Syria

[Awol]

No need to start flapping yet. When a senior government chemical weapons expert mysteriously commits suicide while walking his dog, then we know it's time for a war.

[peterms]

 

 

Where is the democracy ???

We don't live in one!

 

 

Just because the government is doing something the majority don't agree with doesn't mean it isn't a democracy. That isn't how democracy is defined and it baffles me why people constantly bring up this point whenever the government does something they disagree with.

 

 

The idea of representative democracy is not that we elect some people and they can do what they want until the next election.

 

Neither does it mean that governments must seek explicit consent for everything they do.

 

We give consent to be governed, within broad and poorly defined parameters.  When governments overstep the boundaries, they are in trouble.  But because the boundaries are so extremely vague, it is hard for them, for people as a whole, and for the people charged with repressing dissent, to know when a government has clearly outreached its legitimate authority.  If it were to cancel elections, that would be clear.  If it were to take rights away from people, that's harder, because the taking away is likely to be incremental, because it may not be obvious when rights have been lost, because some may not care enough about the loss of rights which are mostly exercised by a minority.  Legal aid changes to deprive poor people of the right to justice would be one of the less clear-cut ones.

 

When people complain, and take to the streets about something the government does, they may either be simply protesting, hoping to gather support to bring pressure, or they may be challenging the right of the government to do what it is doing; challenging its legitimacy.  Again, there's not a clear and simple line between the two, and you could see the Poll Tax demonstrations as something which spanned both sides of that border.

[Mantis]

 

 

 

Where is the democracy ???

We don't live in one!

 

 

Just because the government is doing something the majority don't agree with doesn't mean it isn't a democracy. That isn't how democracy is defined and it baffles me why people constantly bring up this point whenever the government does something they disagree with.

 

 

The idea of representative democracy is not that we elect some people and they can do what they want until the next election.

 

Neither does it mean that governments must seek explicit consent for everything they do.

 

We give consent to be governed, within broad and poorly defined parameters.  When governments overstep the boundaries, they are in trouble.  But because the boundaries are so extremely vague, it is hard for them, for people as a whole, and for the people charged with repressing dissent, to know when a government has clearly outreached its legitimate authority.  If it were to cancel elections, that would be clear.  If it were to take rights away from people, that's harder, because the taking away is likely to be incremental, because it may not be obvious when rights have been lost, because some may not care enough about the loss of rights which are mostly exercised by a minority.  Legal aid changes to deprive poor people of the right to justice would be one of the less clear-cut ones.

 

When people complain, and take to the streets about something the government does, they may either be simply protesting, hoping to gather support to bring pressure, or they may be challenging the right of the government to do what it is doing; challenging its legitimacy.  Again, there's not a clear and simple line between the two, and you could see the Poll Tax demonstrations as something which spanned both sides of that border.

 

 

I'm well aware of what constitutes a democracy, and I can't find much in your post that I disagree with. However, I fail to see what's so undemocratic about hypothetical military action in Syria? Whether or not it's right or not is another matter (I'm on the fence on that one) but undemocratic it is not.

[Awol]

However, I fail to see what's so undemocratic about hypothetical military action in Syria? Whether or not it's right or not is another matter (I'm on the fence on that one) but undemocratic it is not.

 

Nah, we need a phone in hosted by Ant and Dec.

 

Dial XXXXXXXXXX 01 to back the psychotic dictator

 

Dial XXXXXXXXXX 02 to back his Jihadi western hating opponents

 

Dial XXXXXXXXXX 03 to carpet bomb them with King James Bibles and hope they see the light

 

Dial XXXXXXXXXX 04 to nuke the whole site from orbit, just to be sure

 

Or maybe put the question on facebook? If HMG can get enough 'likes' then we start firing Tomahawks. That's democracy!

[peterms]

I'm well aware of what constitutes a democracy, and I can't find much in your post that I disagree with. However, I fail to see what's so undemocratic about hypothetical military action in Syria? Whether or not it's right or not is another matter (I'm on the fence on that one) but undemocratic it is not.

