More questions about Syria.

[Juniper]

A year and a half ago my Priest and a delegation of priests were invited into Syria to give an first hand appraisal of what was happening to the general population. This was at a time where the countries leader had kicked out all media for a season. He met with Assad, the Muslim leader in the country (and other high ranking officials) as well as went into some of the villages that were reported as being the hardest hit.

 

When he returned from Sryia we were breifed on much of what he saw (Antiochian Orthodox Church with many members having familiar members in Syria) and I learned a few things I did not know. I did not know that Assad's government was a secular governmemnt. It was presented to me that the government is in a very difficult position between Muslim and Christian people groups.

 

Over the last year, I have watched what seems to be thousands of Christians killed (although very little media coverage). I am struggling to come to terms and fully understand what is going on over there and why on earth we would get involved now.

 

Does anyone know how many Christians have been killed since the Arab Spring started? What could we hope to accomplish over there that would protect both Christians and Muslims?

I just find that I am struggling to really ascertain what IS going on over there and yet I feel I have been very fortunate to have had some almost first hand experiences.

 

(Note-I am not saying Assad is some sort of great person. Really I think there is a ton of horrific things happening on both the government and the rebel side. But, it iseems there are other victims (Christians) that are being overlooked by our nation.)

[Juniper]

This news agent kinda states what I am concerned about. Not sure how reputable the site is. http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/gerard-oregan/christians-have-most-to-fear-if-us-helps-topple-assad-29541266.html

[Whereneverever]

I don't believe there's a true tally at this point and reputable news has been really hard to come by.

[AlmiraGulch]

I found this to be helpful for general information.

 

9 Questions About Syria You Were Too Embarrassed to Ask

 

I was just going to recommend this very thing.

[mycalling]

The 9 Questions article came out before this one:

Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad’s regime: U.N. official

It's now coming out that it was the rebels who used chemical weapons...you know, those guys the US backs.  So our reason to bomb Assad as punishment is void.  Unfortunately, I bet we'll still do it. 

 

It's a civil war.  No one butted their noses into our Civil War.

[flyingiguana]

The 9 Questions article came out before this one:

Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad’s regime: U.N. official

It's now coming out that it was the rebels who used chemical weapons...you know, those guys the US backs.  So our reason to bomb Assad as punishment is void.  Unfortunately, I bet we'll still do it. 

 

It's a civil war.  No one butted their noses into our Civil War.

Not what the BBC is saying:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23928871

 

That article from the Washington Times seems to be from May 6?

[Amy in NH]

The 9 Questions article came out before this one:

Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad’s regime: U.N. official

It's now coming out that it was the rebels who used chemical weapons...you know, those guys the US backs.  So our reason to bomb Assad as punishment is void.  Unfortunately, I bet we'll still do it. 

 

It's a civil war.  No one butted their noses into our Civil War.

 

The US has not backed "the" rebels because there isn't just one group that is reputable enough to run the country if Assad is overthrown.

 

[jelbe5]

Just wanted to say thank you for this thread and for the posting of the very informative article.

[Taz007]

The US has not backed "the" rebels because there isn't just one group that is reputable enough to run the country if Assad is overthrown.

 

I am curious who John McCain visited back in May '13? Did he visit all of the rebel factions or a specific one?

 

http://www.mail.com/in-en/news/world/2112960-sen-mccain-trip-to-syria-to-visit-rebels.html

[Spy Car]

I am curious who John McCain visited back in May '13? Did he visit all of the rebel factions or a specific one?

 

http://www.mail.com/in-en/news/world/2112960-sen-mccain-trip-to-syria-to-visit-rebels.html

Among the rebels the Senator visited with (and was embarrassingly photographed with) were two well-known terrorists named Mohammed Nour and Abu Ibrahim.

 

The problem is the "rebels" are dominated by some pretty hard men with al-Queda-like ideas. Assad is no saint either, so we are looking at two bad options.

 

Bill

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The 9 Questions article came out before this one:

Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad’s regime: U.N. official

It's now coming out that it was the rebels who used chemical weapons...you know, those guys the US backs.  So our reason to bomb Assad as punishment is void.  Unfortunately, I bet we'll still do it. 

 

It's a civil war.  No one butted their noses into our Civil War.

 

"Now coming out" /= an article published on May 6th.

