Is that what I said? On the other hand 2000 soldiers have been killed by anti-government forces armed by gawd-knows-who. If 2000 American or Australian soldiers were killed by a militia armed by foreigners what would the government do? I am no fan of Assad but after Libya, I am not sure why anyone believes that bombing 50,000 civilians with American missiles is a plus
I'm sorry S.A.M. The analysis falls short in a few area's and i'm happy to outline them as follows. Firstly the individual graphics of Deployed artillery. Graphic 2 vs Map position is incorrect as there are no landmark features that correlate with the google positions he proposed. Biggest giveaway here is the size of the bend of the road, and the track (possible water feature?) that leads north. Granted there appears to be a training area located there, but the land features do no correlate with the satellite imagery. Graphic 3's location has been identified correctly, however his presumption that any artillery equipment in an established training area must therefore be for training only is quite absurd. The orientation for the guns is quite clearly north, over populated rural area's. No training exercise would involve guns firing over populated area's due to the risk of misfire etc etc. Graphic 4's location is correct again, however once again making the presumption as for graphic 3. Same note about the orientation as mentioned above. I do acknowledge the lack of visible transport and ammo pits, however this can be explained but takes a few assumptions of my own. I will not do this however. Graphic 5 I think once again has been misplaced, but i'm not %100 sure. I cannot find the north south road with well established trees, but that doesn't mean its wrong... I just could be looking incorrectly. Graphic 6 I think his analysis is correct. At this stage I got bored of determining whether the photo's were correctly identified with respect to location but again I draw you to the point from graphics 3,4 and 5 regarding use of artillery in training area's which can be applied to graphic 7. Graphic 8 his analysis is sound. Graphic 9 once again pointing out the presumption from 3,4,5 and 7 now.
Sorry I didn't add this on the end of my previous post, I was distracted by the wife. I was going to elaborate on how deploying artillery to an already established training ground has its many advantages logistically and tactically speaking. You would not need to transport ammunition and other supplies long distances. You would not need to establish accomodation and other amenities for the soldiers. You already have pre dug in positions with the possible added bonus of established bunkers and other Command, Control and Communication infrastructure. The list goes on... Secondly: The image of Homs that was released by the US Ambassador/State department is not of high enough quality to either confirm or deny any of the claims made by both the US and of moonofalabama. I looked at the image very carefully and compared it to that of Google Earth, which is exactly what he's done and didn't arrive to any different conclusion than what has been officially provided. Although fires in the canal are kind of odd, doesn't mean it can't be explained by military action which this guy so quickly dimisses. Yes it can be explained by normal everyday events in downtown (or even suburban) Homs but without actually being on the ground, or withouth actually analysing a high resolution copy of the image... One cannot be certain. I guess what i'm ultimately saying is that you can try to debunk just about any image that would be released by the government but it would be more sensible to apply Occams Razor. If there are artillery pieces deployed in a location where a nearby "rebel" stronghold is within said pieces maximum range and they are pointing toward said stronghold... I would suggest that these guns have been deployed for a purpose and it would not be for show... There does seem to be alot of them deployed at the moment...