Because taking the country to war (whether using a different form of words to disguise this or not) is not a decision to be left to a government, especially so soon after we were dragged into an illegal war on the basis of lies in very similar circumstances; an action which has directly led to deaths on our streets, as well as the deaths of many of our armed forces, and many times more people in other countries.

 

Years ago, we might have accepted that declaring war was something that a government had the right to do.  More recently, when we see the people involved in doing so have vast personal financial interests in warmongering, when it is clear that they act in their own interest and send the kids of the poor to die in their wars while raking in millions from the bloodshed, we have moved away from such a forelock-tugging acquiescence in brutality.

 

And so we tell them they don't have the right to drag us into this moral and physical gutter.  Calling it undemocratic is just shorthand for that.

[Mantis]

 

I'm well aware of what constitutes a democracy, and I can't find much in your post that I disagree with. However, I fail to see what's so undemocratic about hypothetical military action in Syria? Whether or not it's right or not is another matter (I'm on the fence on that one) but undemocratic it is not.

Because taking the country to war (whether using a different form of words to disguise this or not) is not a decision to be left to a government, especially so soon after we were dragged into an illegal war on the basis of lies in very similar circumstances; an action which has directly led to deaths on our streets, as well as the deaths of many of our armed forces, and many times more people in other countries.

 

Years ago, we might have accepted that declaring war was something that a government had the right to do.  More recently, when we see the people involved in doing so have vast personal financial interests in warmongering, when it is clear that they act in their own interest and send the kids of the poor to die in their wars while raking in millions from the bloodshed, we have moved away from such a forelock-tugging acquiescence in brutality.

 

And so we tell them they don't have the right to drag us into this moral and physical gutter.  Calling it undemocratic is just shorthand for that.

 

 

War is no different from any other matter of state. If not the government's decisions then whose is it? If it's "the people" then there's no reason why they should get to decide directly on one aspect of the state but not other equally important matters.

 

You may view military intervention as "dragging us into the moral and physical gutter" and that is your opinion and you have a right to label it as such. Undemocratic however it is not.

 

Besides, we don't actually know yet whether we'll even act on Syria yet. I think people are all too quick to declare that war is coming.

Edited August 27, 2013 by Mantis

[AVFCforever1991]

[Mantis]

Yeah, because they're totally the same thing...

Edited August 27, 2013 by Mantis

[Awol]

And I still haven't seen a credible explanation, or any explanation, of that Mail story showing the e-mail between directors of a security contractor who had been asked to deliver chemical weapons with Russian-speaking staff in missiles similar to those thought to be used by Assad.

 

Just on this little number because you are apparently bestowing some sort of credibility on it, this was the story about Brittam Defence back in January, right?

 

 

 

Yep, I'm sold on that not being an utter pi** take to get conspiracy theorists heads revolving at the speed of light! 

 

Who'd have thought that Mr Goulding, using his Russian software ("lol"), would be daft enough to discuss committing a war crime that implicates himself, his firm and several national Governments on an unencrypted email that miraculously found its way onto the internet - via photoshop.

 

 

 

Please, tell me this isn't the document you are seeking a "credible" explanation for??!    

[peterms]

Please, tell me this isn't the document you are seeking a "credible" explanation for??!

Following Britam being hacked, apparently a cybercrime unit from Scotland Yard were involved in investigating, as well as a company employed by Britam.  I understand Britam say it's a fake, but I don't see any further reference to the police inquiry.  I'd have thought if it was simply a photoshop, then that would have been explained early, simply, and clearly, and that would be the end of it.

 

There's a site here which claims it is a forgery, based on the message number and time stamp being the same as another e-mail, when the message number at least is meant to be unique.

 

Another site which seems to deal in debunking conspiracy theories carries this brief discussion, suggesting that it is a fraud, but one which carries a clue that it is a fraud but one which contains an easily seen and easily removed sign of fraud, which a "real" fraud would not do.  The suggestion is that it is something meant to be debunked; a double fraud, if you like.