[Spy Car]

This news agent kinda states what I am concerned about. Not sure how reputable the site is. http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/gerard-oregan/christians-have-most-to-fear-if-us-helps-topple-assad-29541266.html

The article is somewhat biased in perspective (towards concerns about Catholics and other Christians). The assertion that Christians have the "most" to lose isn't fully accurate, as the Alawites clearly have the most to lose (including the greatest likelihood of revenge attacks).

 

That said, the rest is basically right. Syria under the Assads (father and son) was/is "sectarian," not secular. They come from a minority community called Alawites. Many Shia Muslims recognize Alawites as "Muslims" (partially out of geo-political advantage) but among many of the Sunni (especially the more fired-up types) Alawites are dangerous heretics (in a religious sense) who are not Muslims (and thier claiming otherwise causes outrage) and the Sunni majority has other causes for anger (like suffering political repression and massacres).

 

The various Christians (Catholic, Antiocian, other Eastern and Oriental Christians, and Armenians, etc) long ago threw in their lot with the Assads. The Assads (being from a minority sect) needed the backing of other groups (including Christians) and actively sought them out. Crossing the Assads would have been highly dangerous (which made the acquiescence to Assad easier), but this in many ways was "making a deal with the devil."

 

Being seen as in league with Assad (even as very junior players power-wise) has not helped the Christian position relative to the Sunnis (the rebels). To some degree the Christian alliance with Assad has "cracked" and some Christians have tried to make openings with rebels (as it is good to cover your bases when you feel power is shifting, and you are in the minority), but—from a strictly "what's good for the Christians?" perspective, Assad falling to a rebel victory might put Christians in a somewhat tough spot for awhile.

 

It is hard to know exactly how it will play out. I'd expect the Christians would switch sides very abruptly at the last minute and claim Assad "forced us" while behaving very subserviently towards the new regime. That would be the smart move.

 

The Alawites probably can't make the same play. That is why (with but few exceptions) they will back Assad until the bitter end. Their necks are on the line ( as they see it).

 

Weapons are flowing in to Assad via Russia and Iran. And arms are also flowing (although of less dramatic capabilities) to the rebels through Turkey and paid for (largely) by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. These arms are going heavily to groups that we would not like. And some stuff, claimed to be more logistical in nature (like radios and communication gear) is coming from us.

 

But while there were some more "moderate" rebel groups in the mix at the beginning, the power on the ground— thanks in large measure to the Saudi and Qatari dispersments of weapons—has strongly shifted to the more fanatical anti-Western/anti-American forces.

 

It is a mess.

 

Bill

[ChocolateReignRemix]

"It is a mess."

Succinct and accurate.

[Roadrunner]

Bill is spot on. Also, we need to entertain the scenario that our ultimate goal might be the weakening of the Iranian regime. Countries don't fight wars for charitable reasons, so no matter how many people are dying, we (or any other government) isn't there to save anybody. Unfortunately Machiavelli is still te relevant reading.

 

The Financial Times reader wrote a short guide to the conflict.

http://www.nevillehobson.com/2013/08/26/welcome-to-the-middle-east-and-have-a-nice-day/

:)

[asta]

1.  What Bill said.  ;)

 

2.  One must be very careful to remember that the majority of people and news sources see/read/present things from a Western perspective, steeped in Western history. The view from the Middle East is quite different.

 

3.  Power vacuums are much more deadly than anything we are currently seeing.

 

 

A

[Kathryn]

The 9 Questions article came out before this one: Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad’s regime: U.N. official

It's now coming out that it was the rebels who used chemical weapons...you know, those guys the US backs. So our reason to bomb Assad as punishment is void. Unfortunately, I bet we'll still do it.

 

It's a civil war. No one butted their noses into our Civil War.

I'm curious as to how an article dated May 6 came out after one dated August 29. And how it could be speaking about what happened last month having been written four months ago.

 

And our Civil War was not played out in quite the vacuum you seem to suppose.

[Juniper]

Bill, just needed to say thanks! That was some of the context I was needing on the Christian side. I have been listening to dear friends, (first generation immigrants from Sryia) and they are very "anti-rebel" I won't say pro-Assad, because that is not the feel I get from them.

 

The Western media seems to have some glaring logical holes in its reasoning for why it HAS to be Assad (not saying it isn't, just that the resoning is not sound). The situation seems much more complex than I am hearing in the news and I am finding that to be a bit frustrating.

