And next, Syria?

[Delroy Booth]

Howie's Corner backs numerous Trade Union appeals from LabourStart and its' contributors are all members of the PCS union.

Why does this make it ok for them to cross-publish articles justifying the Egyptian Military coup and refusing to acknowledge the massacres that were committed as a consequence?

 

[dominion]

Apologies to other readers for going slightly off topic.

The situation in Syria is extremely worrying. It could so easily escalate into a regional war, especially if the Hezbollah terrorists start fighting the al Qaeda terrorists in Lebanon which could then drag in even more parties. Iran is already involved.

What is needed is a peace call to all sides. Russia, China, the US and Saudi Arabia must bring pressure to bear on the fighting parties.

At the moment it would seem even a UN peace force could not be used.

Perhaps the so-called Stop the War camapiagn should do something useful for a change. It doesn't seem to live up to its name at the moment and is just a career front for German & Rees.

Something new required perhaps?

 

[dominion]

Delboy for the last time the article does not justify any masscres at all. The National Secular Society has NEVER justified this. I do not understand your distortion of this article which was written at the time reports were just emerging.

I'll see if they have published anything else on the topic recently.

 

[Delroy Booth]

Delboy for the last time the article does not justify any masscres at all. The National Secular Society has NEVER justified this. I do not understand your distortion of this article which was written at the time reports were just emerging.

Of course it does! I've even gone to the trouble of quoting the bits where they a) refuse to acknowledge that anything violent even took place b) justified the coup by the Egyptian Military on the basis of the Muslim Brotherhood not being secular. They're even using some of the exact same words and phrases the Egyptians generals are currently using, as well as using the attacks on churches (which I notice didn't get the "conflicting reports" disclaimer the massacres in the protest camps got) as a justification for the coup.

Perhaps you could tell us what you think that article was saying if not defending the coup in the name of secularism?

I'll see if they have published anything else on the topic recently.

Howie's corner haven't published anything else from the National Secular Society, they only chose to cross-publish the piece which the NSS put out that justifed the coup in the name of secularism. The NSS might have backtracked in their support of the coup since, but those posts don't seem to have been featured on Howie's Corner, and seeing as they're the ones we're talking about I'm not that bothered what the NSS has said elsewhere.

Are you involving in writing that blog by any chance dominion? I mention it because your very first post on here in when you joined in April was plugging that Harry's Place for the Left blog and you've been plugging their stuff quite consisently ever since.

And btw just because they happen to be Labourites in the PCS doesn't impress me at all, sorry.

 

[dominion]

Actually Delboy they have. There's an article on stoning by Anne Marie waters and an article about the sentencing of a Saudi Arabian activist. The blog also backs the Secular March on 14th September:

http://howiescorner.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/the-annual-secular-europe-campaign.html

I'm not impressed with Marxists either, massacres galore under that banner!

G'night!

 

[Delroy Booth]

Actually Delboy they have. There's an article on stoning by Anne Marie waters and an article about the sentencing of a Saudi Arabian activist. The blog also backs the Secular March on 14th September:

http://howiescorner.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/the-annual-secular-europe-campaign.html

I'm not impressed with Marxists either, massacres galore under that banner!

G'night!

nighty night, sleep tight, hope the mullah's don't bite

PS when you wake an answer to this might be nice

Perhaps you could tell us what you think that article was saying if not defending the coup in the name of secularism?

 

[Hocus Eye.]

So according to the BBC Cameron and Obama have had a long phone conversation about Syria. Obama for all his talk about red. lines doesn't want to get the US into another war. I hope that Cameron doesn't go all gung. ho on him, not that Cameroon has any clout.

It is Russia really, is the problem. They support Assad and possibly provided him with their chemical weapons. That is if it wasn't the UK or America.

 

[dominion]

Morning Delboy!

The article by Stephan Evans simply offers secularism as a solution to the crisis in Egypt.

There's nothing new from The National Secular Society but then there hasn't even been a newsletter this week, I assume most of them are on holiday it being the height of August.

I'd ask you to join the demo but I notice you are from Huddersfield according to you profile so its' a bit far.

Certainly the growth of religious influence across the world has to be countered. Not just Islamism, I was also disturbed by the Church of England being handed a number of schools to run.

Meanwhile I see Cameron and Obama have threatened a "serious response" if Syria has used chemical weapons. I concur with Hocus Eye that Russia has been the real problem here. Over at Socialist Unity RT is being used a source of info by their "comrades". RT is just a more subtle version of Press TV and at best a Putin mouthpiece.

 

[teqniq]

It's Delroy not Delboy, but I think you know that.