spacemansteve, would you mind if I posted your comments at b's site? He usually responds well to comments. Or you could post them if you want
Seemed to be. That is the figure released by Assad's Government though. It has not been verified. If those anti-Government forces are being armed by, say, the West, then they would be complaining that what they have is simply not enough when going up against a very well equipped and organised defence force of Assad. Reporters who are in the area all documented that the anti-Government rag tag army are using machine guns against precision missiles and tank shelling, from a fair distance away. If they were well armed or armed by an external force, as you are implying, they would be doing much better than they currently are. Don't forget, Homs is just the latest. The previous towns where anti-Government groups were fighting back were virtually flattened. Would our Governments do the same as Assad has and would the armed forces accept it or would there be a giant 'fuck you' to the leadership if they did try to impose such a rule on the people? It's easy to say what would Australian or American soldiers do in the shoes of Assad's troops. But how likely do you think such a scenario would occur in the US or Australia? How likely do you think cities and towns would be shelled because the people in said towns dared question the leadership and at first protested peacefully before Assad had his armed forces (both police and army) shoot and kill protesters? No one is saying it is and no one is saying this will occur in this instance. Should it occur? We are getting close to the point where peacekeepers should be brought in. From my understanding, Arab nations are considering sending Arab peacekeepers, one would hope with medical personnel and also provide the ability to evacuate the women and children and the elderly and the sick from Homs, who at present are denied the chance to go anywhere without risk of being shelled or killed by snipers. Assad is following in his father's footsteps. His father ordered the massacre in Hama in 1982, which saw tens of thousands of civilians killed because they dared to protest against the leadership of Hafez al-Assad. Assad is merely doing as daddy did and protecting his reign, even if it means torturing and murdering men, women and children of his own country. Then again, the site you linked appears to show the individual writing for it saying that the West should help Assad massacre his own civilians for daring to protest against his rule.
I agree that there is a war of propaganda. But the right thing to do is hard to gauge. When Al Qaeda and the US both start rooting for the same side, it somehow just becomes surreal. Meanwhile how about sending some peacekeepers to Libya? To save the former supporters of Gadhafi from being tortured? http://video.ca.msn.com/watch/video/new-libya-torture-claims-emerge/16ig9be4o
I wouldn't be against that either. What it comes down to is that people should not be tortured or murdered because their political ideology differs from one's own. People should definitely not be tortured and murdered because someone dared voice discontent at the leadership. And children should never be tortured and murdered because they don't like the President or leadership. If a leader gets to that point, then he should step down and be arrested and tried for crimes against humanity. As his father should have been as well.
I have been following the media reports on Syria. I recommend besides Moon of Alabama, the observer mission report itself link to report and excerpts:http://warisacrime.org/content/arab...sion-report-syria-excerpts-and-link-full-text Foolishly Ignoring the Arab League Report on Syria as well as Pepe Escobar's excellent reporting in Asia Times This is from 6 days ago but you can google and read all of them if you like: Syria and those 'disgusting' BRICS Pertinent points: 1. No evidence of any organised lethal force used against civilians 2. Syrians unanimously against foreign intervention 3. clear evidence of foreign support for regime change provocations. see also: The observer Ahmed Manaï “The Arab League has buried the observers report on Syria” and Pepe Escobar again: Exposed: The Arab agenda in Syria
More than happy for you to do this. I'm off to work so if any response comes within the next 10 hours, it will have to wait
We have already gone over this in this thread with strawdog. I would suggest you go back and read it all.
If you've already gone over it, then you know the situation as the observers have stated it. I think we should let the Syrians sort it out. No matter how bad your own government is, no one wants to be bombed by foreigners to balance it out
And where have the "foreigners" said anything about bombing them? The only "foreigner" I see saying anything about that thus far, aside from StrawDog, is you. Here is the reality: The latest Arab League proposal for a joint UN-Arab peacekeeping mission for Syria is more a mark of desperation about what to do than an idea that could be implemented in the current circumstances. Already foreign military intervention has been ruled out partly because of concerns about the impact on the wider region, while diplomatic action in the UN Security Council is being blocked by Russia and China. And although officials say the situation in Syria is a "human tragedy on a large scale", the idea of setting up humanitarian corridors and no-fly zones has been described by one Western diplomat as "not realistic" because they would need to be protected. There is also reluctance among Western countries to start arming and training the Syrian rebels because it might tip Syria into a full-blown civil war. [Source] And here is the reality of 'letting