Category Archives: politics

One sidedness in anti-Assad posts in fb

I repost here a text that was posted on fb.  After commenting it briefly, I was – as expected – blocked by the other original poster. Those who reduce the crisis to Assad only, do not tolerate different opinions.

The Post

1. Assad continues to commit genocide, bombing his people daily. He has murdered half a million people. If you’ve ever wondered what you would’ve done during the Holocaust, you’re doing it now.

The term genocide is not appropriate even with all the war crimes committed by the Al-Assad regime. It is a civil war fuelled and prolonged by outside powers. Those that supported militant groups have at least the same responsibility. The US funded, trained and armed militant groups with $ 7 billion.

2. The world together agreed that using chemical weapons is one of the most heinous acts you can commit. It is strictly outlawed internationally. Assad is responsible for 214 chemical attacks (SNHR).
These are not unverified or false flags. Aside from our timelines filled with endless videos of children frothing at the mouth and dying the most agonising death imaginable, independent bodies like WHO confirm these attacks are without question.

It is without question true that chemical weapon attacks are one of most heinous crimes and that chemical weapons are banned. But it is a very different question to proof who used it. The situation is not as clear. Further, the only body that is entitled to decide about military actions in case of violations against the ban of chemical weapons is the UN. Unilateral strikes are forbidden (a war crime) and undermine the authority of the UN.

3. Strikes from the UK, USA and France isn’t ‘war’. It isn’t ‘bombing’ as the term is usually used either. Technology has moved on a great deal. Taking out Assad’s chemical and airforce capacity is the only way to stop his daily attacks.

Such statements should hardly be necessary to comment. To say our bombs are not bombs but love is sheer cynicism. These strikes were not legalized by the UN and are therefore a clear act of aggression. Such actions undermine the authority of the UN and weaken international law in future.

4. In this type of action a few people might get hurt. But tens of thousands more may be rescued. There are no reported casualties from the night before last.

History shows that acts like those committed by US/GB/FR hardly save people. It increases aggression and leads to more victims. The strike is therefore counterproductive.

5. There is no evidence that this action would escalate into war, just as it didn’t several times recently.

First, this action does not escalate INTO war it IS an act of war. Secondly, there is evidence in history that Russia was wise enough to save the world and de-escalate situations in the past like during the 1963 Cuba crisis when Kennedy risked the lives of 600 million people. We can only hope that Russia does not strike back. The provocation was surely there.

6. What is being proposed is vastly different to what happened with Iraq, Libya and so on. It’s pointless to compare this situation with those. Avoid ‘whataboutery’.

Ignoring history is a decent way to obscure likely outcomes and push people into emotional decisions without reflections about the consequences. In other words: stop thinking, let’s follow emotions … That is propaganda, pure and simple!

7. Yes, Trump and May no doubt have many other horrible reasons for this action. Yes they ignore Syrian refugees. Yes we sell arms. Yes we ignore other similar situations elsewhere. But in the face of a cowardly world, this action is all we currently have.

No, we have plenty more. Refugees can be given asylum and cared for. Turkey and Saudi-Arabia pressured not to support militant groups; diplomacy on a realistic level can be resumed. But it means that the US has to stop aiming at regime change. As long as the main objective is the weakening or removal of Assad, there is no change of truce and peace.

8. Assad has blocked all other types of diplomacy. Again and again and again. Russia vetoed peace talks eight times. The situation has continued for many years. This is a last resort, not a reactive impulse.

This is propaganda. The diplomacy of the US always intended to make Russia cast a veto. Preconditions like Assads removal were made clearly anticipating a rejection and failure of the talks so war could be sold as the ‘last resort’.

9. The current actions won’t end Assad’s regime or the war, nor are they intended to.

What is the intention then? Only the UN has the legal position and the authority to call for a military strike to punish an actor that used chemical weapons. A «punishment» by the US/GB/FR is just a provocation that will most likely lead to heaver conventional bombing. The people will pay the price.