 

For example, this morning I watch  a supposed video of Rebels firing the chemical weapons. Quite a few resposnes said it was faked because the recent attacks happened at night. Well, a few other posters pointed out that it was at night in the US...not Syria. :P

 

Whatever the case, the idea of a vacume over there is terriffying and not something I want the US to take the vanguard on. ;(

[Juniper]

The 9 Questions article came out before this one:

Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad’s regime: U.N. official

It's now coming out that it was the rebels who used chemical weapons...you know, those guys the US backs.  So our reason to bomb Assad as punishment is void.  Unfortunately, I bet we'll still do it. 

 

It's a civil war.  No one butted their noses into our Civil War.

 

Obvioulsy the dates are a bit switched around, but this brings up the fact that over here in the US we are not being given the facts that the rebels have previoiusly used chemical weapons. One line of reasoning I heard that it had to be Assad was because the rebels could not get there hands on chemical weapons.

 

A mess! Ugh!

[Kathryn]

Here's a BBC page on what we know about the chemical attacks: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23927399

 

At the bottom, there's a link to a video news story about a fighter jet bombing a school playground. It's pretty graphic and disturbing, but I think it's important to remember that this is the kind of reality that Syrians are dealing with: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

[mycalling]

Sorry about that. I had no idea chemical weapons had been used more than once on the Syrian people. It does show the 9 Questions article as biased and misleading if this was previous knowledge and yet the writer still paints Assad as the only user of chemical weapons.

[Kathryn]

Sorry about that. I had no idea chemical weapons had been used more than once on the Syrian people. It does show the 9 Questions article as biased and misleading if this was previous knowledge and yet the writer still paints Assad as the only user of chemical weapons.

This was not previous knowledge. This was the speculation of one (controversial, according to your article) UN official as well as the claim of the Syrian government, Iran, and Russia.

[Kathryn]

Bill, just needed to say thanks! That was some of the context I was needing on the Christian side. I have been listening to dear friends, (first generation immigrants from Sryia) and they are very "anti-rebel" I won't say pro-Assad, because that is not the feel I get from them.

 

The Western media seems to have some glaring logical holes in its reasoning for why it HAS to be Assad (not saying it isn't, just that the resoning is not sound). The situation seems much more complex than I am hearing in the news and I am finding that to be a bit frustrating.

 

For example, this morning I watch a supposed video of Rebels firing the chemical weapons. Quite a few resposnes said it was faked because the recent attacks happened at night. Well, a few other posters pointed out that it was at night in the US...not Syria. :P

 

Whatever the case, the idea of a vacume over there is terriffying and not something I want the US to take the vanguard on. ;(

From the BBC article I posted a few minutes ago:

 

"But the first reported use of chemical weapons came at 0245 (local time) in Ein Tarma and again at 0247 in Zamalka."

[Spy Car]

Bill, just needed to say thanks! That was some of the context I was needing on the Christian side. I have been listening to dear friends, (first generation immigrants from Sryia) and they are very "anti-rebel" I won't say pro-Assad, because that is not the feel I get from them.

 

The Western media seems to have some glaring logical holes in its reasoning for why it HAS to be Assad (not saying it isn't, just that the resoning is not sound). The situation seems much more complex than I am hearing in the news and I am finding that to be a bit frustrating.

 

For example, this morning I watch  a supposed video of Rebels firing the chemical weapons. Quite a few resposnes said it was faked because the recent attacks happened at night. Well, a few other posters pointed out that it was at night in the US...not Syria. :p

 

Whatever the case, the idea of a vacume over there is terriffying and not something I want the US to take the vanguard on. ;(

 

A couple things to think about. When we (the USA) opts out, we also create a vacuum. Early in the Syria crisis the rebel leadership was dominated by what we would call "moderate" forces. Were there also "immoderate" forces around the periphery? Indeed so. But the balance was squarely tilted towards relatively reasonable people.

 

So what happened? We (and our Western allies) were reluctant to pour in weaponry. We sent in "humanitarian" aid, and some logistical support, but not the small arms the rebels were clamoring for. Into the vacuum stepped Saudi Arabia and Qatar. When these nation started funneling arms (via Turkey) guess who got the lion's share, the moderate guys or the hard-men?

