The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"

[peterms]

39 minutes ago, blandy said:

So it looks like there was an attack (rather than the initial line that there wasn't, and it was all a fake).

The report you quote doesn't support the conclusion you draw.

See the recent briefing here:

Quote

1 Summary

• Early statements by the US and French governments that a nerve agent had been used in the alleged chemical attack in Douma on 7 April 2018 were rebutted by the OPCW Fact-Finding mission which reported that neither environmental samples obtained on-site nor blood samples from purported victims contained any trace of nerve agent. This indicates that the US and French governments were poorly informed at the time of the US-led missile attack on Syria on 14 April.
• The Prime Minister misled the House of Commons by stating on 16 April that the OPCW team had been prevented from visiting the Douma attack site by the Syrian authorities and the Russian military, and may also have misled the House by stating that the US-led missile attack was “specifically targeted at three sites” allegedly associated with chemical weapons (rather than targeted on Syrian military infrastructure as reported elsewhere).
• The OPCW Fact-Finding Mission did not reach any conclusion as to whether a chemical attack had taken place. The detection of chlorinated organic compounds in environmental samples is consistent with release of chlorine from a gas cylinder at the two alleged attack sites, but this does not distinguish between a chemical attack and a staged incident.
• Experts agreed that the images showing bodies of victims lying close together in an apartment building were not compatible with exposure only to chlorine, from which the victims would have been able to escape by moving to the windows or leaving the building. This is supported by experience of industrial accidents with chlorine in which those exposed are usually able to escape.
• As no nerve agent degradation products were detected and the positions of the victims’ bodies are not compatible with death from chlorine exposure on the spot, the only remaining explanation is that the victims were killed by other means.
• Other observations favour a managed massacre rather than a chemical attack as the explanation for the Douma incident:-
  • the positioning of the gas cylinders is more consistent with staging than with an air-dropped munition
  • at the site where most victims were shown, a fire was lit in the room underneath the gas cylinder.
• For chlorine to be useful as a weapon, it would have to be released on an industrial scale as in 1915 rather than as a single cylinder or barrel dropped from the air.
• Assessments by the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission that chlorine had been used as a weapon in Syria between 2014 and 2017 were based on secondary sources without on-site inspections. This violates a precept that OPCW had set for itself in 2013.
• The conclusions of the Fact-Finding Mission that use of chlorine in alleged attacks in Syria between 2014 and 2018 was “likely” or supported “with a high degree of confidence” relied on witnesses and samples provided by purported non-governmental organizations with access to opposition-held areas of Syria. These organizations included:
  • a “CBRN Task Force” set up by an agent of the intelligence service of a state committed to one side in the Syrian conflict
  • Same Justice / CVDCS, a Brussels-based organization whose operations are not transparent
  • the White Helmets, who would themselves be implicated if these incidents were staged
• In relation to one of the incidents from which the CBRN Task Force collected materials — the alleged chlorine barrel bomb attack in Talmenes on 21 April 2014 — the UN/OPCW Joint Investigative Mechanism found clear evidence of staging at one of the two alleged locations.
• In a widely-publicized incident in Sarmin on 16 March 2015, the deaths of a family of six were allegedly caused by a chlorine barrel bomb. For this incident the alleged munition is implausible, the alleged mode of delivery is improbable, and the images of the child victims in hospital are consistent with drug overdose rather than chlorine exposure as the cause of death. Despite evidence that the incident had been staged, the Leadership Panel of the UN/OPCW Joint Investigative Mechanism — Gamba, Meritani and Schanze — relied on information obtained from unspecified “other sources” to conclude that a Syrian air force helicopter had dropped a chemical weapon.

 

[blandy]

13 minutes ago, peterms said:

The report you quote doesn't support the conclusion you draw.

Well that's one way of looking at it, for sure. Another would be that while an opposition group alleged Sarin, the US said, er... 

And that very same blog said 

 

Quote

Chemical Attack in Douma: a false pretext for escalating war against Syria?

Posted on April 8, 2018

 

So the notion that it was all about alleged nerve gas attacks doesn't stand up.

But that's kind of irrelevant. And yes, some of the points made by the "friends of Russia group", or whatever their official title (Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media) is, have some merit. A lot seem completely unrelated. But fog...."The OPCW is incompetent, we allege the OPCW did something wrong back in 2015, the OPCW is biased, slur the white helmets", and omit anything that doesn't support their preconceived argument. Job done. That article is not a balanced one, looking at the various possibilities, it is one cherry picking things that the author hope will support a predetermined theory. Which is fine, but it's not independent nor balanced, nor from a non-partisan source, nor from experts in the field.

It's possible the preconceived notions about the Western media and deep state and all the rest and their theories of the attack and their Russian media appearances will all be proven to be spot on, but I have my doubts.

