Army uncovers big Jihadi weapons cache

[FluffyMcDeath]

Terrorist insurgents have a few less RPGs today.

 

[Glaucus]

That's too bad, hopefully they'll resupply soon.

 

[Glaucus]

Ok, that was a bit of a flippant answer, you do deserve better than that. So here's one:

Remember back a few years, shortly after the US invaded Iraq and the insurgency there was in full swing? Remember when US forces were being blown up by IEDs and they blamed Iranian secret services for their use? Did you believe the Americans when they made such claims? If memory serves me correctly, you heaped a fair bit of skepticism on such claims. Now, here we have Syrian forces uncovering a weapons cache and they blame their #1 enemy: Israel. For some reason you're ready to jump into that story with both feet. You know, skepticism is a good thing, but it's NOT good when you turn it off when your favorite team is doing things.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Now, here we have Syrian forces uncovering a weapons cache and they blame their #1 enemy: Israel. For some reason you're ready to jump into that story with both feet.

My point was simply to frame the event as it would have been framed if it was a foreign backed insurgency in a state that the west viewed as friendly. As far as the origin of the weapons it's less relevant - and they are more likely to be Libyan, left overs from Kosovo and Afghanistan and whatever else the gun runners can scrape together with Saudi and State Department money. If they happen to have a few from Israel that's just gravy for Assad.

 

[Glaucus]

Like what Stephen Colbert likes to do? Ok then.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Should we help the rebels in Libya? Seems like there are some who aren't happy with the other rebels. Shouldn't we help them to be free too - you know, on humanitarian grounds?

Sometimes the most humanitarian thing to do is leave people under a strong dictator who maintains order. Security is important like water and food for a complex society. Of course, complex societies with organized governance provide resistance to exploitation so there is a downside to other people having strong governments.

Another advantage to getting rid of tyrants is that it allows the US to act worse because there a fewer functioning dictatorships to compare to - wouldn't you rather have security at any price than have rebels running wild killing people like in the rest of the world? Go back twenty five years and compare the US to Saddam's old pre gulf war one Iraq. The DHS and the POTUS have all the powers to secretly arrest and torture people that Saddam had but at least Saddam had free health care.

Our ruling classes are involved in Full Spectrum Hypocrisy and we keep buying it.

 

[Glaucus]

Sometimes the most humanitarian thing to do is leave people under a strong dictator who maintains order.

...with the use of inhumane means? You miss an important fact though: strong dictators don't live for ever. Dictators tend to be replaced by other dictators and the transition tends to be rather bloody. The point here is, the blood shed is unavoidable in a dictatorship. This is even more so when you consider that even the most benign dictators hold their power through fear generated by occasional public displays of brutality.

Personally I don't really believe you see much goodness in strong dictators (unless you secretly voted for Stephen Harper). Instead I think your views here are clouded by your obsession with Israeli politics. And your idea that horrible dictatorships have kept US politicians on their best behavior is kinda baffling, sorry. Even if that were the case, not sure that those tortured in Middle Eastern prisons would take comfort in their utilitarian role. Yes it sucks that they ripped out my finger nails and whipped me with chains, but at least it keeps the US government in check! I don't think so.

My view is that these dictators, who are for the most part relics of the cold war, need to go. Yes, there may be more bloodshed, but it's a necessary part of dictatorships. They may be replaced by governments that may or may not be friendly with us, but I don't see that as important. What is important is that the people are happier with their new government (notice I didn't say "Happy", cause well, no one is, just look at Canada) and that outside forces (yes, including the US and Israel but they are far from being the only ones interfering in Middle Eastern nations) don't interfere internally. I know you'll point out that that is exactly what is going on, but at the same time you must admit you never expected Iraq to kick out the US either. The Middle East is hugely complex as it has been since the ancient years. The idea that the US or Israel or Russia or China plays a dominant role is ludicrous. Controlling the Middle East is like controlling an insane asylum - the biggest fool is the one who thinks they have things under control.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

...with the use of inhumane means? You miss an important fact though: strong dictators don't live for ever. Dictators tend to be replaced by other dictators and the transition tends to be rather bloody.

But that's what we are doing here - transitioning an independent dictatorship to a junta that we think we can control - and if we can't that's still OK because it's easier to take advantage of a weak state internally riven than a strong united one.

In the west we have had our dictators (we called them Kings) and they maintained stability for hundreds of years by cruel means and kept enough stability for our complex civilization to grow up - at which point people became wealthier and demanded that power be devolved which wasn't always bloodless but at least was won at home and not by foreign fighters flooding into the country and was often done by forcing small concessions incrementally and fairly bloodlessly over time.

When you get these sorts of violent revolutions run by foreign powers you never get that sort of outcome.

Personally I don't really believe you see much goodness in strong dictators (unless you secretly voted for Stephen Harper).

It's all about time and internal conditions. I don't like the way Saudi Arabia is run. It is many times more oppressive than Syria but a) they play loyal so we keep the royals in power and b) I still wouldn't advocate bombing and shooting the Saudis into the new century. The rebels are killing civilians - the rebels are killing journalists, the rebels are killing government workers. How can you support that sort of revolution?