 

As you guessed, in the vacuum most of the weapons went to the very groups we (the USA) would have most liked to undermine and isolate. And the groups we'd hoped would be in the lead saw their relative power shrivel. The Saudis and Qataris, who are known to crack al Qaeda skulls at home, are also prone to supporting groups sympathetic to al Qaeda abroad (the Taliban being one notorious example). Behind the scenes our intelligence people in the area were screaming about the distribution of arms (and what it was doing to the balance of power on the rebel side) but it ultimately did not move either the West to send arms to prop up "our guys," nor did our protests stop the Saudis & Qataris. And now, the rebels are dominated by the hard-guys

 

So "not acting" causes vacuums too.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

All credible evidence points to the Assad regime being the instigators of the latest chemical attacks. I think it would be a mistake to let (understandable) sympathy for the plight of Christians, who currently live under the "protection" (of sorts) of Assad to blind us to his actions, or cause us to grasp at straws hoping to blame "the other guys."

 

Unfortunately this is a mess with no easy solution.

 

Bill

[maize]

A mess indeed. 😩

[*Michelle*]

I get the feeling that nobody really knows what happened and all of the current proposals are being made blindly.  It's a tragedy and I'm sure it will get more tragic in the near future.

[Spy Car]

I get the feeling that nobody really knows what happened and all of the current proposals are being made blindly.  It's a tragedy and I'm sure it will get more tragic in the near future.

 

Actually, your feeling is a little off, as there have been multi-national teams on the ground taking (and analyzing) samples in multiple labs, in multiple countries, along with intense intelligence gathering operations. No one wants to get this "wrong" with so much at stake (and memories of other intelligence failures are so fresh in people's minds, if you know what I mean ;))

 

The bigger problem is knowing "what you hope to achieve?"

 

There is a good case to be made that allowing nerve-gas use by any regime to go unanswered sets a very bad precident. Plus Mr Obama has made "red line" ultimatums. These can be useful for deterring bad behavior, but when they are not you look like a "paper tiger" if you don't act, so it is risky if "acting" really isn't the course one would (really) prefer.

 

So we will probably see a strike that is dramatic, but not necessarily game-changing. We will see.

 

Bill

[Roadrunner]

You can't hand over guns to people on the ground and expect those guns to stay in the same hands you left them. Be sure about it, if we give guns to "moderates", these guns will soon be in the hands of radicals. I lived through civil war (a different region) and trust me when I say this, when there is chaos, the most extreme elements rule. Your neighborhood nice guy is most likely a refugee, or if he is fighting, he isn't the leader. You want to know who usually runs life during civil wars? Your neighborhood gangs, criminals that always find opportunity in chaos. (Take a look at Lybia. Those gangs are refusing to go home). These guns will be sold for money, food, taken by force...

I really feel for civilians of all religious affiliation. This is a mess and a war aggregated by interference of outside powers. Russian and Iranian special forces are just some of the elements in the mix.

I don't know what the solution is, but I doubt the actions of outside forces (ours included) have much to do with poor civilians.

[Spy Car]

You can't hand over guns to people on the ground and expect those guns to stay in the same hands you left them. Be sure about it, if we give guns to "moderates", these guns will soon be in the hands of radicals. I lived through civil war (a different region) and trust me when I say this, when there is chaos, the most extreme elements rule. Your neighborhood nice guy is most likely a refugee, or if he is fighting, he isn't the leader. You want to know who usually runs life during civil wars? Your neighborhood gangs, criminals that always find opportunity in chaos. (Take a look at Lybia. Those gangs are refusing to go home). These guns will be sold for money, food, taken by force...

I really feel for civilians of all religious affiliation. This is a mess and a war aggregated by interference of outside powers. Russian and Iranian special forces are just some of the elements in the mix.

I don't know what the solution is, but I doubt the actions of outside forces (ours included) have much to do with poor civilians.

 

It is undeniable that if guns go into "moderates" that some would end up in the hands of (allied) radicals. For sure.

 

Never-the-less the weapons that (theoretically) remain in the hands of the "moderates" put them in a very different position than is the case when they are cut off and the majority of the weapons flow to radicals. When that happens (as is happening) the "center" folds. 

 

I agree that this sort of chaos by its nature favors extreme elements. You are exactly correct.

 

It's just that arming the most extreme (while virtually cutting of arms to the "moderates") only makes the situation worse. It blows any chance of balancing powers (which is difficult enough in any case).

 

Bill

[Trish]

There is this pipeline...I

[Juniper]

Well I was waiting to see what are diochese was going to say on the issue. If anyone is interested this is what our Metroplitan has asked of us. http://www.antiochian.org/metropolitan-philip-urges-faithful-contact-congress-syria-vote

 

There seems to be no easy answers. :(

[Juniper]

All credible evidence points to the Assad regime being the instigators of the latest chemical attacks. I think it would be a mistake to let (understandable) sympathy for the plight of Christians, who currently live under the "protection" (of sorts) of Assad to blind us to his actions, or cause us to grasp at straws hoping to blame "the other guys."