Articles like this seem to have to only goal of fomenting hatred against Assad and reduce the crisis to a single cause. Simple problem – simple solution. The removal of a dictator, however, does hardly change a country into democracy – Libya and Iraq the recent examples.

If the militant, Islamist groups win, Syria will deteriorate into chaos were competing war lords will be fighting for power leading to a second Libya or Afghanistan in the 1990.

If the US enters with troops on the ground (unlikely), we can expected an Iraqi scenario.

If the Syrian government recaptures Syria, the chance for a lasting truce is real. Fighting and bloodshed will end.

Over a period of 20 years a transition to democracy might then be possible.

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under politics, Uncategorized

Trump’s decision most anti-semitic act of last 30 years

With his decision to formally recognise Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, Trump committed probably a massive disservice to Israelis in particular and Jews in general. The future victims of this decision will be Israelis and Jews worldwide. The decision will make it much more difficult for Israel in finding a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians and the Arab world. It will create massive, negative feelings toward Israelis and Jews – from the world community in general to the Arab world and Palestinians in particular. Israel as a neo-colonial entity that unilaterally annexes territory and ignores UN decisions is once more confirmed.

The Jews world-wide will feel more aggression towards them because of this decision. And the price of a potential third intifada (apart of the Palestinians themselves) will be paid by the Israeli-Jewish public. It will be the Jewish Israelis that have to endure security checks when going to a restaurant, avoid buses and public places out of fear of bombs and it will finally be the Israeli public that suffers from suicide attacks – not Donald Trump or Jared Kushner who is the mastermind behind this decision.

In short, Trump’s action is probably the most anti-Semitic one of the last three decades.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Outraged at Sean Spencer’s appearance?

If you outraged about Sean Spencers appearance this years’s Emmy Awards then understand that “there [is] nothing whatsoever surprising about any of this, as it is the logical and necessary outcome of the self-serving template of immunity which D.C. elites have erected for themselves.”

So if initiating an aggressive war (which the Nuremberg Tribunal called “the supreme international crime”), instituting an international torture regime (which Ronald Reagan called “an abhorrent practice” that no circumstance can justify), and embracing the full model of presidential lawlessness does not result in ostracization, sanction, or exclusion from polite society, why on earth would anyone expect that Sean Spicer would face any sort of actual recrimination or consequence?

Glen Greenwald, The Intercept

Read the full article here. Highly recommended!

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

The man who saved the world

‘I was just doing my job’: Soviet officer who averted nuclear war dies at age 77

https://www.rt.com/news/403625-nuclear-soviet-officer-died/

Leave a comment

Filed under politics, Quote of the day

Quote of the day

It is no longer unusual to hear leftwing activists turn FBI or CIA apologists, since these agencies became a home for a covert opposition to Trump and the source of many leaks.

Serge Halimi, https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/as-bellicose-as-ever

Leave a comment

Filed under politics, Quote of the day

Does Nikki Haley want to speed up Armageddon?

The US seems to be determined to escalate the conflict in Syria. Meanwhile the world is discussing the origin of the gas attack at best, the questions of the true motives receive little focus.

Regime change is the official goal of Nikki Haley, the United States’ ambassador to the United Nations. Fighting ISIS the alleged second. But it is a strange coincidence that the US just bombed the Shayrat Military Airport that is one of the Syrian Air Force’s most important installations in the fight against the Islamic State due to its proximity to the Palmyra and Deir Ezzor fronts.” [AMN] In other words the US is supporting ISIS in order to weaken Syrian President Assad.

Remembering the neocons in the 2006 Lebanon war that had “goosebumps” when hearing about it in Middle East, Nikki Haley might not just be aiming at regime change but at all out chaos to speed up the ‘second coming of Christ’. As Trump badly needs a distraction from his incompetence and failures, a war in the middle east comes in rather handy. As I wrote here, war might be the one thing that can change Trump’s standing in the world and hide his inexorable coming failures. The media celebrates Trump’s illegal air-strike against Syria1 and proclaims that Donald Trump has finally “become president”, even lauding this act of aggression as an emotional act by a man suddenly aware that the world’s problems were now his”2 while ignoring that the same  ‘man of heart’ keeps the borders close to the very children he pretends to care for.

