Riots in Tunisia (and throughout the Middle-East)

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

It is generally impossible to try and discuss such difficult, complex, nuanced issues with someone who insists on seeing everything in the absolute starkest black-and-white terms.

I agree. It drives me to distraction how 'patriots' are unable to step out from their prejudice and view events from a dispassionate perspective. There are even people who introduce nuance where it doesn't exist in an attempt to obfuscate, and consequently try to ameliorate the unsustainable position of their chosen champions.

However, to indulge in this Manichean universe for a moment... I don't have champions. To me, Qaddafi was thoroughly unpleasant. He pretended nothing less. Obama is thoroughly unpleasant, but unlike Qaddafi, he pretends different. In my mind, that makes him far, far worse.

[eborr]

I have deliberately kept away from this debate, for some time because I find the duplicity of the west very disturbing. As one who grew up in the sixties with parents who grew up in the war years, in the company of many others who had been involved in the second world war, I find the notion of the return of military means to solve diplomatic problems untenable.

I can go along with it to some extent when there are gross breaches of human rights to protect, and there is no alternate mechanism, but when military force is used largely for political goals then this is wrong.

Coming from the Chistian tradition, thou shalt not kill is writ large, in the same way as you don't steal, but increasingly we see that any pretext of morality is undermined, by praxis or convenience or naked greed for power and for money. Hence I buy a lot of what GBG says.

If we measure our political leadership up aginst Gaddafi, the only differences our ones of style and not substance.

Still in the age of ZFactor or America's Got Talent ?? perhaps we shoudn't expect any better.

On a day when the tax payers of Europe, especially those in Greece are going to have to pay for the corruption of politicians, tax avoiders and the greedy bankers, one has to conclude that the bad guy's have won.

[anthriel]

It is generally impossible to try and discuss such difficult, complex, nuanced issues with someone who insists on seeing everything in the absolute starkest black-and-white terms.

I agree. It drives me to distraction how 'patriots' are unable to step out from their prejudice and view events from a dispassionate perspective.

I have found it truly uncommon to find someone who has a strong opinion about politics to be dispassionate about it.

However, that said, I am glad to read what you write here, GBG, even though I seldom feel authoritative enough to engage in the conversation. I do feel, through reading your words, I have a glimpse into a viewpoint quite different from what I generally hear. And that's not a bad thing, overall.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

There are events in Syria that, I think, deserve acknowledgement. Post regime change in Libya, and the murder of Qaddafi, the next target is Assad. President Obama has called for him to "step down". A resolution has been put to the UN Security Council calling for just such an eventuality. However, Russia and China have vetoed this Resolution, citing "what they perceived to be a potential violation of Syria's sovereignty, which could allow for military intervention or regime change." It would appear that historical precedent has induced wariness in Russia and China, considering the grumblings of "resolution manipulation" to sanction military intervention stretching back to Iraq, and including Libya. Suffice to say, this veto has provoked "fury" from the US and UK (and others). I smell a whiff of hypocrisy here (my bugbear!).
Before continuing, I should declare an interest; I have close friends in Damascus and Aleppo, and (when communication is available) they inform me that Assad enjoys majority support amongst the general populace. They believe that much of the "insurrection" is Western backed agitation, especially Israeli. However, as that cannot be definitively verified, it remains conjecture. But that is not the hypocrisy I refer to.
It appears astonishingly brass-necked for the USA to denigrate the use of veto by both China and Russia, when it is the USA that has, over the last three decades, been the serial "vetoer". And those vetoes are routinely cast whenever a resolution is tabled criticising Israel. Even when Presidfent Obama declares that the US position is opposition to the expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, motions condemning this expansionism at the UN receive the US veto.
I wonder, do other people not feel, like I do, that this "fury" with China and Russia is tainted by precedent?

[superwizard]

Before continuing, I should declare an interest; I have close friends in Damascus and Aleppo, and (when communication is available) they inform me that Assad enjoys majority support amongst the general populace. They believe that much of the "insurrection" is Western backed agitation, especially Israeli. However, as that cannot be definitively verified, it remains conjecture. But that is not the hypocrisy I refer to.

I found this statement to be very interesting. If I may ask, are your friends in Syria Christian or Alawites? I only ask because from the anecdotal evidence I have from my Syrian friends its seems that all of them are very, very staunchly against the Asad regime but all of them are Sunni Muslims. There have been some news reports in the west about Christians and Alawites in Syria supporting the regime (I am too lazy to dig any up at the moment but if anyone is interested I can find them).

