Syria

D

DannyL

Wild Horses
From a friend on Facebooks:

Colonialism still exists in the form of British people telling Syrians who have had their lives destroyed by Assad forces how they should feel about the potential western intervention. I’m sorry folks, but I was incarcerated twice by Assad forces. Some of my joints are still fucked from the torture and beating I had to endure in my solitary confinement cell. I can name 10 of my school friends who died in Assad’s prisons. My home has been hijacked by Assad forces, and I live in forced exile. Guess what? My story isn’t unique. Millions of Syrians have similar stories to mine, if not worse. It’s safe to say that we know better than you do when it comes to Syria.

Some of the excuse-making for not acting i.e. destabilising the area strikes me as so false. The principle destabiliser is Assad and his attempts to exert power on a country in a state of post-revoutionary flux. The immense violence enacted by him, his forces and colonial backers is hidden under the legitimacy of a state.
 
droid

droid

Well-known member
So you dont think that say... a huge increase of Iranian forces in Syria, followed by Israeli attacks on those forces, followed by a major shooting war between Lebanon, Iran and Israel would decrease stability?
 
D

DannyL

Wild Horses
droid said:
So you dont think that say... a huge increase of Iranian forces in Syria, followed by Israeli attacks on those forces, followed by a major shooting war between Lebanon, Iran and Israel would decrease stability?
Click to expand...

I'd ask in what sense is a country where the country where the government is has murdered vast numbers of its own citizens, destroyed its own infrastructure, and is still trying to do this - be described as "stable"? A lot of the dialogue around Syria doesn't acknowledge what's happened in the past 7 years, and what's happening now. Vast swathes of the country rejected the government, and have received nothing from the government for years about from bombardment and gassing, and are still resisting because they now the reinstatement of its rule means means torture and murder. Is that something we should actively support?
 
firefinga

firefinga

Well-known member
droid said:
So you dont think that say... a huge increase of Iranian forces in Syria, followed by Israeli attacks on those forces, followed by a major shooting war between Lebanon, Iran and Israel would decrease stability?
Click to expand...

If the Mullahs wanna commit suicide, I say they should go for it.
 
D

DannyL

Wild Horses
DannyL said:
I'd ask in what sense is a country where the country where the government is has murdered vast numbers of its own citizens, destroyed its own infrastructure, and is still trying to do this - be described as "stable"? A lot of the dialogue around Syria doesn't acknowledge what's happened in the past 7 years, and what's happening now. Vast swathes of the country rejected the government, and have received nothing from the government for years about from bombardment and gassing, and are still resisting because they now the reinstatement of its rule means means torture and murder. Is that something we should actively support?
Click to expand...

I think ultimately the choice should be down to Syrians, really and I'd like to see a situation where their voices can be heard, not the colonial wargame we have currently.
 
D

DannyL

Wild Horses
Part of this is the discourse around statehood - a lot of commentators are limited in seeing the Syrian state as legitimate, when this legitimacy is only arising and maintained by exercising huge violence. I think this sets a really poor precedent for our own democracies and the 21st century if situations like this become normalised. What is a state? What does it mean and imply - consensual governance for a greater good, support for human rights? Or simply whoever is the most highly armed?
 
padraig (u.s.)

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
DannyL said:
I think ultimately the choice should be down to Syrians, really and I'd like to see a situation where their voices can be heard, not the colonial wargame we have currently.
Click to expand...
of course, p sure no one here would disagree. just explain how Western intervention will make that happen?

+ destabilization is a real thing. Syria doesn't happen this way w/o massive destabilization next door in Iraq, which also paved way for SA v. Iran proxy wars.
 
D

DannyL

Wild Horses
It depends on what the intervention is - if the intervention is simply the choreographed destruction of a few airbases, then it'll have next to no effect. If it were a genuinely an attempt to remove Assad or limit his power, then maybe this opens up that space? I remain pretty pessimistic myself.
 
droid

droid

Well-known member
DannyL said:
Part of this is the discourse around statehood - a lot of commentators are limited in seeing the Syrian state as legitimate, when this legitimacy is only arising and maintained by exercising huge violence. I think this sets a really poor precedent for our own democracies and the 21st century if situations like this become normalised. What is a state? What does it mean and imply - consensual governance for a greater good, support for human rights? Or simply whoever is the most highly armed?
Click to expand...

The monopoly of violence is the one of the primary fundamentals of every state.
 
padraig (u.s.)

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
also expecting U.S./W Eur govts to expend significant blood/treasure on human rights is a poor bet

again I respect your sincerity unlike a lotta of the lip service moral handwringing out there but w/all respect you come off kinda naive.

situations like this are already normalized. they're the norm of human history. a terrible but true fact. we don't live in some enlightened post-mass violence age.

I would love for Syrians to be rid of Assad, colonial powers, foreign jihadists, all oppression, violence, poverty, foreign meddling.

just dunno how missile strikes or a war w/Russia are gonna do any good for anyone besides Trump's ego.
 
D

DannyL

Wild Horses
There's also the question of to what extent is this a response to Russia's ongoing hybrid war? Pretty sure this will be in the back of the mind's of the European leaders at least. I think we're at a situation now where Western defence interests against this align with Syrian (not Assad's) interests, which is part of what's driving what's unfolding.
 
droid

droid

Well-known member
DannyL said:
I'd ask in what sense is a country where the country where the government is has murdered vast numbers of its own citizens, destroyed its own infrastructure, and is still trying to do this - be described as "stable"? A lot of the dialogue around Syria doesn't acknowledge what's happened in the past 7 years, and what's happening now. Vast swathes of the country rejected the government, and have received nothing from the government for years about from bombardment and gassing, and are still resisting because they now the reinstatement of its rule means means torture and murder. Is that something we should actively support?
Click to expand...

Stability is relative. Appalling as things are, they could get much, much worse in Syria if the entire region goes to war. Its not a question of support or condemnation, escalation would be disastrous.
 
droid

droid

Well-known member
firefinga said:
If the Mullahs wanna commit suicide, I say they should go for it.
Click to expand...

Hezbollah alone has the potential to kill tens of thousands in Israel, Iron dome has never been tested in actual warfare. Open conflict with Iran would almost certainly lead to major escalation and possible nuclear deployment with millions of casualties - which is why Israel's opportunistic attacks are so reckless.
 
padraig (u.s.)

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
DannyL said:
If it were a genuinely an attempt to remove Assad or limit his power, then maybe this opens up that space?.
Click to expand...
maybe, but how does that happen w/o huge risk of doing more harm then good?

shooting war w/Russia has potential to kill millions (let alone nuclear risks)

even if you could remove Assad you're then looking at a long military occupation + rebuilding. who's gonna do that? U.S. won't + Europe sure as hell won't.

it's frustrating but what are the good realistic options?
 
padraig (u.s.)

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
droid said:
Stability is relative. Appalling as things are, they could get much, much worse in Syria if the entire region goes to war. Its not a question of support or condemnation, escalation would be disastrous.
Click to expand...
exactly this

I mean didn't we just learn this lesson at very great length in Iraq?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top