bush era war that helps no one and fucks over everyone. We are nationalists. Not imperialists.

And Stalin was secular? I guess massacring Orthodox priests and sending Christians en masse to the gulags and systematically persecuting various religious groups is what counts as being secular now.

And I guess you were one of the guys in favour of nuking the Soviet Union during the cold war? Because, you know, we have to save those poor Russians from themselves.

And please, PLEASE, don't give me that shit about muslims being some poor oppressed group on the brink of genocide in Syria. Do you have any clue what the demographics of Syria look like?

Sunni Muslims make up 65% of Syria's population. If you get rid of Assad you are actively condemning Syria's Alewite, Christian and Druze minority to being genocided. The Assad regime is LITERALLY the ONLY thing standing in the way of Syria's minority groups being slaughtered. And you want to get rid of it.

It's funny that Clinton called for this exact thing to happen less than 24 hours before Trump did it.

Even after all the bitterness and polarization of the past year or so, these two standard-bearers are apparently in fundamental agreement on this one crucial issue.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.n...

@Niklas: Nothing you say makes any sense to me or even seems to be a response to anything I've said.

Zadignose wrote: "@Niklas: Nothing you say makes any sense to me or even seems to be a response to anything I've said."

Because it's bullshit. I also think he didn't get your sarcasm.

By the way, in case anyone holds onto the idea that Assad is somehow the last bastion of defense holding off an imminent disaster: Which disaster is likely to be worse that what has already happened? Disaster on this scale is extraordinarily rare. Over a year ago, the death toll in Syria was calculated at 470,000, plus 1.9 million wounded... over 11% of the entire population had been wounded or killed, and 45% had been displaced from their homes.

That's 31 Yemeni civil wars, or more than 5 Bosnias. More than a year ago. And what has happened since?

To be clear, I am NOT calling for more war, nor am I saying that regime change is the necessary solution. But what is the sense in imagining Assad has done any kind of good for his people, or that he's a defender of... anything?

Zadignose wrote: "By the way, in case anyone holds onto the idea that Assad is somehow the last bastion of defense holding off an imminent disaster: Which disaster is likely to be worse that what has already happene..."

Congratulations on obviously not reading my post.

What would be worse, you ask? Maybe the genocide of Syria's remaining religious and ethnic minorities which the "rebels" have pursued throughout the war. Friendly reminder that Arab Christians are being systematically persecuted and slaughtered in the rest of the Middle East, and particularly in countries where the US have "intervened".

You bring up casualty numbers but forget to mention how many of those were caused by the anti-Assad forces, and how many massacres they've participated in. You also forget that Syria's civil war was on the brink of being over before the US intervened. Assad was winning, and peace had almost been restored. If the US intervenes further on behalf of the rebels it will continue on for years.

You say that Assad has done absolutely nothing good for his people. I wonder if Syria's Christian population would agree with you?

You say that you're not in favour of war or of regime change. What exactly are you in favour of?

Zadignose wrote: "But what is the sense in imagining Assad has done any kind of good for his people, or that he's a defender of... anything? "

What are the alternatives? The current US policy is to see all parties dead: they want Syrian army dead, they want IS dead, and they also want the forces that are fighting IS dead. Who will fill the power vacuum if Assad is missiled? It is naive to think that war and killing would somehow end or decrease if Assad is removed. I contend that Syrian army and the power clique doesn't much depend on Assad remaining in power. And then there other power groups who are ready to take their piece of cake, just like in Libya. Where's Libya six years after Muammar "Mad Dog" Gaddafi was killed? It's a "shining" example of what happens when you invade for regime change without paying mind to the consequences.

As much as we like to think otherwise, there are no viable options to hold Syria together post Assad - and that's precisely because foreign intervention has completely poisoned the political landscape. Had the conflict let to play out organically one of the two things would have happened. Either he would have been ousted like Ben Ali of Tunisia (a deeply unpopular figure) or there would have been meaningful political reforms with Assad still in power, as it turned out in Morocco with King Mohammad VI. It is important to note that there was no foreign intervention in either country.

At this point it makes sense to work with Assad to stabilise Syria. Focus on the jihadists and rein in Gulf Arab sheikhs. The fires they have lit in Syria have now reached European mainland. And yes, @Niklas has a point when he says Assad is the only one standing in the way of mass slaughter of non-Sunni minorities. Even of Sunnis who don't like the jihadis. It is worth noting that Syrian army is still mainly Sunni, despite early defections. Speaking to dozens of Syrian Sunnis, I understand that many ordinary Sunnis who were initially opposed to Assad's rule are now hoping and praying he doesn't fall.

Assad has blood on his hands and he has a lot to answer for, but what your'e gonna do with all the other shit happening there...

David wrote: "No worries: )

I guess I'm strangely partial to unusual ideological formations. In that sense, Niklas intrigues me.

(Not talk about you in the third person. Niklas, if you're there, you intrigue me.)"

Haha, thanks? I do find it somewhat comforting that I'm far from the only pro-Trump guy (well) who's now turning his back on him because of this. From my excursions on American social media Syria has basically split the Trump supporters into three factions:

- The Bloodthirsty Baby Boomers and neoconservatives who, upon hearing of Trump's bombing, exclaimed "Finally, a president with BALLS!". Won't actually enlist in the upcoming war.