 

[Knotted]

Are you involving in writing that blog by any chance dominion? I mention it because your very first post on here in when you joined in April was plugging that Harry's Place for the Left blog and you've been plugging their stuff quite consisently ever since.

Does anyone seriously doubt that dominion=Howard Fuller?

 

[elbows]

So the Syrian government are going to let UN inspectors take a look at the area, providing more opportunities for hand-wringing, delay, and words rather than action.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23833912

Note for example the language of the BBC's Jim Muir:

Out of the chaos and confusion of the past few days, several things have emerged clearly.

Even the regime itself and its closest allies, Russia and Iran, do not dispute that chemical weapons were used in the suburbs of Damascus on Wednesday. The evidence from a huge flow of distressing amateur video is too massive to dismiss.

But at least an appearance of regime willingness to co-operate may for the moment let the US and its allies off the hook.

For one of the other elements that has become clearer than ever in the past few days is the great reluctance of US President Barack Obama and others to plunge into an embroilment that would be hard to get out of, and which would carry a very high risk of aggravating the situation even further.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

US have just responded saying "It's too late to be credible"

 

[elbows]

I think that US response actually came before the official UN announcement about access had been made.

In any case the war of words may not match the underlying plans and desire for action (or inaction) and so I'm still treating it all with a large pinch of salt.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Oh right, that's not the way the BBC reported it. They said the US released the statement in response to the news...

 

[Delroy Booth]

The article by Stephan Evans simply offers secularism as a solution to the crisis in Egypt.

Yeah, specfically the secularism provided by the Egyptian Army's coup and the slaughter of Muslim Brotherhood supporters in the streets (which may or may not have happened, there were "conflicting reports" after all.)

Anyway just wanted to drop these in here, interfax is reporting the Russian response to the latest news out of the US that suggest they're about the launch some cruise missiles. The US has begun moving it's carriers and other ships into the Eastern Med, and Russia appears to be responding in kind:

http://www.interfax.co.uk/russia-ne...diterranean-in-response-to-u-s-buildup-expert

http://www.interfax.co.uk/russia-news/russia-warns-west-against-armed-action-against-syria-govt/

I can't read the full stories but it's not hard to work out what Russia's posture is to this from the titles. Here you go here's more http://www.interfax.com/news.asp

So if intervention leads to military confrontation between Russia and the US (unlikely but at this point not exactly unthinkable) would it still be worthwhile? Would the people who are advocating intervention still do so if this is the consequence?

It's very easy to be in favour of intervention when it's in a country miles away and we feel so insulated from it all. Would they still feel that way if we ended up going to war with Russia as a result? When all of a sudden we're not so insulated from the consequences.

There's a terrible attitude in Britain to treat events like this as if it were some minor colonial campaign, an armed savage uprising in some province of the empire, and that we can advocate intervention in total safety and security here in the mother country knowing that the consequences will never reach us here in our island fortess. The reality isn't like that, the world isn't like that any more, this attitude is just a relic of imperialism.

 

[elbows]

This is the Russian statement, via the AlJazeera Syria blog at http://blogs.aljazeera.com/liveblog/topic/syria-153

Moscow has paid serious attention to the remarks of US defense minister Chuck Hagel about measures requested by president Barack Obama to secure readiness of the US.army to launch a military action against Syria at any moment.

We are alarmed by demands from Paris, London and other capitals to respond decisively to alleged chemical attacks by the Syrian armed forces in eastern Ghouta on August, 21 while ignoring many facts showing the attacks were a provocation from the irreconcilable opposition.

All this makes us recall the events from ten years ago, when using false information about Iraq’s possession of WMD as a pretext, the U.S. embarked on shady enterprises the consequences of which are well-known to everyone.

The current fuss around the events of August, 21 is clearly aimed at disturbing the work of independent UN experts on chemical weapons. It looks especially strange if you remember for how long Paris and London were blocking the deployment of UN inspectors to probe a chemical weapons attack in Khan Al Asal near Aleppo on March, 19. We cannot allow the truth about the incident to be blurred. On August, 24 we sent a file to the UN in which facts of using chemical weapons by the opposition are documented.

We are again calling for everyone not to repeat mistakes of the past, not to allow actions violating international laws. Any unilateral actions in ignorance of the UN will undermine the international community’s efforts to find a diplomatic solution of the Syrian crisis. They will lead to further escalation of the crisis and will affect volatile situation in the Middle East where the consequences of the unilateral intervention in Libya in violation of UNSC resolutions are seen.

Unilateral actions will undermine prospects of Geneva-2 conference, preparation for which we agreed with our American partners to speed up.

 

[youngian]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...58/David-Cameron-to-give-Syria-ultimatum.html

He (Cameron) wants to put forward a “game-changing” resolution that would give the Syrian government, led by Bashar al-Assad, “one last chance” to disarm.