This happened in Egypt as well. Many of my Christian Egyptian friends were much more wary of the Egyptian revolution than my Muslim friends. The Middle East is not a place where people trust in the power of democracy or believe that it guarantees equality in religion and sect. In fact a few days ago there was an uprising in Libya by Ghaddafi loyalists. Now no one would argue that Ghaddafi was a good leader but these people supported him (and still do after he is dead!) because they were better off when he was around and now they are concerned for their well being.

I wonder, do other people not feel, like I do, that this "fury" with China and Russia is tainted by precedent?

I completely agree with you in that regards. I understand the logic behind some of the vetos that the US has done over the years with respect to Israel but many more leave me scratching my head and wondering if the United States will ever vote against any actions done by the Israeli government even if it believes that it is at fault.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Before continuing, I should declare an interest; I have close friends in Damascus and Aleppo, and (when communication is available) they inform me that Assad enjoys majority support amongst the general populace. They believe that much of the "insurrection" is Western backed agitation, especially Israeli. However, as that cannot be definitively verified, it remains conjecture. But that is not the hypocrisy I refer to.

I found this statement to be very interesting. If I may ask, are your friends in Syria Christian or Alawites? I only ask because from the anecdotal evidence I have from my Syrian friends its seems that all of them are very, very staunchly against the Asad regime but all of them are Sunni Muslims. There have been some news reports in the west about Christians and Alawites in Syria supporting the regime (I am too lazy to dig any up at the moment but if anyone is interested I can find them).

This happened in Egypt as well. Many of my Christian Egyptian friends were much more wary of the Egyptian revolution than my Muslim friends. The Middle East is not a place where people trust in the power of democracy or believe that it guarantees equality in religion and sect. In fact a few days ago there was an uprising in Libya by Ghaddafi loyalists. Now no one would argue that Ghaddafi was a good leader but these people supported him (and still do after he is dead!) because they were better off when he was around and now they are concerned for their well being.

The opposition to Qaddafi was, I believe, massively exaggerated for "political gain". The goal of the West was regime change, and such is infinitely more "palatable" if it apparently accords with the "will of the people".
My friends in Syria are mostly Sunni, although I have some Christian friends in Aleppo. However, I think it is critical to note that they are far from "fundamentalist", being what I would describe as secular (as Assad is).
As I wrote, claims of majority support for Assad can only be described as anecdotal, as so too are claims of majority opposition. It is political opportunism that makes great play from such claims...

I wonder, do other people not feel, like I do, that this "fury" with China and Russia is tainted by precedent?

I completely agree with you in that regards. I understand the logic behind some of the vetos that the US has done over the years with respect to Israel but many more leave me scratching my head and wondering if the United States will ever vote against any actions done by the Israeli government even if it believes that it is at fault.

Yes, there really is jaw-dropping double standards when China is criticised for use of a veto because Syria is her "ally". Pots and kettles come to mind!
The "People's Daily", a leading Chinese Communist Party newspaper, has defended the Chinese veto, as reported in the Guardian. Putting aside the more febrile utterances of Clinton and Hague, what seems to be a valid explanation for Chinese objections has been published.

Currently the situation in Syria is extremely complex. Simplistically supporting one side and suppressing the other might seem a helpful way of turning things around, but in fact it would be sowing fresh seeds of disaster....
....Libya offers a negative case study. Nato abused the security council resolution about establishing a no-fly zone and directly provided firepower assistance to one side in the Libyan war.

Further observations urging caution cite the "calamitous" results in Iraq and Afghanistan.
China has a reputation for pursuing a "long" game. Whereas the USA appears to "forget" what many observers recognise as her duplicitous actions, the Chinese position would seem to illustrate that history can come back and "bite you".
Finally, it is rather disheartening to watch Clinton repeat the same accusations of the UN being undermined as the Bush regime did because of its failure to get backing for the Iraq invasion. The attitude apparently persists that the role of the UN is to rubber stamp US foreign intervention; when agreement is gained, the UN is a positive, august institution, when agreement is denied, the UN is a rotten, corrupt failure...

[Túrin Turambar]

And sure enough, the troops of the Assad regime have advanced into Homs, apparently rounding up and indisciminately killing men and boys. Army defectors have claimed that they were ordered to do so by their officers. No doubt the victims were all Zionist agitators.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

And sure enough, the troops of the Assad regime have advanced into Homs, apparently rounding up and indisciminately killing men and boys. Army defectors have claimed that they were ordered to do so by their officers. No doubt the victims were all Zionist agitators.

It's a terrible situation. War is. I wonder how Australian forces would behave if there was an armed uprising in Melbourne, with hundreds of Aussie troops killed...