 

Neither of these, nor anything else I've seen, discuss it being a crude photoshop job evident to the naked eye, which I'd have thought would be the first thing to say, if that were the case.

 

As I say, still waiting for a credible explanation, and not seeing one yet, in either direction.

[drat01]

Tim Marshall ‏@Skytwitius 9h

Meanwhile, Syria's Kurds are being ethnically cleansed by opposition forces. One of largest movements of people so far in war.

 

Interesting comments, especially with the massive hypocrisy that some are showing now. The fact that Saddam DID have weapons of mas destruction, as was shown by the killings of Kurds, e.g. Halabja, but apparently that was not to be considered. The Iraq war and the comments made at the time (and support) from people like Hague etc, wind quickly forward and we see a pretty much repeat from Hague (see letter in Telegraph).

 

There is a history thread running on VT and one thing you are supposed to learn from is history. It seems that at the moment certain quarters are just looking for another rerun of a previous movie (none of it's real don't you know)

[Awol]

 

 

As I say, still waiting for a credible explanation, and not seeing one yet, in either direction.

 

Perhaps the most credible explanation against would be the fact that anyone working in security and intelligence is well aware that nothing should be written in an email that you wouldn't be happy to share with the global intelligence community.  Now let's just suppose that the CIA or some other f*cked up organisation were seriously considering running a false flag chemical weapons attack, would they really outsource it to a foreign commercial defence contractor of such staggering incompetence that they then sent the most preposterously worded email ever, in clear and fingering the US and Qatari Governments in the process?

 

It is such a comically bad effort that I am convinced it was done by someone with a good sense of humour who fancied winding up the blogosphere. That the Daily Mail was the only publication stupid enough to bite is just further evidence (as if it was necessary) of their utter incompetence.  The fact it swiftly disappeared is most probably due to this idiocy being quickly pointed out to them or noticed by a senior editor, rather than the men in black descending on their servers.

 

The Syria situation is difficult, convoluted and serious enough as it is without this kind of blatant wind up being thrown into the mix.

 

Tim Marshall ‏@Skytwitius 9h

Meanwhile, Syria's Kurds are being ethnically cleansed by opposition forces. One of largest movements of people so far in war.

 

Interesting comments, especially with the massive hypocrisy that some are showing now. The fact that Saddam DID have weapons of mas destruction, as was shown by the killings of Kurds, e.g. Halabja, but apparently that was not to be considered. The Iraq war and the comments made at the time (and support) from people like Hague etc, wind quickly forward and we see a pretty much repeat from Hague (see letter in Telegraph).

 

There is a history thread running on VT and one thing you are supposed to learn from is history. It seems that at the moment certain quarters are just looking for another rerun of a previous movie (none of it's real don't you know)

 

Two words: Dodgy dossier.

 

Le Fin.

[drat01]

So the Iraqi Kurds were not killed by WMD?

[peterms]

Perhaps the most credible explanation against would be the fact that anyone working in security and intelligence is well aware that nothing should be written in an email that you wouldn't be happy to share with the global intelligence community.

It seems we are about to be told that there is conclusive proof that Assad's forces were responsible for the latest attack, backed up by communications intercepted by Israeli intelligence. Perhaps your reservations about what people say, knowing that everyone is listening to everything, will apply to this forthcoming tale as well.

 

Now let's just suppose that the CIA or some other f*cked up organisation were seriously considering running a false flag chemical weapons attack, would they really outsource it to a foreign commercial defence contractor of such staggering incompetence that they then sent the most preposterously worded email ever, in clear and fingering the US and Qatari Governments in the process?

 

It is such a comically bad effort that I am convinced it was done by someone with a good sense of humour who fancied winding up the blogosphere. That the Daily Mail was the only publication stupid enough to bite is just further evidence (as if it was necessary) of their utter incompetence.  The fact it swiftly disappeared is most probably due to this idiocy being quickly pointed out to them or noticed by a senior editor, rather than the men in black descending on their servers.