Mr Cameron is said to have been left sickened by images of children killed by the chemical weapons.
One charity yesterday said at least 355 people had died and 10 times that number were treated for poisoning.

On Saturday night four American destroyers were moving closer to Syria, armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles, which are capable of precision strikes.

So we have the countdown to war narrative; the baby bayoneting dictator with his primitve chemical weapons. A posturing British PM who will back the use of compassionate technology filled "precision" bombs which only kill the baddies.

 

[J Ed]

Mr Cameron’s officials were drafting the text of a resolution to put before the UN said to be modelled on one that offered Saddam Hussein, the late Iraq leader, “a final opportunity” to disarm in 2002.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

This is the Russian statement, via the AlJazeera Syria blog at http://blogs.aljazeera.com/liveblog/topic/syria-153

They sound almost pleading. Not a good sign....

 

[Steel Icarus]

I don't mind telling you I'm scared about this. I suppose I'm after a bit of reassurance - how far could this escalate? Surely it won't lead to Russia going head to head the US? I mean this isn't the 60s is it, everyone at least seems to be if not friends then not exactly enemies.

 

[youngian]

I don't mind telling you I'm scared about this. I suppose I'm after a bit of reassurance - how far could this escalate? Surely it won't lead to Russia going head to head the US? I mean this isn't the 60s is it, everyone at least seems to be if not friends then not exactly enemies.

I think Frenemies is the terminology used. After the expansion of NATO and the EU to the east, Bush's proposals to site ABMs in Eastern Europe and US expansion into their near abroad in Central Asia, the Kremlin is no mood to cede further ground over an importang Middle Eastern allie. This time they have Iran and China on their side.

The difference to the 60s is that was a bipolar order that collapsed in 1989 with one clear player on the world stage, the US. We are now moving into a world like 18th and 19th century Europe; a concert of powers with shifting balance of power alliances. Iran, Russia and China will use this opportunity to show the Whitehouse that Pax-Americana is coming to an end.

Most of Europe will remain apathetic apart from Britain and France. If they had any sense they would take up the mantel of leadership as the honest brokers. But old habits die hard and I suppose we'll end with another round of post imperial posturing.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

I don't mind telling you I'm scared about this. I suppose I'm after a bit of reassurance - how far could this escalate? Surely it won't lead to Russia going head to head the US? I mean this isn't the 60s is it, everyone at least seems to be if not friends then not exactly enemies.

I'd very much doubt it'll come to full scale engagement between the former Cold War enemies, certainly not nuclear either.

 

[youngian]

I'd very much doubt it'll come to full scale engagement between the former Cold War enemies, certainly not nuclear either.

I doubt it either, it'll be a proxy war in which both sides escalate arms supplies, logistical support and bombing from a distance. One side will win this civil war and the major powers that supported the losing side will be looking to the next engagement to even up the score.

 

[Delroy Booth]

I think Frenemies is the terminology used. After the expansion of NATO and the EU to the east, Bush's proposals to site ABMs in Eastern Europe and US expansion into their near abroad in Central Asia, the Kremlin is no mood to cede further ground over an importang Middle Eastern allie. This time they have Iran and China on their side.

The difference to the 60s is that was a bipolar order that collapsed in 1989 with one clear player on the world stage, the US. We are now moving into a world like 18th and 19th century Europe; a concert of powers with shifting balance of power alliances. Iran, Russia and China will use this opportunity to show the Whitehouse that Pax-Americana is coming to an end.

That's right in the long term this is the end of US supremecy in the middle-east, but don't forget that that empire's on the decline are every bit as violent and dangerous as when they're expanding. People have been talking of a multi-polar world for decades but here and now the US is still the global power and it shows. They have military superiority and that still counts for a lot. Putin's Russia is much more assertive than the US would like but he knows what the limits are.

In the Al-Jazeera report elbows linked here the last setence is important

Unilateral actions will undermine prospects of Geneva-2 conference, preparation for which we agreed with our American partners to speed up.

The US have been purposefully postponing the Geneva talks because the situation on the ground in the last 6 months does not favour them. Their negotiating position is weak, Assad's regime still has nominal control over most of the country and the capital city, no peace deal can exclude him. Because the US is in such a strong position militarily in the whole region they can afford to play for time, put the talks off another few months until the situation turns more in their favour. That's the advantage the house gets.

This is one of the worst things about it for me because this war has gone on for a long time and has led to immeasurable suffering yet a solution doesn't even look close because of how the great powers have been getting involved, basically holding the population ransom to geopolitics. These kinds of delaying tactics have an awful cost, but I digress...

