And next, Syria?

[Orang Utan]

Yup, it's a nice feeling. Even a broken clock etc. etc..

I wouldn't describe bombing someone to smithereens as a nice feeling, but horses for courses.

 

[LDC]

I wouldn't describe bombing someone to smithereens as a nice feeling, but horses for courses.

Depends on the person. In this case, great.

 

[teqniq]

Why? (I mean specifically in this case, rather than more generally.)

Whilst it could be argued that he deserved to die, justifying the attack as 'self defence' is just drivel. If they actually got him it was an execution plain and simple.

 

[LDC]

Whilst it could be argued that he deserved to die, justifying the attack as 'self defence' is just drivel. If they actually got him it was an execution plain and simple.

The British law of self defence allows pre-emptive action if you perceive a threat. Perceive, not even know. So, I actually think it's consistent and probably legally sound. Whether it was moral or a good idea is another discussion.

 

[LDC]

CAGE's statement here Emwazi Should Have Been Tried As A War Criminal: CAGE | CAGE

 

[teqniq]

The British law of self defence allows pre-emptive action if you perceive a threat. Perceive, not even know. So, I actually think it's consistent and probably legally sound. Whether it was moral or a good idea is another discussion.

Still drivel imo.

 

[LDC]

Well, you might think it's 'drivel', but that's not a very good argument.

 

[teqniq]

No, it's not an argument nor is it meant to be. It's an opinion.

 

[LDC]

What bit of it do you think was 'drivel'? The legality of the claim of self defence, or the suggestion that ME was a threat at all, or something else?

 

[teqniq]

I think Wilf on the other thread sums up my feeling about this quite nicely. Cameron has used the 'self defence' argument to justify the bit in bold. In this context i think it's drivel as I imagine only a few people would think he posed a clear and present danger to the UK. So the 'self defence' statement is nothing more than window-dressing to justify the action.

I'll not grieve for the murderous psycho, but having said that this is pretty much a PR based execution. Not the best basis on which to launch lethal force.

 

[Casually Red]

Possibly a realisation that their WW2 bombing technqiues aren't going to do much more than buy some time for Assad? Putin could trade Assad away, stabilise a rump Syrian state with his precious ports, declare victory and switch the Russian media back to 24x7 Ukraine.

Utter nonsense.

The Syrian army have just overrun terrorist positions right accross Aleppo province in a major rout . They're still running as we speak and there's more territory being liberated every day . Their ww2 bombing seems to be a damn sight more effective in a month than the western countries managed for years in their pathetic joke of a campaign .

 

[Casually Red]

so, the one that you try to look at..says what the author says it did. The fact that Chomsky added the words 'brutal' and 'vicious' are completely and uterly irrelevant. Chomsky was saying that Russia was not acting in an imperialist manner, because it was acting on the invitatin of a government.

As for your other complaints, just look around the internet, at posts from the likes of our own Assad apologist Casually Red, at the output of the CP, Seamus Milne, or any of the other Stalinist apologists. It's all there.

Chomskys point is spot on . Russia has observed and respected Syrias sovereignty by only acting on the invitation of its government . Unlike the western imperialist powers.
The war against Syria is an act of imperialism every bit as much as the war in Iraq was , the only real difference being the western powers have utilised proxies and foreign mercenaries for this one rather than putting boots on the ground . By intervening directly at the invitation of the Syrian government Russia has confounded an overtly imperialist exercise , not engaged in one . Russia has no plans whatsoever to acquire an empire in the middle east . It's a ridiculous assertion. It's actions in Syria are no more imperialist than Cubas actions in Syria or in Africa in the 1970s and 80s .
This is simply utter bollocks . What empire is Russia seeking in the ME ? At least make some effort to back your assertion up with something that even resembles a fact .

 

[butchersapron]

I posted back at the start of october that the logic offered by those supporting the russian intervention effectively said that the US involvement was retrospectively not imperialist, and that that it should actually be applauded. Now we get it being openly stated in the post above this one.

Chomsky's conception of imperialism - the one this poster proceeds from as well - is a weak and feeble liberal one based entirely on the idea of national sovereignty - it is entirely useless in this situation as it completely ignores any internal developments within states or any balance of class forces etc. It is one that it only really of any use to the nationally powerful and of course, as said it retrospectively justifies many murky acts and occasions when horrible regimes invited in foreign powers to do horrible things to their populations. US role in 70s and 80s latin america now all given the all clear by the logic of anti-imperialists.

edit2: it also ignores the fact that the assad regime seized power. How can that be left out of any discussion? It relegates any historical uprising against tyranny to an unjustified attack on properly constituted sovereign authority (and the above use of foreign power to crush any such uprising). It's appalling stuff frankly.

 

[camouflage]

Putins made Russias position clear, it's for the Syrians to work out who their government is... while Daesh is a days drive from the Russian border the Russians consider it necessary to make a serious attempt to bolster the Syrian state in its struggle against collapse in the face of the onslaught. In that vein Russia works with the government that sits at the UN in Syrias name, the same government by the way that the West saw fit to recognise as the Syrian government in disarming Syria of its chemical weapons.

Let the Syrians resolve the issue of the legitimacy of who runs them themselves, let a democratic process run its course. In the meantime we should bring the dogs of war to heel, stop pouring in the weapons and money, stop training the mercs and monday-moderates (teusdays-Takfiri), and pressure the freedom loving Saudis and Qataris to desist from their support of the various adventurer types we found so useful in Libya for example. By the way Russia was able to resolve the issues we tried to make for them in Chechnia... Afghanistan hurt the CCCP but now we should let these gamings go, stop using other people's societies as bludgeons in pursuit of our own cynical agendas. It is as much a tragedy when war is made in France for example, as it is when war is made in the Middle East or North Africa. "ISIS" is not a bonsai tree (trim here, allow to grow there... ah, how pleasing to the eye). And the idea that what Russia is doing is an imperialist venture is very weak indeed. I suppose it should be discussed, could be an interesting exercise... can't seem to be bothered with it myself, it's like inviting a 7th Day Adventist in for a tea and a chat.