The suggestion is that it was Qatar.  The reports this spring about 12 al-Nusra people being arrested in Adana with chemical substances which were reported to be sarin (but which the governor of Adana later denied was sarin, but declined to identify), also mention that Qatar arranged the supply of these weapons through Turkey.

 

We know that the rebels are being supplied by many countries, including Qatar, the US and others.  We know they have been found in possession of "chemicals".  We know that the UN found it highly likely that they had used sarin.  We are told that they probably lack the capacity to make sarin, so would need to be supplied with it, if they are to have it at all.  It is highly likely that a security firm of some sort would be used in this, as in so many other things.

 

I don't know whether Britam are likely to have been involved, and I don't know whether the e-mail is real, a fake, or a double fake.

 

On the question of probability, you argue that we should discount this, because anyone working in security would not be so stupid as to leave any evidence trail.

 

What I find far, far less probable, is that Assad would do the single thing which breaches the one condition Obama has laid down for triggering US involvement, when there was no need to.  It is risking literally everything, for no particular gain.

 

As for whether that, or security geeks being sloppy, is the more likely, I think it's pretty clear which is more likely.  Which doesn't make it conclusive in any event, I'm simply saying that your grounds for disbelief are perhaps unduly generous about the level of professionalism and caution of mercenaries.

[peterms]

So the Iraqi Kurds were not killed by WMD?

 

Many thousands have been.  WMD made by, supplied by, and used with the benign non-intervention of, the US of A.

[Awol]

So the Iraqi Kurds were not killed by WMD?

In 1985, yes they were. Did that mean Saddam had WMD in 2003 following his disarmament programme? No. If he had, one suspects we may have found just a single shred of evidence after we kicked down the doors of Iraq, which of course we did not.

 

Blair's speech about Saddam's WMD programmes being current and extensive etc. were nothing more than a bare faced lie told by a bare faced liar.

[drat01]

 

So the Iraqi Kurds were not killed by WMD?

 

Many thousands have been.  WMD made by, supplied by, and used with the benign non-intervention of, the US of A.

 

Pete - I appreciate that completely mate. Just finding some of the words and indignation being spouted  as cause for action somewhat hypocritical, especially given previous stance on regimes like Saddaam's Iraq that also used WMD (and still had them). Arms supplies as you have rightly stated on many times before are major causes and often motivators for conflicts

 

I don't agree with AWOL and his stance that because the invaders did not find any then they were no longer there. There seems to be a lot of evidence of these being moved into Syria before the Iraq war, which seems somewhat ironic now

 

Given Cameron's record on sport and his "backing the loser" I would imagine that most leaders are hoping that he "supports" the "other side" 

Edited August 28, 2013 by drat01

[Awol]

Peter, despite my belief that the Britam link is literally cobblers, I like most will be looking at what evidence is put forward to prove this was Assad with a skeptical eye. The more interesting question is if that evidence is actually incontrovertible (except to kranks who will never accept this isn't a conspiracy driven by outside powers - and please don't take that as a reference to your good self which it isn't), what then?

 

Wee Willie Hague has a point about the large scale use of chemcial weapons, if it is allowed to pass it is the thin end of a very ugly wedge, particularly when the whole area is on a downward spiral to broader conflict anyway.

[Eames]

As I said yesterday - what exactly has this got to do with the UK? 

 

Where the **** are the Arab League and what are they doing about it? 

 

[drat01]

As I said yesterday - what exactly has this got to do with the UK? 

 

Where the **** are the Arab League and what are they doing about it? 

 

I think the Arab league have issued various statements about this. As some have rightly pointed out they predominantly sit on the "other" side of the fence regarding the faith that they support so are not big supporters of the Syrian regime etc.

 

I agree the UK should really keep out of this, and escalate to organisations such as the UN etc. That may sound harsh given the atrocities that are occurring but at the moment you cannot help and wonder if the "soundbites" that UK political leaders are coming out with are more about generation of profits than anything else