the Syrians sort it out amongst themselves': The BBC'S Paul Wood, who witnessed the onslaught at first hand, has returned with stories of extraordinary brutality. He was shown a video taken from the phone of a member of the feared government paramilitary force, the Shabiha. In the video, prisoners are systematically beheaded as they lie on the ground with their hands tied behind their backs. In response, rebel fighters say if they catch members of the Shabiha, they kill them. Fun times, eh? And even more 'reality' from Homs, where you say they should just be left to fend for themselves... The 'reality' of course is that the Syrian army is now targetting areas where they know there are field hospitals, and also in residential areas, where innocent civilians reside. The main victims of their targets are innocent men, women and children. It is systematic. You claimed earlier, in providing a quote, which was, well, frankly insanely pro Assad and trying to make any excuse it could: The hundreds of people who have died in the last couple of weeks, the constant shelling, the simple fact that human rights organisations are there on the ground detailing it all.. This is what you post and then you say 'meh, let them deal with it themselves'.. because God forbid "foreigners" try to stop the Syrian Army on their bloodbath. Is there a reason why you prefer to allow innocent men, women and children to be murdered by Assad than to actually try and force him out, this is of course after alluding to the "opposition" being armed (with machine guns against tanks.. yay!) by "outsiders".. Such words... Meanwhile you make no mention of the fact that in the last year that Assad has been murdering Syrians for daring to ask for a fairer system of Government (and for many months, the protests were peaceful marches whereupon he had his armed forces fire on those protesters), Russia has continued to arm Assad with the very weapons he has now turned onto civilians. But that's alright, isn't it? How did you put it? Ah yes... Talk about giant strawman. And that 'On the other hand..' was a giant and huge 'but'. Do you think what he is doing to Homs is acceptable? Personally I think we are on the brink of seeing another 1982.. like father, like son as they say. The man is a pathological liar and the prattling he has done about reforms, etc was all for show and remains so. No one has said anything about bombing Syria, but there you went. Meanwhile Assad is bombing innocent civilians and you virtually defend him. Assad's armed forces are very well armed and numerous. And they are crushing and murdering the opposition because they dared to voice their discontent with his leadership. And what is your response? I think we should let the Syrians sort it out. No matter how bad your own government is, no one wants to be bombed by foreigners to balance it out So much better to be murdered by your own Government than to have foreigners come into your country to help save you and possibly open a corridor of safety to allow the civilians to get out and reach safety.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Only if you assume that Al Qaeda has no agenda besides supporting the opposite of whatever the USA does, at all times and places. Back in reality, when you have people from such broadly divergent worldviews all agreeing that Assad is an illegitimate tyrant whose time has passed, the basic situation starts to look pretty clear-cut. That still doesn't add up to a clear plan of action - but since you've rejected the Arab/Western suggestion that we get the international community behind the Arab League's plan - without invoking any no-fly zone and while explicitly ruling out any authorization of force - I'm wondering what you'd suggest? Because so far, all I can see is "we need to all sit on our thumbs and marinate in self-doubt and moral equivocation while Assad continues to butcher Syrians with impunity." Which, uncoincidentally, is exactly what Assad would have the world do, argued in exactly the same talking points Assad disseminates. Why do you think that you retain any credibility as an arbiter of truth when you are so clearly taking sides in said propaganda war? Have you even read the Resolution that you're slamming as an unacceptable exercise in Western imperialism? Do you realize how deluded and out-of-touch you appear with your denunciations of the outcome in Libya? While you're entitled to your opinion on Libya, you should not expect general audiences to be receptive to what is a fringe view of the situation there (that it cost more lives than it saved, resulted in a worse situation than the status quo, etc.). The way that peacekeepers get deployed is that the political factions in question request them. It's difficult to see why the Libyan authorities would do so, given that they have already defeated Qaddafi's forces. But if I broad-based spectrum of Libyans were to request something like that - as they did with the No-Fly Zone - then I'd support it, sure. In the meantime, I'd suggest that people watch the recent episode of Charlie Rose featuring US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, in which she goes into great detail on exactly what the US stance on Syria is, and specifically how it differs from the situation of Libya: http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12144 In particular, she is very clear on the crucial role of internal requests for military intervention, the role of the Arab League, and the explicit exclusion of military intervention contained in the relevant draft resolutions. And she's generally a very insightful, connected and well-spoken diplomat - interviewed by perhaps the greatest TV interviewer of all time, to boot - so it's well worth a watch.