Instead I think your views here are clouded by your obsession with Israeli politics.

Or US politics - they tend to be intimately related these days. Israel and Saudi Arabia are two big rogues that we happen to be friends with. The ruling class in Saudi Arabia (the Royal family) can do as they wish to the rest of the people and we don't care. The ruling class in Israel (Jews) can do as they wish to the rest of the people in that country and we don't care. If we are going to call nations our friends we should at least ask them to be civil.

And your idea that horrible dictatorships have kept US politicians on their best behavior is kinda baffling, sorry.

At least with a foil there was the need to appear "better than them" - to be that shining beacon on the hill. It's a role the US seems to have completely given up on.

The Middle East is hugely complex as it has been since the ancient years. The idea that the US or Israel or Russia or China plays a dominant role is ludicrous. Controlling the Middle East is like controlling an insane asylum - the biggest fool is the one who thinks they have things under control.

The one with the keys controls the asylum. So long as the crazy people cannot organize to overthrow you then the asylum is yours. The Middle East is a giant mess because that suits us.The Middle East once had empires but we don't want to allow that to happen again. Ghaddafi was building an African Union with a pan African currency. That is far to dangerous for world powers to allow to become established. Anyone who rises in the Middle East who looks like they could unify the region or set a good example must be deposed.

 

[Glaucus]

I'm not so sure I'd say that the Western European Kings provided tons of stability. European history is known best for it's relentless wars famous for their pointlessness - both across boarders and within. Next time you're in London be sure to checkout the London Dungeon where they will, quite proudly, display all the torture instruments they used centuries ago. Then there's the French revolution, which was both very bloody and supported by foreign powers (the Brits thought it was awesome). The American revolution, maybe not as blood curdling, but still quite bloody and ALSO supported by foreign powers: the French. The Brits also supported the Greeks in their war of independence against Turkey. Yes, it's quite possible that the Middle East is going through what Europe went through centuries ago. If the Europeans shared your views, that trading freedom for security is worth while, then we might still have kings and queens today. I'm thankful that was not the case and I see no reason for people in the Middle East to think differently. The Middle East might seem like a mess today, but more likely than not, it will eventually look more like Europe.

ps: No argument on Saudi Arabia being a bad offender, possibly worse than Syria. I've said here before, in many ways only the Taliban were worse. But that really has no bearing on Syria. Not only that, if a grass roots pro-democracy effort took hold in Saudi Arabia, I think it would be supported be foreign powers as well.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I know you don't like TRN, Mike - but ...

 

[robert l. bentham]

well... the world has a few choices here
A) send no guns, or help, let stuff pan out however...
B)send some guns but try to influence outcome....
C)send guns, close eyes...

 

[Glaucus]

No reason to send guns really, if there's one thing the Middle East has plenty of it's weapons of all shapes and sizes. Remember that many of the Syrian "rebels" are ex military, who were thoughtful enough to take their military issued weapons with them. I don't really see much need for a Western intervention in Syria, other then perhaps making sure Russia and Iran don't intervene as well.

I also don't believe Assad has much chance of survival now. If the high ranking defections continue, he'll quickly lose the command structure he needs. He may even be deposed by some hardliner, or maybe a well placed bomb will do him in. But I seriously doubt he'll maintain his leadership.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

well... the world has a few choices here
A) send no guns, or help, let stuff pan out however...

A) We shouldn't have been sending guns in the first place. We have made it impossible for the peaceful opposition to prevail and we have given every excuse to Assad to round them up with the foreign terrorists we have been encouraging to enter Syria. The terrorists have been killing civilians and government workers and if the Syrian army routed them it would not be a bad thing for the Syrian people. If the terrorists won there would doubtless be big purges of loyalist regions. Funding destabilization is a war crime and a humanitarian disaster.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I also don't believe Assad has much chance of survival now. If the high ranking defections continue, he'll quickly lose the command structure he needs. He may even be deposed by some hardliner, or maybe a well placed bomb will do him in. But I seriously doubt he'll maintain his leadership.

And then the Syrians will get their Shah.

 

[Glaucus]

A) We shouldn't have been sending guns in the first place. We have made it impossible for the peaceful opposition to prevail and we have given every excuse to Assad to round them up with the foreign terrorists we have been encouraging to enter Syria. The terrorists have been killing civilians and government workers and if the Syrian army routed them it would not be a bad thing for the Syrian people. If the terrorists won there would doubtless be big purges of loyalist regions. Funding destabilization is a war crime and a humanitarian disaster.

So the Syrians fighting for freedom are terrorists and the Palestinians fighting for freedom are freedom fighters? You're worse than the US State Department.

And no, it's unlikely Syria would be better off with Assad. Assad is part of a minority Shia. Most Syrians are Sunni. If you say Syria is better off under Assad's rule, then I'll say the Palestinians are better off under Israeli rule and those who don't like it should just be rounded up. You seem completely unaware of how badly you contradict yourself.