 

Unfortunately this is a mess with no easy solution.

 

Bill

 

Honestly, I have no real idea who is behind the latest. From what I can tell a good case can be made either way. I think where I see things from a slightly different perspective than some is that the situation over there has been very real to me for a couple years. It didn't just start with the most recent attack.

 

Although, it has been real to me from a relational perspective. Finding actual news about it has been like searching for the proverbial needle in a haystack. ;( Very frustrating.

 

I appreciate this conversation very much as I want to make sure I do not become too myopic in my perspective.

[Spy Car]

Honestly, I have no real idea who is behind the latest. From what I can tell a good case can be made either way. I think where I see things from a slightly different perspective than some is that the situation over there has been very real to me for a couple years. It didn't just start with the most recent attack.

 

Although, it has been real to me from a relational perspective. Finding actual news about it has been like searching for the proverbial needle in a haystack. ;( Very frustrating.

 

I appreciate this conversation very much as I want to make sure I do not become too myopic in my perspective.

A good case can not be made "either way." The evidence is unambiguous that Assad's forces were behind the chemical attacks. Sorry, but that is the reality.

 

The Antiochian Christians are, unfortunately (and understandably, given their situation) rather tied to Assad at this point. This is a decision they made out of a sense of self-preservation and survival many decades ago. It does not make the Assads into good guys. Nor does Assad being a brutal dictator ( which he is) make the rebels into angels. But if people are trying to make the case that there is real "doubt" about these chemical attacks, they are (unfortunately) engaging in distortions based on self-interest.

 

Sorry to say.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

Well I was waiting to see what are diochese was going to say on the issue. If anyone is interested this is what our Metroplitan has asked of us. http://www.antiochian.org/metropolitan-philip-urges-faithful-contact-congress-syria-vote

 

There seems to be no easy answers. :(

Sorry, but I find Metropolitian Phillip's statement sort of "weaselly" (for lack of a better word).

 

Not punishing Assad for the chemical attacks is not going to bring peace and stability to the region. It might, in fact, embolden bad-actors in the region (and elsewhere) into thinking that they too can use such weapons and go unpunished.

 

He points out (correctly) that there are al Qaeda-like elements on the rebel side, but ignores Assad's complicity (with their Iranian allies) in supporting terror. They are the major players in supporting Hizbullah in Lebanon, and significant supporters of Hamas attacks on Israel. The Assads have a long history of supporting the PFLP, the PFLP-GC, the DFLP, and the terrorist Abu Nidal. Hardly angels.

 

If the Metropolitan had just said we want our SOBs to win instead of the other SOBs, it would at least be fully honest. This is pure self-interest at play.

 

I get it. I'd be "interested" in my "self-interest" (or the self-interest of my people) too, but making it seem like he's motivated by "peace" or principle is something I'm not buying one iota. Sorry, once again.

 

Bill

[Juniper]

Sorry, but I find Metropolitian Phillip's statement sort of "weaselly" (for lack of a better word).

 

Not punishing Assad for the chemical attacks is not going to bring peace and stability to the region. It might, in fact, embolden bad-actors in the region (and elsewhere) into thinking that they too can use such weapons and go unpunished.

 

He points out (correctly) that there are al Qaeda-like elements on the rebel side, but ignores Assad's complicity (with their Iranian allies) in supporting terror. They are the major players in supporting Hizbullah in Lebanon, and significant supporters of Hamas attacks on Israel. The Assads have a long history of supporting the PFLP, the PFLP-GC, the DFLP, and the terrorist Abu Nidal. Hardly angels.

 

If the Metropolitan had just said we want our SOBs to win instead of the other SOBs, it would at least be fully honest. This is pure self-interest at play.

 

I get it. I'd be "interested" in my "self-interest" (or the self-interest of my people) too, but making it seem like he's motivated by "peace" or principle is something I'm not buying one iota. Sorry, once again.

 

Bill

 

No apology needed. We see things differently, but that is okay ;) I interpret his words very differently (knowing that we will pursue peace...no matter the cost, even if that does mean greater cost in the long rung.) Not quite Quaker-ish abstaining from military service, but doing everything possible to not enter in.

 

Thanks again for filling in some of the holes for me!