One problem with all the reports is that they rely completely on the words of the insurgents, and the journalists who have become embedded with them. Marie Colvin, who died last week in Homs, was a fine journalist, but she was not impartial. She had an agenda that strayed into propaganda.

Why do you think there is "no doubt the victims were all Zionist agitators"? Putting aside the difficulty in substantiating defectors' accounts (they are notoriously unreliable), are there only victims on one side? Do you really entertain this simplistic notion that Assad is all bad and the rebels are all good? (As an aside, one can generally ascertain the sympathies held by reporters from the language employed. Rebels and freedom fighters are good. Insurgents are neutral to bad. Terrorists are evil... However, there has been a new terminological introduction; "activist". Now that is an interesting linguistic departure...)

There are complex events at play in Syria, in which shady groups are involved, including Zionist agitators. It would be surprising if it was otherwise!

[CosmicBob]

Why do you think there is "no doubt the victims were all Zionist agitators"? Putting aside the difficulty in substantiating defectors' accounts (they are notoriously unreliable), are there only victims on one side?

Where are all the victims on the other side? They may not be reported in the western media, but surely if there were such a vast number of them (as there seem to be of the defectors) Assad would be parading them out for all to see. "Look what the terrorists have done! This is why we are crushing them." Are there state run media reports that we're not seeing here?

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Why do you think there is "no doubt the victims were all Zionist agitators"? Putting aside the difficulty in substantiating defectors' accounts (they are notoriously unreliable), are there only victims on one side?

Where are all the victims on the other side? They may not be reported in the western media, but surely if there were such a vast number of them (as there seem to be of the defectors) Assad would be parading them out for all to see. "Look what the terrorists have done! This is why we are crushing them." Are there state run media reports that we're not seeing here?

Well, yes, there have been many reports from the Assad regime detailing pro-regime casualties. And accounts not necessarily from the regime.For example this article from the independent Lebanese based al-akhbar news organisation states:

In the case of the raging conflict over Syria, the one fundamental issue that motors the entire international debate on the crisis is the death toll and its corollary: the Syrian casualty list.

The “list” has become widely recognized – if not specifically, then certainly when the numbers are bandied about: 4,000, 5,000, 6,000 – sometimes more. These are not mere numbers; they represent dead Syrians.

But this is where the dangers of perception begin. There are many competing Syrian casualty lists with different counts – how does one, for instance gauge if X is an accurate number of deaths? How have the deaths been verified? Who verifies them and do they have a vested interest? Are the dead all civilians? Are they pro-regime or anti-regime civilians? Do these lists include the approximately 2,000 dead Syrian security forces? Do they include members of armed groups? How does the list-aggregator tell the difference between a civilian and a plain-clothes militia member?

The methodology of data collection for casualties is questionable...

The database lists the victim’s name, age, gender, city, province, and date of death – when available. In December 2011, for instance, the list names around 77 registered casualties with no identifying information provided. In total, there are around 260 unknowns on the list.

Around that time, I had come across my first list of Syrians killed in the crisis, reportedly compiled in coordination with the SOHR, that contained the names of Palestinian refugees killed by Israeli fire on the Golan Heights on 15 May 2011 and 5 June 2011 when protesters congregated on Syria’s armistice line with Israel. So my first check was to see if that kind of glaring error appears in the SOHR list I investigate in this piece.

To my amazement, the entire list of victims from those two days were included in the SOHR casualty count – four from May 15 (#5160 to #5163) and 25 victims of Israeli fire from June 5 (#4629 to #4653). The list even identifies the deaths as taking place in Quneitra, which is in the Golan Heights.

I think one of the main problems is that there is only one narrative being peddled by Western media. It distorts, and propagandises. I would advise it be treated with major scepticism.

[axordil]

the independent Lebanese based al-akhbar news organisation

You typed that with a straight face, didn't you?

The idea of any Lebanese based news organization being independent of Syrian influence--pro or anti--is laughable. When Syria gets a runny nose, Lebanon loses a lung.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

the independent Lebanese based al-akhbar news organisation

You typed that with a straight face, didn't you?

The idea of any Lebanese based news organization being independent of Syrian influence--pro or anti--is laughable. When Syria gets a runny nose, Lebanon loses a lung.

Actually, with a knowing smile.

But the fact remains that there are two sides to the story, but the only side that is being given airtime is the "activists'" account.

Of course, because al-akhbar is a left wing organisation affiliated to Hizbullah, it is immediately disbarred as a reliable news resource... right?

However, even so, the link does provide a response to CosmicBob's point, I think...