True Christianity

True Christianity demands

  • a humanitarian response towards all the refugees. ALL Syrians have to be allowed to enter the US.
  • helping people – especially children – in the refugee camps in and around Syria. Instead of spending about $300 million to launch an illegal air-strike that only escalates the conflict, use this money where it will benefit children and saves lives.
  • to end arming and training ‘rebel groups’ that only prolong the war and have no prospect of ever bringing peace to region. Even if the so-called rebel groups were successful in regime change, Syria would immediately become another Libya were different fractions fighting each other. The chaos would continue endlessly.
  • respect for international law. International law and the UN is the base to solve conflicts.

 

But with the current US government, we can not expect true Christian values but rather more bloodshed for power.

***

1 The military strike was against international law – a war of aggression – and probably against US law, too.

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Due process

In a 2002 article, respected linguist and dissident Noam Chomsky asks:

What is the proper response to the crime? Whatever the answer, it must at least satisfy a moral truism: If we propose some principle that is to be applied to antagonists, then we must agree — in fact, strenuously insist — that the principle apply to us as well.

A reaction or response to the chemical weapon incident in Syria a few days ago therefore demands due process, i.e. that international law (and domestic law) is respected. Reacting to a war crime with another war crime would would violate the above principle.

To find an appropriate response, we first have to assess the situation: The origin of the chemical weapon incident has not been proven. It might have been an accident when a stock of chemical weapons was hit. It might have been one of the many terrorist groups (euphemistically called “rebels” in the western media) or even ISIS to evoke a reaction by the US. It might even have been a false flag operationa tactic well known to be used by the US especially since Iraq 2003 but also before (Gulf of Tonkin incident). Therefore, until the origin is proven without any doubts, any military strike is unlawful and against the moral standards of the West.

A military strike against another country is only legal if the UN gives its approval or if a country is in danger and the military action can prevent more violence. In this case, there was no UN approval at all—not even a demand—and the US was in no way in any danger. The military strike against Syria by Donald Trump is therefore a war crime.[1]

Thirdly, a military action should reduce future violence. Often an attack worsen the conflict as in the case of the Balkan wars in the 1999[2]. An action that leads to an entirely predictable attack on the civilian population can not be an appropriate response to an (alleged) war crime. The strike might pressure Assad and lead to increased violence. It could even escalate into a confrontation with Russia. A highly risky action therefore—strategically and as well from the humanitarian perspective.

The way to peace

Let’s have a look at “the grand chess board” of the Middle East: The US wants a regime change in Syria to redraw the borders as John Bolton has expressed[3]. In addition, the there are plans to build a pipeline through Syria that will transport gas to Europe. This pipeline is nothing less than an economic weapon against Russia as it threatens Russia’s income from gas exports. Russia therefore will do anything to prevent a regime change by the US.[4]

The only way to peace is therefore that the US gives up its imperial strategy and stops “arming and training rebel groups” (i.e. supporting terrorism). Then a diplomatic option might have a chance and after a truce, an established peace, a transition period (with Assad in power), free and fair election could take place.

But first and foremost, the US has to give up its imperial aims in the region.

***

1 It is even a war of aggression. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression

2  NATO commander Wesley Clark reported «that on March 6 he had informed Secretary of State Madleine Albright that if NATO proceeded to bomb Serbia, “almost certainly” the Serbs would “attack the civilian population” and NATO would be able to do nothing to prevent that reaction on the ground.», Noam Chomksy, Hegemony or Survival, p. 59

3 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/25/opinion/john-bolton-to-defeat-isis-create-a-sunni-state.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

4 If you look at Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, Russia can morally defend their action to a certain extend as leaving the ground to the US will most likely lead to chaos. Syria would just become another failed state.

2 Comments

Filed under politics