[Spy Car]

No apology needed. We see things differently, but that is okay ;) I interpret his words very differently (knowing that we will pursue peace...no matter the cost, even if that does mean greater cost in the long rung.) Not quite Quaker-ish abstaining from military service, but doing everything possible to not enter in.

 

Thanks again for filling in some of the holes for me!

 

You know, I've been reading the position papers on the Antiochian website by Metropolitan Phillip and his emissaries, and am growing increasingly concerned about what sort of leaders you may have fallen under. It is positively scary to me.

 

In one Metropolitan Phillip refers to the victorious Israeli forces in the 1948 war as "Zionist gangs" and he decries the peace deal Egyptian Sadat signed with Israel ("....President Anwar Al-Sadat signed that shameful peace with Israel"). "Not quite Quakerish" is an understatement. Who, but hard-men, don't support peace between Egypt and Israel? But  Metropolitan Phillip calls it "shameful." 

 

http://www.antiochian.org/his-eminence-metropolitan-philip-speaks-syria

 

In the above linked article, and another earlier article  Metropolitan Phillip calls the Arab Spring a tornado. He seems sad that Qaddafi was overthrown in Libya. He argues that "the so-called Arab Spring" (his words) is a devastating fire and blames the Western media for making the overthrow of tyrants seem like a good thing. Huh? 

 

In another article on the Church's website the  Metropolitan's emissary to Syria Patrick Henry Reardon proves to be either a delusional sycophant/apologist for Assad, or bald-faced liar.

 

Reardon speaks of "Dr Assad" in glowing terms. He tells how the nuns tell him of how Dr Assad and his wife, with no security detail, eat meals with the orphans of the Abbey who "look upon the President as a father."

 

"Such impressions were difficult to reconcile with the usual image of President Assad on American TV, where he is referred to as a murderer and “butcher.† 

 

He describes Dr. Assad as "very cordial and personable.  There was not the faintest suggestion of a maniacal dictator like Castro, Noriega, Hussein, or Gaddafi.  This was a man of obvious culture, refinement, modesty, and gentility."

 

And goes on to spew some of the most unbelievable lies from Assad and his people as if they are truths. Frankly I'm appalled.

 

I really don't have a dog in the fight in Syria, but this Church is lying and trying to manipulate you (and others) my friend, and I do say this to you as a friend.

 

Be careful about who and what you are involved with here. These are not honest people.

 

Read it yourself. Anyone who is informed on Syria will find there stomachs turning with all the duplicity, lies, and excuse making contained in this article:

 

http://www.antiochian.org/reardon-syria-delegation-2011

 

Bill 

[asta]

He describes Dr. Assad as "very cordial and personable. There was not the faintest suggestion of a maniacal dictator like Castro, Noriega, Hussein, or Gaddafi. This was a man of obvious culture, refinement, modesty, and gentility."

 

 

 

Bill

I think this IS one of the most difficult things for most people in the international community to come to terms with.

 

Wherein Qaddafi was an obvious loon (who ended up looking like Gloria Gaynor), Castro suspended Cuba somewhere in the 1950s, Hussein was killing football teams for losing matches and Noriega became a really, really embarrassing go-between for the US...

 

Assad actually is a well educated, well spoken, cultured man. Who happens to be a brutal dictator with a penchant for accepting truckloads of chemical weapons and other nasties under the cover of darkness from nearby nations as they prepare to be invaded by the US et al. I have absolutely no doubt that those same trucks will be loaded and moved somewhere else long before any opposing force comes to town. When something works, you stick to it.

 

The US et al need to stop looking at these conflicts in terms of Western time constructs; "time" in the Middle East is looked at differently. One year, ten years - they are but a trifle to civilizations that have been around as long as these have. They have no problems waiting out what they perceive to be the follies of the West.

 

 

A

[Spy Car]

I think this IS one of the most difficult things for most people in the international community to come to terms with.

 

Wherein Qaddafi was an obvious loon (who ended up looking like Gloria Gaynor), Castro suspended Cuba somewhere in the 1950s, Hussein was killing football teams for losing matches and Noriega became a really, really embarrassing go-between for the US...

 

Assad actually is a well educated, well spoken, cultured man. Who happens to be a brutal dictator with a penchant for accepting truckloads of chemical weapons and other nasties under the cover of darkness from nearby nations as they prepare to be invaded by the US et al. I have absolutely no doubt that those same trucks will be loaded and moved somewhere else long before any opposing force comes to town. When something works, you stick to it.