- The Increasingly Desperate Apologists who still think Trump is unfolding some kind of "master plan" and that he'll still Drain the Swamp even though he's filled his cabinet with a bunch of Goldman Sachs execs.

- The Heartbroken Idealists who actually thought Trump would be a force for change in American politics. Currently in the process of throwing their red MAGA hats in the dumpster.

All in all a sad state of affairs.

Come to think of it, what terrible atrocities did Assad commit during his decade in power, prior to 2011, that he should have merited the response he got from US and its allies when protests broke six years ago? Why did Saudis and other tin pot Gulf Sheikhs want him dead?

Sure, he is a dictator, there was no freedom of speech, political dissent was banned, the country was run under an emergency. That's bad enough but that's regular dictatorial stuff. He hadn't committed any atrocities on mass scale, there were no massacres, no gulags, certainly no mass movement of refugees. During my travels in Syria I realised that he was quite popular for a dictator, perhaps due to his stand against US imperial policies in the Middle East and also because he was gradually if slowly addressing political grievances at home, despite resistance from Baathist elders of his father's generation. The only part of country that surely didn't like him was the Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) strongholds esp in Hama and its surroundings where his father Hafez had committed a bloodbath back in 1982.

Let me be clear. I have no love lost for Assad. I supported the protests when they started and wanted to see an end to the Assad family rule. Democracy is always better than a dictatorship but heck, the protests were hijacked before anyone could make sense of what's going on. Armed opposition was invented by foreign powers, and the people who were first to take arms were the Ikhwanis with Al-qaidah sympathies, who came out shouting anti-Shia, anti-Yehudi and anti-Maseehi (anti-Christian) slogans and promising a bastard version of shariah for Syria...The rest, as they say, is history.

Guess no one told the CNN and the BBC...

While we're at it, let's take stock of the "Arab Spring" countries and the good foreign intervention has done them.

Countries where there has been no direct or indirect foreign intervention are doing well, regardless of the result.

Tunisia. They ousted Ben Ali, elected a new government and retained the fledgling democracy.

Morocco. As stated above, King Mohammed VI was quick to go on the defensive, allowed more freedoms, devolved power to the satisfaction of the protesters.

Bahrain: it is easy to quell democratic protests as it's a small island with the bridge connecting to the outside world manned by Saudi tanks.

Egypt. Mubarak was deeply unpopular. Army abandoned him. He was kicked out. It's true the country slid back into dictatorship and there was a lot of bloodshed, but it still a functioning heaven compared to the following countries.

Note: since all the countries listed above were/are American client states, commonly known as allies, the US couldn't ask for regime change or resignations. They were also careful not to back protectors in case "bad people" came to power, as happened in Egypt (which the US fixed later when it supported al-Sisi to oust Morsi)

Countries where US and its allies intervened to bring in freedom and democracy are as follows:

Syria: !!!

Libya: NATO bombing circus and the subsequent breakdown of state institutions has given us a country that exists in name only.

Yemen: the dictator was forced to run, but the foreigners installed another. Saudi bombing followed with American nod of approval.

Iraq: It's a pre-Arab Spring example, but you get the point.

I might add Afghanistan to the list.

Conclusion: countries in which foreign powers have military intervened have become hell holes.

@Jibran, I want you to know that I am thoroughly enjoying reading your very informative posts.

For those keeping tabs, the Press Secretary today exhibited that he did not know Hitler used "poison gas" on "his own people." When clarified, he said that they weren't in "their own towns," they were in "holocaust centers."

"Holocaust centers."

"Holocaust centers."

Niklas wrote: "David wrote: "No worries: )

I guess I'm strangely partial to unusual ideological formations. In that sense, Niklas intrigues me.

(Not talk about you in the third person. Niklas, if you're there, ..."

You've had your Kronstadt moment. Looks like you'll now have to radicalize sharply to the left.

David wrote: "You've had your Kronstadt moment. Looks like you'll now have to radicalize sharply to the left."

I would, but I know of no other political group that have historically suffered more disappointment and crushed hopes than the radical leftists.

Only because our ideals are so high and our principles so strong!

(The Experience of Defeat: Milton and Some Contemporaries)

Indeed.

Who'd we just bomb? Cake's beautiful tho.

http://www.salon.com/2017/04/12/donal...

ATJG wrote: "Who'd we just bomb? Cake's beautiful tho.

http://www.salon.com/2017/04/12/donal......"

The comments on there have people questing whether he has dementia. I wonder if he is on coke or some other drug. so incoherent. bigly.

Jessaka wrote: "whether he has dementia. I wonder if he is on coke or some other drug. so incoherent"

How not surprised would you be?

So yeah get ready for lots of people to die over the next 4 years

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/13/politic...

I miss the old style warfare where capable armies fought off at the battlefield and settled the matter. At least wars ended after decisive blows were dealt; but now this uneven warfare between highly equipped armies and guerrilla fighters seem to go on for eternity.

When was the last time we saw a classic tank battle or two air forces engaging in the skies?

Geoff wrote: "So yeah get ready for lots of people to die over the next 4 years

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/13/politic..."

Yeah, but what kinda cake was he eating when he gave the order?

The bomb was almost the size of the one dropped on Hiroshima. Our insane insecure man-child president is itching to use the new toys he's been given. We're all fucked.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wor...

Honestly I can hardly believe this is reality, and this is what our president is doing.