[peterms]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

the points made by the "friends of Russia group"

You seem to be writing off their views because you dislike their conclusions, rather than assessing the strength of the arguments they consider - ironically, this is what you accuse them of doing.

1 hour ago, blandy said:

That article is not a balanced one, looking at the various possibilities, it is one cherry picking things that the author hope will support a predetermined theory.

What they have done in the briefing note, and in previous pieces, is consider how well available evidence fits stated hypotheses.  I only posted the summary, for reasons of space.

Quote

...As explained elsewhere, the formal logic of inference requires that alternative hypotheses are stated before evaluating the evidence, and that the weight of evidence favouring any of these hypothesis over the others is evaluated by comparing, for each relevant observation, how well each hypothesis would have predicted that observation. Evaluating the evidence favouring one hypothesis over another does not depend upon prior beliefs about which hypothesis is true.

The possible explanations for the Douma incident can be reduced to two alternative hypotheses:

1. A chemical attack using gas cylinders dropped from the air.
2. a managed massacre of captives, with a chemical attack staged by placing gas cylinders at the site and possibly opening them to release chlorine.

Other hypotheses are possible — for instance accidental asphyxiation of victims while sheltering elsewhere, followed by opportunistic staging of a chemical attack — but unless such hypotheses are proposed we shall consider only the two alternatives stated above...

What they have set out in their work simply doesn't fit your description, and in fact it's you who is cherry picking things to fit a predetermined theory, as when you say the presence of chlorinated material proves that an attack took place; as the paper explains, the OPCW give no information about the quantities found, and in any event the presence of chlorine does not give evidence that it was an attack rather than a staged event.

 

[blandy]

6 hours ago, peterms said:

You seem to be writing off their views because you dislike their conclusions

I don’t know why you say that, as I specifically said I feel their views (bias) have led to their conclusions, rather than their conclusions being based on open-minded examination of not just aspects that they feel they can use to support a mindset, but all the available detail. To get others to be persuaded of their hypothesis they would need to address aspects which don’t fit supportively with their outlook.

i have bias, you have bias, everyone does. So it’s critically important to set that aside, or give the opportunity to counter positions to arrive at as close as possible to a justifiably supportable conclusion. They fail, massively to do that. It. Is transparently one eyed. It doesn’t mean they couldn’t be broadly right, but they fail to rigorously demonstrate proper even handed analysis.

what they seem to have done and have a history of is start from a perspective of (as their name suggests) extreme scepticism (to be kind) of western media and motives, without equally using the same level os scepticism towards Assad and Russia’s motives and state media and propaganda.  It’s the assertion of balanced, reason that I take issue with, not the conclusion per se. They’ve got where they’ve got, not through wisdom and analysis of all available information, but through cherry picking. I’d love to read something genuinely rigorous in analysis of all sides whatever conclusion it reached, but that effort is nowhere near that, thus were no better informed than if they hadn’t bothered with their blog.

[LondonLax]

Idlib is about to take a proper beating, women and children and all. There is plenty of talk that Assad will use chemical weapons again but just like each previous occasion there will be no repercussions for him. 

Is he really going to take up position as ruler of Syria again once he had taken back control of the whole country by whatever means necessary?

[peterms]

This) is what the Guardian used to be like, before they employed tools like Luke Harding and appointed Katherine Viner.

It was once something you'd pay money to read.

Quote

Just when it seems the Syrian war cannot get more complex, it does. In the skies above the Mediterranean, Syrian missiles shoot down an allied Russian surveillance plane after mistaking it for an Israeli bomber. In the Black Sea resort of Sochi, the Russian and Turkish presidents produce a plan for Turkey to use its control of part of Idlib province to disarm the worst jihadi extremists, including Chechens, Uighurs and other foreigners, as well as homegrown Syrian fanatics.

Two points stand out. One is the proliferation of outside interference in what began in 2011 as a purely Syrian campaign for reform. The other is the central and indispensable role that Russia now plays. On Syria’s south-western flank, it deploys military police near the Israeli-occupied Golan so as to prevent pro-Iranian militias from moving up and provoking Israeli forces. It turns a blind eye to Israeli air attacks on Iranian advisers in Syria. Only now with Monday’s loss of a Russian plane does it give the Israelis a public dressing-down for creating the confusion that led to the missile mistake.

Russia’s relationship with Turkey is equally multifaceted. It condemns Turkey’s occupation of northern Syrian territory, including parts of Idlib, but uses Turkey’s presence to demand that Turkey disarm the jihadis it once supported there. Whether Monday’s Sochi agreement will be implemented remains to be seen. Turkey has made earlier promises to tackle the extremists that have come to nothing.