 

The US et al need to stop looking at these conflicts in terms of Western time constructs; "time" in the Middle East is looked at differently. One year, ten years - they are but a trifle to civilizations that have been around as long as these have. They have no problems waiting out what they perceive to be the follies of the West.

 

 

A

 

And being well-mannered and well-groomed doesn't mean one can't be a cold-blooded killer. But the people writing these articles are either falling for his act, or (more likely) acting as his propaganda agents for their own ends. If you can stand it, read the whole article by Reardon. It is packed stem to stern with so many lies and distortion that one wants to laugh (or cry).

 

It is absolutely surreal.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

 

The US et al need to stop looking at these conflicts in terms of Western time constructs; "time" in the Middle East is looked at differently. One year, ten years - they are but a trifle to civilizations that have been around as long as these have. They have no problems waiting out what they perceive to be the follies of the West.

 

 

A

 

To prove your point, I was just reading an old article (from 1998) by this Metropolitan Phillip, one that starts:

 

Fifty years have elapsed since the shameful defeat of the combined Arab armies in Palestine. I am certain neither the present nor the future Arab generations will ever forget that horrible nightmare.

 

He then goes on to enumerate the miseries of the Arab people, problems he largely blames on American and Israel. Then he says this (to prove your point):

 

 

This is a short account of modern Arab history, a bleak one indeed. However, I am not hopeless. I see light at the end of the tunnel, although the Arab tunnel is long and dark. I see light at the end of the tunnel because history is not measured by a century or two. History is the collective story of a people from beginning to end. It is the story of those who are dead, the living, and those yet to be born.

 

History tells us that no nation occupied the peak for good. The West has seized the leadership of the world since the Scientific Revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Before that time, the Chinese and the Arabs were in the lead.

 

Taking history as a guide, I do not believe that some one hundred fifty million Arabs can be written off for good and relegated to the dustbin of history. The Arabs, however, must do their homework. They must reread their history and draw the right conclusions. History tells us that foreign occupation, past and present, direct or indirect, entered the Arab world largely through holes provided by the Arabs themselves. The Western Crusaders succeeded, at the end of the eleventh century, in occupying the Syrian coastline and Jerusalem, not because of their numbers or advanced technology but because of the division of the Arab Camp into two hostile states, an Abbasid one based in Baghdad, and a Fatimid one based in Cairo.

 

Similarly, the Arabs would not have lost Palestine in 1948 had they not been divided into selfish rival regimes, each looking for its own regional interest and placing trust in the West!

 

http://www.alhewar.com/MetropolitanPhilip.html

 

Bill

[Kate in Arabia]

I skimmed through the statement, it sounds very old-time Ba'athist to me -- the stress on Arab nationalism.  I think this should emphasize the point that conflicts in the ME are not always strictly about religion. 

[Spy Car]

I skimmed through the statement, it sounds very old-time Ba'athist to me -- the stress on Arab nationalism.  I think this should emphasize the point that conflicts in the ME are not always strictly about religion. 

 

Totally Ba'athist.

 

Bill

[kiwik]

There is case for action being taken over the chemical weapons. The thing that those of us outside the US don't understand is why Obama considers it his job rather than letting the UN do its job.

[Spy Car]

There is case for action being taken over the chemical weapons. The thing that those of us outside the US don't understand is why Obama considers it his job rather than letting the UN do its job.

As you must be aware, permanent member states of the UN Security Council have veto powers over actions like military interventions. Any US President would prefer acting under a UN approved mandate, but so long as nations like Russia and China use their veto powers to protect their (rogue) client-states, gaIning the approval of the UN is not always feasible.

 

Bill

[Little Nyssa]

If all sides are bad, then all the more reason for us not to get involved.  

I have to say, Bill, I just do not agree with you-- but hopefully not because I have fallen under some propaganda (I don't belong to Met. Philips' jurisdiction BTW).

[Spy Car]

If all sides are bad, then all the more reason for us not to get involved.

I have to say, Bill, I just do not agree with you-- but hopefully not because I have fallen under some propaganda (I don't belong to Met. Philips' jurisdiction BTW).

I'm not sure what it is you don't agree with. Do you care to explain?

 

I'm hardly chomping at the bit to get involved in Syria. I've been publically skeptical (on this forum) of the make-up of the rebel forces back when this was first presented as simple a "humanitarian crisis" (and when the "moderate" forces in the Free Syrian Army (the rebels) had not been undercut by by the weapons distributions that have happen since.

 

I think I have a pretty good understanding of the groups in Syria, including the Assad regime.