The ONLY reason you're trying to convince anyone that Assad's government is a good thing is because you're so obsessed with your hate of Israel. If Assad wasn't a staunch enemy of Israel you probably wouldn't care so much.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

So the Syrians fighting for freedom are terrorists and the Palestinians fighting for freedom are freedom fighters?

The Palestinians live there. A fairly large number of the "freedom fighters" in Syria are foreign and just in there for the fighting.

And no, it's unlikely Syria would be better off with Assad.

Yes - you think it's all about how much I love Assad - just like Iraq was all about how much you and I loved Saddam. We were wrong to invade Iraq. We are wrong to encourage violence in Syria. We are killing the locals - the rebels are killing government workers like post office workers, they are killing civilians who prefer Assad, they are killing civilians who form militias to keep these guys out of their neighbourhoods, they are killing TV reporters and TV crews. These guys are not "good" guys.

There are pro democracy groups in Syria who are non violent and there were ways to work with them for slow peaceful change - but that's not what "we" want - we aren't about making things better for Syrians: "we" are about breaking Syria so we can get at Iran.

It's not about whether Syria is better off with Assad - it's about whether Syrians are better off with a stable government that they can work with to for slow change or whether they are better off with armed factions running rampant in the cities bombing buildings and provoking clashes with the military.

It wouldn't end nicely if the military just laid down its arms either. The rebels have scores to settle with whole regions and there are plenty of extremists that have flooded in that will keep unrest going in the hope to bring about full civil war so they can bring in a theocratic government. A strong secular central government is better for Syrians than that kind of protracted foreign funded sectarian war (and it's not just the US, but Saudi Arabia is putting money and nut cases in there too).

You seem completely unaware of how badly you contradict yourself.

If I appear to be contradicting myself then you haven't understood my position.

If Assad wasn't a staunch enemy of Israel you probably wouldn't care so much.

Have you noticed that I have never advocated for funding terrorists inside of Israel or for the bombing of Israeli cities. I don't like the government of that country and I don't like their policies and I don't like what Israeli policies are doing to my own country but I do not support violence against that country because it would kill people. Jews are people too, you know. So are the Syrians - and the Persians.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Yes, it's RT, and Russia is an ally of Syria but ... left over Libyan weapons get stopped on the way to the Syrian Free(TM) Army.

 

[Glaucus]

Personally, I think there isn't a quicker way for an analyst to discredit themselves than by stating that the US wants to take out Syria so that it can get to Iran. Both the US and Israel can get to Iran with Syria exactly the way it is (or was for the past 20 years). The US and Israel both have enough real, bona fide allies in the region that they can stage any kind of attack on Iran and fly over the most direct air space that they need. Syria is not the reason we haven't seen an attack on Iran. And if Syria needed to be taken out it would be a minor footnote in the bigger war as it wouldn't take much to wipe out Syria's defenses.

The idea that the US might want to take out Assad more so for weakening Russia's influence in the region makes a lot more sense. And to be honest, I can't say I'd be totally against such an objective. Irregardless, the focus really should be more on Russia anyway as Russia is by far the biggest foreign player in Syria. Russia is the foreign power that has propped up an otherwise unlikely and unpopular regime. This is exactly what the US is guilty of in other nations in the region. When people rose up in Egypt the US had the chance to back Mubarak and let him crack down but they didn't do that (and has anyone contemplated that Russia may have sparked the Egyptian uprisings? Maybe they did, but with a quick collapse they never would have had the time to solidify their relationship with the opposition and would have gained little long term benefit). Russia had the same opportunity in Syria but I think their own insecurities got to them. They obviously don't believe that free Syrians would choose to maintain a close relationship with Russia and so they feel the need to force one upon them. Egyptians who toppled the US strongman in Egypt seem to be sticking with the US. It seems Russia doesn't learn from examples.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

The idea that the US might want to take out Assad more so for weakening Russia's influence in the region makes a lot more sense.

It's both - Russia and Iran. And, yes. Syria IS in the way - because Russia is there.

When people rose up in Egypt the US had the chance to back Mubarak and let him crack down but they didn't do that

But they didn't ask him not to, nor were they terribly critical of his violent actions against the protesters. Likewise the US has been completely uncritical of Bahrain and the Saudis who sent their army to help crush the protests in Bahrain. The US were happy with Mubarak but thought they could finesse the transition to the Egyptian Army which they also have a cosey relationship with. The revolution is not over yet. Mind you - they are also on quite good terms with the Muslim Brotherhood, but the brotherhood is not as predictable - it's the ideology.

(and has anyone contemplated that Russia may have sparked the Egyptian uprisings?

Contemplated. The US didn't seem to have been fully expecting it and they didn't react with the kind of enthusiasm you would expect if it was one of their revolutions. I think though if the State Department really thought it was a Russian instigated revolt then they would have approved a more aggressive clamp down. They really have no difficulty directing the medias attention so there are not really any operational constraints based on US popular opinion.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Anyway - bottom line - we are sending money and weapons to people in Syria who are killing other Syrians. Had we not encouraged armed factions then far fewer people would have died, cities would still be operating, life would be more secure for the vast majority of people. Political groups would still have been able to advocate for change as they did before and the society could have evolved along their own self directed path.