In a separate part of Idlib, Syrian government forces and Russian aircraft are still massing for an assault on other anti-Assad fighters. Here the outside players include Britain, France and the US. They have been mounting a vigorous campaign to prevent a Russian bombing onslaught. While their motives are in part humanitarian, since heavy bombing is bound to cause death and displacement on a massive scale, their calls for a ceasefire are tainted with less honourable motives. They are designed to delay the success that the Syrian army and its Russian allies are about to achieve by regaining control over the last rebel-held region in the Syrian heartland.

Britain, France and the US, along with the Gulf Arab monarchies, have been intimately involved in Syria’s civil war since the uprising against Assad was militarised in 2012. They have aided and financed rebel fighting groups, including jihadi extremists. Calling for ceasefires is a device for helping the rebels rather than the civilians they rule, often in brutal fashion.
‘It will be hard to accept that Russian intervention has been broadly positive by bringing the war to an end’. An airstrike near Idlib, Syria.
‘It will be hard to accept that Russian intervention has been broadly positive by bringing the war to an end’.

There is a far better way to protect the 2 million or more civilians now huddled in Idlib, many in makeshift camps and other deplorable conditions. It is to find a political settlement under which the rebels surrender. The Syrian government has negotiated more than 100 surrender pacts with various rebel groups over the past two years. Described euphemistically as “reconciliation agreements”, they have permitted thousands of rebels to leave besieged areas. Most have moved to Idlib. Eager to reassert government control, Syrian forces even allowed the rebels to take their rifles and side-arms with them and be transported in government buses.

Thousands of family members and other civilians have gone with the armed fighters, which is why Idlib is now so full of displaced people. But thousands of other Syrians have taken advantage of the reconciliation deals to start rebuilding their homes. They would rather live under Syrian government control than remain in towns and villages at war. The Syrian conflict was never a simple binary struggle between supporters and opponents of Assad. Millions of Syrians had little or no faith in either side but deplored the militarisation of what had started as a non-violent uprising and became a proxy war in which outside states used Syria as a battleground for their own interests.

While Turkey is involved in areas of Idlib run by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) – formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, an affiliate of al-Qaida – other parts are under the sway of fighters of Ahrar al-Sham and Noureddine al-Zinki, two groups with whom western special forces have had links. There is also the group known as the White Helmets, who are still on the British, French and US payroll.

Russian planes have been dropping leaflets urging the Idlib rebels to surrender. As happened in eastern Aleppo two years ago, there are reports that rebels punish people who pick up and distribute the leaflets or spread the message that it is better to make peace than go on with a fruitless war. Even at this late stage, the rebels have not given up the hope of a US-led bombing campaign on Assad’s headquarters in Damascus.

Another rebel message is that anyone who surrenders, whether fighter or civilian, will be detained or killed by Syrian forces. The idea that the Syrian authorities would kill civilians who return to government control makes little sense. But even where there are legitimate fears of reprisals, the dangers inherent in carrying on the conflict will inevitably be greater.

Nevertheless, the Syrian government should announce loudly and clearly that amnesty will be given to all of Idlib’s surrendering rebels, provided they have not been part of Islamic State or HTS.

They will not even be conscripted into the Syrian army (as happened under previous deals), since the government will not need so many troops now that the war is almost over. In return, the British, French and US governments should urge their proxies not to obstruct surrender deals.

It will be hard for many Syrians to admit that the anti-Assad revolution has failed, but denying reality only condemns Syria to more months of suffering. It will be hard for western governments to accept that Assad has won after seven years of demanding that he resign. It will also be hard to accept that Russian intervention has helped bring the war to an end.

The war’s most-repeated cliche is the phrase that Assad has been killing his own people. But that merely underlines that this seven-year-struggle is a civil war in which, by the same logic, the rebels have also been killing their own people. Western governments bear partial responsibility for the carnage. By taking the right course over Idlib, they can begin to make amends.

• Jonathan Steele is a former Guardian foreign correspondent

 

[peterms]

 

[chrisp65]

So, nice easy one:

Shamima Begum, currently in a refugee camp, 9 months pregnant and wants to come back to the UK.

In your new role as Chief Border Guard, does she get back in?

[bickster]

4 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

So, nice easy one:

Shamima Begum, currently in a refugee camp, 9 months pregnant and wants to come back to the UK.

In your new role as Chief Border Guard, does she get back in?

I'm not sure you have many options under International Law. She's yours

[Chindie]

To the best of my knowledge she's a British national so I don't think she can be blocked from returning.

Regardless, she should be allowed back and then tried. I have exceedingly little sympathy for her, but the right thing is to allow her back and then seek to prosecute her if she's found to have broken any laws.

[snowychap]

10 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

In your new role as Chief Border Guard, does she get back in?

If she has valid documentation then it would be the legal duty of the 'Chief Border Guard' (I fear you have invented this post! ) to let her in.