 

Unfortunately we have a situation where a state has used chemical weapons (nerve agents) on its citizens. This is a big problem, as such use is widely considered outside the acceptable rules of war internationally—and for good cause.

 

When tyrants (and Assad is a tyrant) are able to act with impunity—and get away with actions like using chemical weapons—and are not swiftly punished it just emboldens other bad-actors, and makes the idea that the international community will enforce rules of state (mis)behavior a lie.

 

Bill

[Juniper]

I have quasi walked away from this convo, because we do see things very differently Bill and I just don't have the emotional energy to go into why right now (IRL issues, nothing to with this conversation.)

 

But, a couple points I wanted to make...One I am not under Met. Phillip's jurisdiction. Two, I do value his experience and wisdom, even if it has to come through cryptically reading behind his very Mid-east experienced lines.

 

It still remains that I do not want us to take any action until the UN establishes its findings. So, what if Russia veto's? we can still at least wait for the findings. But, now Boehner is refusing to meet with Russian diplomats, Reuters and a couple other news sources reporting it is in serious question as to wether Assad was behind this most recent attack...and....well frankly....let Britian, France or Italy lead the charge.

 

Any way...either way..no mater how it is looked at it is a mess. :(

 

(again, not a thorugh piece, but it is going to be interesting to watch this play out.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505

[Kathryn]

I have quasi walked away from this convo, because we do see things very differently Bill and I just don't have the emotional energy to go into why right now (IRL issues, nothing to with this conversation.)

 

But, a couple points I wanted to make...One I am not under Met. Phillip's jurisdiction. Two, I do value his experience and wisdom, even if it has to come through cryptically reading behind his very Mid-east experienced lines.

 

It still remains that I do not want us to take any action until the UN establishes its findings. So, what if Russia veto's? we can still at least wait for the findings. But, now Boehner is refusing to meet with Russian diplomats, Reuters and a couple other news sources reporting it is in serious question as to wether Assad was behind this most recent attack...and....well frankly....let Britian, France or Italy lead the charge.

 

Any way...either way..no mater how it is looked at it is a mess. :(

 

(again, not a thorugh piece, but it is going to be interesting to watch this play out.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505

This story is from May 5th. It has nothing to do with what's going on right now.

[JamieInChocolate]

1.  What Bill said.   ;)

 

2.  One must be very careful to remember that the majority of people and news sources see/read/present things from a Western perspective, steeped in Western history. The view from the Middle East is quite different.

 

3.  Power vacuums are much more deadly than anything we are currently seeing.

 

 

A

I agree  these statements.  As someone who is currently in the unique position of living in Lebanon and seeing daily some of the 100s of thousands Syrian refugees currently in this country, I can tell you that the suffering has cut across all sectarian and regional lines within Syria.  We live in a small village in Southern Lebanon and have refugees who come from many backgrounds who have fled the fighting.  There are formerly well-to-do professionals renting a house down the street from us, illiterate farm workers living with relatives who came to our village before the conflict started, and a myriad of those in between.  There are Shi'a, Sunni, Alawi and Christians.  My sister-in-law is a teacher at the local school and has had refugee children break down in tears when she asked them their names because they were afraid that if someone found out they were from a certain sect they would be in danger. 

 

The important thing to remember is the mention of the power vacuum combined with the likely candidates to fill that vacuum in the event that the Asaad regime falls.  As we saw in Egypt and Tunisia the only opposition groups organized enough to fill the vacuum left in these formerly authoritarian societies are the Islamic groups. This in itself would not be a problem, except that the major groups most active in Syria are of a very extreme Taliban/Al-Qaeda bent.  Many of those fighting against the Asaad regime are foreign fighters from across the world who have come in as mujahideen much as we have seen in Afghanistan, then Iraq, and Chechnya and funded by extremists mainly from the Arab Gulf States.  These people have no interest in the long term well being of the Syrian people and have been involved in committing very serious atrocities against the Syrian people.  Asaad's forces have also been brutal in their attempts to suppress these groups and many innocent civilians have been killed. The feedback we seem to be getting from the majority of the refugees and those in Syria vis-a-vis regime change is that they prefer the devil they know (Asaad) vs. the devil they don't know and very much fear a power vacuum.

 

It seems now that even the validity of the chemical weapons claim may be in question.  This is just ringing too many WMDs in Iraq bells for my taste.  We need to seriously question the true motives behind the U.S. Administration's desire to attack the Syrian regime.