Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Lol yeah, it's definitely mostly the Guardian and the Times doing this, and not Russia Today.
Jeremy Corbyn
- Thread starter glasshand
- Start date
Lol yeah, it's definitely mostly the Guardian and the Times doing this, and not Russia Today.
IIRC it's from the Syrian Network for Human Rights. I've never checked out their methodology, though. I'll try and find the orginal document it came from. I'm aware that the rebels have the capacity for atrocities, I don't doubt it. However, they dont' have an air force so haven't carried out the bombing of bakeries, hospitals, water supplies etc etc with the kind of relentless industrial repetition that the Russian airforce has.
I'm just wary of making false equivalences about the conflict. Only one side has a military superpower at their back after all.
I'm just wary of making false equivalences about the conflict. Only one side has a military superpower at their back after all.
Last edited:
droid
Well-known member
The figures I quoted are from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Perhaps they were referring to civilian deaths only?
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
The worst of it is probably not far off as bad, but the suggestion that all of it is as across-the-board partisan and deliberately dishonest as RT is ludicrous.
Very first graphic on this catalgoue of horrors ("civilian victims toll") will bring up 92% killed by Syrian regime forces and Iranian miltias: http://sn4hr.org/
droid
Well-known member
Catch yourself there before this spirals out of control and please and compare your assertion above with what I actually wrote.
droid
Well-known member
Right... which covers less than 1/3 of total deaths and differs hugely from the claim you made that Assad and Putin are responsible for 95% of all deaths.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
If you'd said "some of the Western media", or "the worst elements", that would be something, but you didn't qualify it at all, and I think as far as that statement goes, it's demonstrably false.
droid
Well-known member
SOHR (an opposition connected group AFAIK) reports 95,000 civilian deaths. So forgive me for being skeptical at a response to recognising the complexity of the conflict which contains the repetition of dubious propaganda points.
More death figures here, quoting the near half million figure: http://www.iamsyria.org/death-tolls.html
Loving this on a Saturday night.
Loving this on a Saturday night.
droid
Well-known member
Look at the coverage of Aleppo. Undoubtably the site of numerous awful crimes by Assad, but the framing in Western media was almost universally one of an unqualified massacre of civilians. Little mention of the suffering of civilians in areas controlled by some extremely unpleasant rebel groups, rebel targeting of civilians in Government controlled areas, and a litany of other horrors which flew in the face of the dominant narrative. Sure, you find exceptions in Western media - but thats how Western propaganda systems work, by providing an overarching framing of issues whilst marginalising dissenting voices.
I don't know how they account for the discrepany between the two figures, I am actually genuinely interested in this now. Still digging around that site trying to find where they are getting the 263,000 under arms dead figures.
However, this is coming over a bit like whataboutery to get away from the central point. As I said above, Corbyn and co. provide tacit cover for Assad.
However, this is coming over a bit like whataboutery to get away from the central point. As I said above, Corbyn and co. provide tacit cover for Assad.
Last edited:
droid
Well-known member
Those figures may be correct, I dont know. Questions have been asked about SNHR"s methodology, but they are generally held in high regard. What I do know is that the UN stopped publishing figures altogether as they couldn't verify the efficacy of figures from any groups.
I guess what Im trying to say is that I cant say with any confidence what is going on in Syria. I only know enough to know that I dont know. It does seem that the chance for any kind of meaningful & effective military intervention probably ended very early in the conflict that Western actors who might have considered such intervention were already indelibly tainted by Iraq and a web of conflicting geo-political aims and alliances in the region, and it's extremely difficult, if not impossible to disentangle truth from propaganda in coverage. As far as I can tell the only force that seems to be acting with anything resembling integrity are the Kurds.
droid
Well-known member
The central point is that under Corbyn and co there is a good chance that the conflict may never have happened, and whilst I am far from agreement with specific policies, I do think that the basic thrust of policies of disengagement, non-intervention and cessation of arms sales to terrorists sponsoring repressive regimes in the region seem to me to be generally positive things.
I'd suggest you have a read of Robin Yassin-Kassab's book, as mentioned above. He discusses in detail the reaction on the ground when Obama failed to act after his "red line" on chemical weaposn was breached. A massive sense of betrayal and being abandoned in the face of superior hostile forces. It tells the story of what this felt like from a Syrian's perspective, people fighting for the same rights that you and I enjoy every day. The reality of what people desire and experience may not fit into our preticked ethical boxes.
The problem is with the "we don't know what's going on' narrative is that's exactly the purpose of disinformation. It isn't to win an argument, it's to muddy the waters, to provide "supressive fire". Assad has been indulging in this since the beginning of the conflict, and such distortions are now greatly amplified by Russian state media. Corbyn repeats and buys into these narratives, when he casts doubt on who carried out the Khan Shikhoun massacare, as I've said several times. It's overwhelmingly clear that Assad did it, he's the only actor with Sarin in Syria. Syrian airspace is some of the most heavily monitored in the world, the US saw the planes go in, Assad and Putin's narratives don't match for a second, there's all the eye witness/victim testimony on the ground. The Times even published a story identifying the pilot (Mohammed Hausori IIRC). Corbyn's "well we need a full investigation" doesn't mention the fact that Russia has blocked condemnation of the attack via it's UN veto. As I said, this provides tacit cover for Assad. Corbyn seems to have a problem mentioning his name as his ideology drives him to pin every problem on the West.
That's the specifics. More generally - I'm not against non-intervention per se, but just against any ideologically driven formula being doled out regardless of the details of the situation. Foreign policy can save lives and i'd favour an ethically driven process of engagement rather than withdrawal, though the former requires a lot more effort and the applicaiton of intelligence. . I mentioned Mount Sinjar above - this is an instance where intervention clearly and unequivocally saved lives. Corbyn's formula applied here would have let thousands of people die.
Last edited:
I get that he's ethically motivated - he seems like a typical liberal pacifist to me, rather than a Stalinist. I'd reserve that epithet for some of those around him. I get his inbox is pretty full so maybe a lack of nuance can be forgiven but he seems pretty blind and blinkered on some issues, and happy to repeat disinformation (Syria and Libya was never a "regime change" wars). The contradictions of his positions have never been tested against reality, as he's never held high office.
Here's George Monbiot on that specific attack: http://www.monbiot.com/2017/04/27/disavowal/
Now, that's an ethically position.
Trotting out mealy mouthed "well we don't really now what happened" isn't ethical, it's cowardice.
Now, that's an ethically position.
Trotting out mealy mouthed "well we don't really now what happened" isn't ethical, it's cowardice.