Edited February 15, 2019 by snowychap

[chrisp65]

Well, I think you'll find Sajid (send my dad back) Javid wants to make her stateless and refuse admission.

It's fascinating, she was a child when she left having been groomed on the 'net. In her school bag, they found a letter advising her parents she'd been identified as being at risk. The police had given it to her, to give to her parents. Had they done their job correctly, she might have been 'prevent'ed from leaving.

Bloody difficult dilema, it's actually what politicians are for this, I wouldn't want to be the decider. Almost impossibly difficult.

I think I'd probably have to let her back in. 

 

[tonyh29]

2 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

So, nice easy one:

Shamima Begum, currently in a refugee camp, 9 months pregnant and wants to come back to the UK.

In your new role as Chief Border Guard, does she get back in?

Yes but I get Cardiff City to arrange the transport 

[chrisp65]

[LondonLax]

She was a kid who was essentially groomed on the internet by a paedophile ring (or whatever the equivalent term is for attraction to teenage kids).

She is not much different from the teenage girls who were groomed by the infamous Rotherham gang. Impressionable young teens offered things by older men to entice them.

She has been radicalised by her abusers and has had two children die in infancy. 

I think she needs some sympathy surely? 

[Dr_Pangloss]

11 hours ago, LondonLax said:

She was a kid who was essentially groomed on the internet by a paedophile ring (or whatever the equivalent term is for attraction to teenage kids).

She is not much different from the teenage girls who were groomed by the infamous Rotherham gang. Impressionable young teens offered things by older men to entice them.

She has been radicalised by her abusers and has had two children die in infancy. 

I think she needs some sympathy surely? 

Not really. She was well above the age of criminal responsibility, 'radicalised' or not you have to be a certain type of person to fall for those ideas and those people are absolutely a danger to society. She would have endorsed mass murder and likely complicit in some fairly heinous crimes. She should be returned to UK and tried, her child to be placed into the system as she's not a fit mother, it could be an opportunity to make an 'example out of her', I wouldn't be against that, but has to be weighed up among other options.

Edited February 17, 2019 by Dr_Pangloss

[chrisp65]

Did we have any sort of policy on those returning from the Spanish Civil War?

I know it's not an exact parallel, but my understanding is we pretty much celebrate those that fought against Franco. We also appear to have a quite relaxed attitude to those that have fought with the Kurds.

So this is an ideology problem, not a violence problem? Not being tricky, just working through it. She's been helping, supporting 'the other side'. That she might not have beheaded anyone is secondary, she has fed and supported the other side.

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

Did we have any sort of policy on those returning from the Spanish Civil War?

I know it's not an exact parallel, but my understanding is we pretty much celebrate those that fought against Franco. We also appear to have a quite relaxed attitude to those that have fought with the Kurds.

So this is an ideology problem, not a violence problem? Not being tricky, just working through it. She's been helping, supporting 'the other side'. That she might not have beheaded anyone is secondary, she has fed and supported the other side.

I think this is right, the issue is not that she travelled to a war zone (lots of British people do this) but that she travelled there with the express intention of giving comfort and support to a group of people who were clearly identified as 'the enemy'. 

If she hasn't taken another nationality, and I believe she hasn't, international law is very clear that a country cannot make a person stateless (as the government has now admitted), and therefore she will need to be readmitted. She is our problem. As to what the correct course of action is, we aren't best-placed to decide obviously, but from the very outside perspective, it seems like the first thing to do is help her have this baby, and then investigate, keep her in a secure location, and either 'deprogram' her or imprison her and put her in isolation for a very long time. But that's just guessing really. 

[peterms]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

We also appear to have a quite relaxed attitude to those that have fought with the Kurds.

A man who fought with the Kurds was prosecuted under terror legislation, but when it came to court no evidence was offered.  It is thought Turkey was pressing for charges to be laid.  I think when the charges were dropped, it was suggested that if the case went ahead, it would require revealing information about some of what the UK was doing in Syria, which the government would rather was not aired.

Quote

A former British Army soldier who was charged with terror offences after fighting against Isis in Syria has attacked authorities’ “incoherent” approach to volunteers who risked their lives.

Jim Matthews was the first person prosecuted for fighting with the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) after dozens of British supporters joined their cause.

 

[Xela]

2 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Did we have any sort of policy on those returning from the Spanish Civil War?

I know it's not an exact parallel, but my understanding is we pretty much celebrate those that fought against Franco. We also appear to have a quite relaxed attitude to those that have fought with the Kurds.

So this is an ideology problem, not a violence problem? Not being tricky, just working through it. She's been helping, supporting 'the other side'. That she might not have beheaded anyone is secondary, she has fed and supported the other side.

Was there any ever instances of Brits aligning themselves with Nazi Germany in the second world war? If so what was the punishment? Just interested to see if that situation ever arose.