Russia is probably more keen to hurry up and cut some sort of deal, a ceasefire where Assad gets to stay on in the west of Syria until 2014 to prevent the breakup of the Syrian state and that protect that Russian naval base in Tartous. If the US can agree to that Russia might agree to allow a US-led UN peacekeeping force into the other parts of the country to effectively partition the country, a no fly zone be enforced, maybe try getting a grip on the refugee situation. Assad won't like it, he's determined to regain all of Syria, but at this point he's probably also concerned with getting him and his family out alive, so if the offer includes his and his families security. A grim scenario no doubt but possibly the least worst option.

The US aren't happy with this though. Syria is Iran's best ally in the Arab world, and they want them gone completely. Despite having Iran right where they want them, and despite Assad and Hezbollah being up to their necks in war, they want to win this war comprehensively and not show any sign of weakness or decline to the Russians and the Chinese. Obama has to juggle this with a war-weary population and a Republican opposition that's lost it's mind and accuses him of being a traitorous muslim communist if he shows the slightest weakness (see Benghazi.) It's a proper tight-rope act.

Most of Europe will remain apathetic apart from Britain and France. If they had any sense they would take up the mantel of leadership as the honest brokers. But old habits die hard and I suppose we'll end with another round of post imperial posturing.

We're completely servile and so is France. Labour or Tory, UMP or Socialist, it's all the same they do as their told. Don't let the Iraq stuff kid you France is very much on side.

 

[JimW]

Don't think we've had this from Patrick Cockburn yet, he reckons intervention of some sort looking likely but as a one-off strike:

...If these attacks do take place, with Britain and France in a supporting role, then President Barack Obama will make them heavy enough to be more than a slap on the wrist but not so devastating that they herald the US becoming a participant in the war. It will not be an easy balancing act: ineffective air strikes that the Syrian government can shrug off would be a demonstration of weakness rather than strength. But strikes by missiles and possibly military aircraft will mean the US is crossing a Rubicon, committing itself more than ever before against President Bashar al-Assad and in favour of the armed opposition. This may mean that if there are missile strikes they will be limited in their timescale but heavier and more destructive than expected.
It is not probable, however, that an air campaign could closely emulate lengthy action in Kosovo in 1999 or in Libya in 2011, both of which have been cited as examples of successful military interventions by Nato....

Also speculates on a possible reason for the regime to use chemical weapons:

Many of the rebel-held areas such as villages between Homs and Hama are largely empty because they have been heavily bombarded by artillery and from the air. The same is true in many of rebel-held districts in Damascus which have been sealed off, are short of food and have many buildings in ruins. Similarly places like Baba Amr and Qusayr, once rebel strongholds, are now ghost towns while Sunni villages at Houla are cut off.
What stops the Syrian army capturing many rebel areas is not armed opposition but shortage of troops, unwillingness to suffer casualties among trained soldiers and an inability to hold captured areas in the long term. If Syrian generals did use chemical weapons last Wednesday this lack of manpower might explain why they did so.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Looks like the propaganda offensive is in full swing, now the line is shifting from UN authority for military operations to NATO attacks in the mold of Kosovo (Tony Blair will be in the news any day now) run out of Turkey.

Looks like we got missiles flying in days not weeks at this rate of pace.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

UK ready to attack: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...vy-ready-to-launch-first-strike-on-Syria.html

The Telegraph usually has good sources and insight into UK military operations so this shouldn't be taken lightly...

 

[J Ed]

It's going to be a very bad time to be Alawite, Christian or a woman in Syria very soon

 

[elbows]

More dodgy goings on, with the usual question marks about which side may be responsible and whose interests it serves and will be made to serve.

http://www.un.org/sg/offthecuff/index.asp?nid=2945

The Spokesperson for the secretary seneral has the following update on the UN chemical weapons investigation team in Damascus:
The first vehicle of the chemical weapons investigation team was deliberately shot at multiple times by unidentified snipers in the buffer zone area.
As the car was no longer serviceable, the team returned safely back to the government check-point. The team will return to the area after replacing the vehicle.
It has to be stressed again that all sides need to extend their cooperation so that the team can safely carry out their important work.

 

[laptop]

UK ready to attack: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...vy-ready-to-launch-first-strike-on-Syria.html

The Telegraph usually has good sources and insight into UK military operations so this shouldn't be taken lightly...

And is also willing to be used as a conduit for the military's lobbying of government.

In this case, I get the feeling the Joint Chiefs are saying "Fuck no, you stupid bastard, don't drop us in this shit".

Mr Cameron will face criticism for any British military involvement from many MPs, who believe the Armed Forces are already overstretched and must not be committed to another distant conflict.