It's worth bearing these precedents in mind. The reasonable default position even before the last year's events in Syria was already that the regime was dictatorial and brutal, and would respond to political challenges to permanent Assad family dictatorship the same way it did in the 1980's. I bring this up because we seem to keep getting confronted with the same sideways pro-Assad argumentation that works from a position of naive credulity.
The equivalent situation can never arise in America or Australia, because neither government will ever face a widespread pro-democracy movement that it can radicalize into armed opposition through violent responses. This is because America and Australia are already democracies, and the immunity to widespread revolt engendered by the legitimacy that flows from such was exactly among the incentives to pursue democracy in the first place. You could pursue the Civil War analogy, I suppose. Except for the wrinkle that in that case the "opposition" were the ones who wanted to deny democracy (as well as basic freedom and human rights) to millions of Americans - to literally set up an empire of White Supremacy - whereas the government was demanding freedom and equality for all. So I'm not seeing how that's going to go to any point you want to make. I haven't seen any credible reports alleging that NATO missiles killed anything anywhere like that number of civilians in Libya. In fact, that number far exceeds even the high-end estimates for the total number of casualties (including belligerents) for the entire conflict. And even the highest estimates - which are still only half of what you allege there, and include combatants - come from the NTC which requested the No Fly Zone in the first place, and attributes the lion's share of those deaths to Qaddafi. Which is to say that your invocation of wildly incredible assertions about Libya as the basis for your position on Syria does you no good. Rather, it makes you look both cravenly biased and hysterical. It's clear that the fact of the matter is that you oppose American geopolitical prominence for its own sake, and not on the basis of some kind of Just War calculus or whatever. And while you are spared the problem of dealing with that distinction in ruinous periods such as the invasion and occupation of Iraq, it becomes highly material in periods wherein American geopolitical initiatives are broadly beneficial and supported. To that, you'd be better off simply arguing against American geopolitical prominence directly, rather than trying to gin up some illusory humanitarian catastrophe to enable your standard rhetorical tactic. While that tack would involve some painful honesty and require making difficult arguments, it would have the benefit of honor.
And then there's the expected "but, but, but Israel and America do it too!" I'm not even going to bother comparing how close every country in the world comes or once came to resembling Genghis Khan. Rather I find these deflections to be petulant non-sequiturs, because a dictatorship like Assad's is one of the only excuses Israel still clings to for retaining Syria's Golan Heights. The Assad dynasty is done for. Dictators these days can't keep their dirty laundry hidden indefinitely, too many ways to access the info. I just hope that when Syrians have a government which recognizes their right to protest, that this same government promptly settles its scores with the Hezbollites, Iranians, Russians and Chinese who tried to throw them to the wolves like sacrificial pawns.
Yes we've seen all the media from the west, which is similar to the media shown for Iraq - remember that nurse who gave evidence of children being flung from the incubators? However, the observers whose report is being buried and who were in Syria have seen evidence of false reports and no evidence of organised violence. Considering the history of western false flag operations in the Middle East, I think we should let the Syrians sort it out. Probably, but thats not what it looks like from the inside.
Considering the many eyewitness reports on video being filed from actual reporters actually in Syria, I think the situation is desperate and dangerous.
Same reporters who were beating the war drums for Iraq? And now for Iran? http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/?p=9115 The problem with people who arm terrorists against civilians is that they have no credibility http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-sides-with-syrian-opposition/article2335864/ Seems like Al Qaeda and US always appear simultaneously in all places Nothing says war on terror like arming jihadists