 

[butchersapron]

A days drive from Russia? Is that right now?

 

[camouflage]

A days due from Russia? Is that right now?

Doorstep then, not literally obviously, not like the Caucuses are a giant rattan mat with "Welcome" written across is.

 

[butchersapron]

So not at all then.

 

[camouflage]

I'd love to drive from Syria to Russia tbh, that'd be a great road trip... I'd faithfully report exactly how long the drive takes me and the routes I'd take. In fact I'd love to visit Afganistan, Iran, Baghdad, Damascus... fuckit- one great grand Silk Road Trip of a Lifetime. Unfortunately Western Foreign Policy all over the region. Best leave it for now I think.

 

[Flavour]

Good old Russia letting the Syrians decide who rules them eh. No bigger picture here whatsoever.

 

[Casually Red]

Good old Russia letting the Syrians decide who rules them eh. No bigger picture here whatsoever.

Well spell it out then . What is it ?

 

[Flavour]

You already know - and you support it. That is, the Russians intend to defend and sustain the Assad regime.

 

[Casually Red]

You already know - and you support it. That is, the Russians intend to defend and sustain the Assad regime.

Of course they do . And the Syrian people appear to be quite appreciative of that support for their country . Which is under attack from all sides .

So what's this bigger picture you were on about ? Why would Russia support the Syrian government rather than regime change ?

 

[Flavour]

Are you really this dense? Do you really think the Russians are acting out of compassion for the Syrian people? Or are they propping up a corrupt, murderous, war-crime committing dictator that may have already fallen years ago were it not for their support?

Stop being such a tool of Russian imperialism. Empire doesn't have to mean direct control of foreign territory - a puppet government is little different from a colony. Look at America's puppet governments around the world, particularly in Latin America. They support those governments when they need to crush internal opposition, because it benefits America. Russia is doing the same thing in Syria. Think for a second about how the survival of the Assad regime benefits Russia.

 

[Casually Red]

Are you really this dense? Do you really think the Russians are acting out of compassion for the Syrian people? Or are they propping up a corrupt, murderous, war-crime committing dictator that may have already fallen years ago were it not for their support?

Stop being such a tool of Russian imperialism. Empire doesn't have to mean direct control of foreign territory - a puppet government is little different from a colony. Look at America's puppet governments around the world, particularly in Latin America. They support those governments when they need to crush internal opposition, because it benefits America. Russia is doing the same thing in Syria. Think for a second about how the survival of the Assad regime benefits Russia.

Explain to me how the survival of the current government benefits Russia in any major way ?

The united states supported various regimes across Latin America because the USA sought to physically, politically, economically and militarily dominate that entire hemisphere . If you're arguing Russia is seeking to similarly dominate the middle east you are a complete clown . It's force there is tiny , very small, and it's primary impact is in political terms, not military .
The overwhelming bulk of the opposition the Syrian government faces is not internal but external and externally manufactured . Remove foreign jihadists and the support of foreign governments from the equation and it would be over in a matter of months...if not weeks . No Russian support would be necessary at all .

We're on earth is the basis for your belief that Russia seeks to build an empire in the middle east ? Where does this laughable rubbish originate from ? Therussian military is not even remotely geared towards that kind of power projection that would be necessary for such a project and absolutely nobody in Russia has even the remotest interest in it . It's beyond laughable . Where do you get this nonsense from ?

 

[laptop]

Oh dear me... Russia is not the Soviet Union... It is Actually Existing Corruption. It does not deserve that loyalty.

 

[butchersapron]

I wonder does russia wish to keep their only Mediterranean deep water port? And if so, would that count as a material interest in sustaining the dictatorship that allows them to keep it?

 

[butchersapron]

Of course they do . And the Syrian people appear to be quite appreciative of that support for their country . Which is under attack from all sides .

So what's this bigger picture you were on about ? Why would Russia support the Syrian government rather than regime change ?

The syrian people? Are the only syrians the pro-assad ones? I wonder why they're refusing to fight for the regime then? Why is the current regime military advance (the one you massively over-inflated) is being carried out largely by iranians and hezbollah and not by syrians and with russian air support?

 

[Casually Red]

Oh dear me... Russia is not the Soviet Union... It is Actually Existing Corruption. It does not deserve that loyalty.

I'm only asking we're the basis for the belief in a Russian imperialist project in the middle east actually derives from . It's a simple question and should be easy to answer .

 

[camouflage]

Good old Russia letting the Syrians decide who rules them eh. No bigger picture here whatsoever.

Massively bigger picture, far more so than some on here would have you beleive. Warm water port they repeat like a mantra. Perhaps it's time some people grasped that the Russian leadership identifies its interests as more than a port and a few money grubbing Moscow gangster stereotypes about blinged-up Dachas. International law and a kind of new Westphaliaism is profoundlý in Russian greater national self interest.

Putin and pals are not scamming their way to more caviar at the cruise liners buffet... it's the whapping great iceberg on the horizon they're concerned about. Our narrative here in the West has a strong tendency to cast other leaderships as having all the intellectual capacity of a rat or some other myopic hand-to-mouth little rodent, concerned only to line its little nest. Thus the persistant and lamentable embarrassing misjudgements.

 

[laptop]

I'm only asking we're the basis for the belief in a Russian imperialist project in the middle east actually derives from . It's a simple question and should be easy to answer .

No, you are not only doing that.