[SirDennis]

I think one of the main problems is that there is only one narrative being peddled by Western media. It distorts, and propagandises. I would advise it be treated with major scepticism.

There is no question that this is true, though it is not fair to imply it is only Western media who engage in such practices.

[axordil]

It's another point of view, sure, but it's at least as biased as any Western source.

I do not believe Western journalism is as morally bankrupt, nor as monolithic, as you seem to. I don't think it's free of bias or influence either, but you know what? I see different versions of a lot of things, including the facts on the ground when it comes to anything touching Israel, as I bop around from the NYT to Murdoch outlets to the Irish Times to the CSMonitor. That's not even touching some of the more strident voices from the Continent.

So why are they so generally in agreement on what's happening in Syria?

[SirDennis]

Ax, in times of war it is not so much the line various media choose to take, it is how the Pentagon (and I'm sure their counterparts in the East) grants access to the show. Say the wrong things, or neglect to say the right kind of things, and it is all "Access Denied." It is established, that from top to bottom, everyone in media self censors. The effect is as if some dictator is in control of it all. Of course in some cases the state transparently controls media... but we digress.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

It's another point of view, sure, but it's at least as biased as any Western source.

I do not believe Western journalism is as morally bankrupt, nor as monolithic, as you seem to. I don't think it's free of bias or influence either, but you know what? I see different versions of a lot of things, including the facts on the ground when it comes to anything touching Israel, as I bop around from the NYT to Murdoch outlets to the Irish Times to the CSMonitor. That's not even touching some of the more strident voices from the Continent.

So why are they so generally in agreement on what's happening in Syria?

There was almost unified agreement on what was happening in Libya. That turned out to be false. Perhaps the answer is that, within the major media outlets, deviation from an accepted norm is minor. There may b e a number of approaches, but underneath the narrative remains the same.

I think one of the main problems is that there is only one narrative being peddled by Western media. It distorts, and propagandises. I would advise it be treated with major scepticism.

There is no question that this is true, though it is not fair to imply it is only Western media who engage in such practices.

It would be remiss of me to so do that. So I won't. Western media is propaganda. Non-Western media is propaganda. Both have kernels of truth, spun with lies and exaggerations. But it is only one side that is fed to the masses in the West, and so it is no surprise that the masses in the West are continuously duped, like they were over Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, and like they are over Iran and Syria.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Of course, because al-akhbar is a left wing organisation affiliated to Hizbullah, it is immediately disbarred as a reliable news resource... right?

The "affiliated to Hizbullah" party certain limits their credibility to my mind. Not to say that I trust everything that the "Western media" has to say about this or any other issue, but there are different degrees of uncredibility. There is little doubt in my mind that the Syrian government is waging war on its own people. The extent that less than savory forces are using that as cover for their own nefarious purposes remains unclear to me. That's about as much as I am willing to say.

Except for one thing. It would be better if you presented al-akhbar as "left wing organization affiliated to Hizbullah" in the first place, rather than as an independent Lebanese media organization. Such subterfuge limits your own credibility.

[SirDennis]

But it is only one side that is fed to the masses in the West, and so it is no surprise that the masses in the West are continuously duped, like they were over Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, and like they are over Iran and Syria.

Agreed. However, in the West the masses aren't the ones making decisions on foreign policy are they. Consent of the masses, not that it is required, is manufactured ex post facto.

[axordil]

Ax, in times of war it is not so much the line various media choose to take, it is how the Pentagon (and I'm sure their counterparts in the East) grants access to the show. Say the wrong things, or neglect to say the right kind of things, and it is all "Access Denied." It is established, that from top to bottom, everyone in media self censors. The effect is as if some dictator is in control of it all. Of course in some cases the state transparently controls media... but we digress.

I'm not sure the Pentagon has anything to say about granting access to any show currently going on in Syria.

[SirDennis]

Ax, in times of war it is not so much the line various media choose to take, it is how the Pentagon (and I'm sure their counterparts in the East) grants access to the show. Say the wrong things, or neglect to say the right kind of things, and it is all "Access Denied." It is established, that from top to bottom, everyone in media self censors. The effect is as if some dictator is in control of it all. Of course in some cases the state transparently controls media... but we digress.

I'm not sure the Pentagon has anything to say about granting access to any show currently going on in Syria.

You would be surprised then. The self censorship that occurs in times of war extends to all matters relating to foreign policy. If your agency wants to maintain its access (for instance as embedded media) you have to toe the line at all other times as well. Losing embedded status during a conflict happens. Getting on the not invited list happens based on your behaviour (what you publish or fail to publish) at all other times.