After UK and US bombs have been devastating the Middle East for over a decade, killing certainly tens and probably hundreds of thousands of people, including many thousands of children, the media have suddenly noticed this morning that bombs kill an awful lot of civilians. But only Russian bombs, of course. British bombs are cheerful, happy and their shrapnel and blast are brilliantly engineered only to go in the direction of bad guys.
The UK/US bombing of Sirte was approximately 500 times more devastating than the Russian bombings yesterday. Yet strangely there was not one single BBC report on the thousands of civilian casualties they caused in just one of many towns they bombed in Libya.
It is worth pointing out that whether yesterday’s bombing by the Russians was against ISIL or against a different bunch of crazed Islamist rebels, one still supported by the CIA and Saudi Arabia, makes no difference whatsoever to the legal position. It was at the request of the Government of Syria and thus legal. That is not to say I support it. I do not. Bombing kills civilians and just causes more hate.
I have the confidence in my fellow human beings to believe that a substantial number will see through the propaganda and realise British bombs do that too.
My optimism extends to the quite astonishing media attack on Jeremy Corbyn. The scorn and bias of the media in dealing with him has awoken many to the fact that we do not in reality live in a democratic society. People are not free to present alternative ideas to the electorate and obtain a fair hearing for them.
But still I think there will be some effect. For an entire generation, broadcast media and print newspapers had never given the slightest indication that there might be a moral dilemma involved in pushing a button to kill a billion people directly, and set off a chain of events that will destroy all human life. The spluttering fury by the establishment at the revelation that there are in existence the kind of people who would not do that, is a wonder to behold.
But all that rage is revealing the existence of the moral dilemma to people from whom it has been effectively hidden as a topic of legitimate and serious debate. People will start to think. That is why Corbyn is so dangerous to the establishment. He has opened a Pandora’s box of ideas.
John since when mercenaries were open to negotiations?
Daesh=ISIL*, alqaeda was a fictitious organization that CIA named after the data base with the same name.
If you note the Taliban** (students) brand and the Daesh brand you will notice the great similarities in their flags; Talib (student singular) sported a white flag bearing black letters with black circle containing white lettering. Daesh flag; black flag bearing white letters,with a white circle contacting black lettering.
Both the sets of mercenaries are suing the same means of transport ie Toyota land cruisers, and they all seem to have an abundance of the US supplied rockets along with the usual Kalashnikov and RPG using the same tactics of hit and run.
Negotiations with the original sponsors of the “free Syrian Army” a cigarette smuggler and co, can be a bit tricky. These are not ideological or even politics savvy characters. Instead these are more a bunch of carpetbaggers after a quick buck, and boy wars can provide ample opportunity for that.
The “war” in Syria is a proxy war to kick Russia out of Tartus and effectively turn the Med into a private lake for the yanks! As well as curtailing Iran’s reach to zionistan that keeps having wet dreams of attacking Iran.
Assad was to be knighted by her Madj a few years back! He was invited to No. 10 with his lass and entertained by bLiars. this has been conveniently forgotten and noen of the gold fish can thus remember any of it.
The phrase extremism masks the actual nature of the mercenaries on the payroll of US et al. Putin at long last has confronted the neocon and their thirst for greater expansion of politics of destruction and chaos. Hence the sudden attention of the oligarch owned media to the civilian casualties.
The same oligarch owned media did not write so much as a one inch column about the techniques deployed by Daesh in dealing with their enemies (anyone outside of Daesh and particularity those resisting their marauding). The process was thus;
Line up of fourteen captives, kneeling on the ground and hogtied, with a length of mine clearance ordnance (an explosive rope that is fired into the mine fields to set off the mines placed) wrapped around the neck of each of the poor souls made to kneel and then the explosive rope is detonated. the resultant of which is the most gruesome decapitation of the victims of these “god fearing armies”!!!
Less said about the decree of Daesh to none Muslims (anyone less Muslims than the Daesh) to report to the Daesh for their execution! Unless they can pay huge ransoms to Daesh in way of “tax”, or overt to Islam (Daesh kind of Islam), or let the Daesh commander to go and live in the house of the non Muslim with only the chap’s wife staying in the house!! The “god fearing” Daesh commanders high on freely and copiously provided Methamphetamines by zionistan feel rather frisky after all the killings, maiming and torturing the life out of their enemies, hence the need for a week of R&R with someone’s wife!!!
The sudden clamour for a diplomatic ending, is basically a stalling tactic for the strategists based in Langley Virginia to come up with a more creative way of continuing the same old war with the same objectives, that has been so abruptly halted by Putin!
Daesh=ISIL* “ISIL”, “ISIS”, “Daesh”,,…….. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Syria (at least for now, after which it will include Lebanon too.
Taliban** came to denoting any Afghan whom opposed the invasion of Afghanistan by Nato
The only use for nuclear weapons I can think of is as a deterrent to other powers. So the US/UK could persuade the likes of India, Pakistan or Israel not to use them in the event of some massive provocation. In this case the UK’s “independent” deterrent is not credible unless we expect France, China or Russia to launch a direct strike against us. I haven’t seen any reasoned analysis in the media that helps me confirm or change my own opinion.
Peter Beswick
1 Oct, 2015 – 1:04 pm
I really don’t see much point in that post, other than resignation to a simplified assessment…
“the British P.M. would have to have permission from the American President to fire a Nuclear Warhead. Then again, the Yanks would want that glory for themselves”
That would surely depend on who the target was. One of the countries most likely to launch a nuclear attack on the UK is Israel: could we rely on the US to authorise a counter-strike?
“The State owned Bank of Syria does not owe anyone money”
And that folks is why the west is really so keen on toppling Assad.
Assad was to be knighted by her Madj a few years back! He was invited to No. 10 with his lass and entertained by bLiars. this has been conveniently forgotten and noen of the gold fish can thus remember any of it.
Not only that. The US rendition programme used the Far’ Falastin military interrogation facility in Damascus:
According to the former CIA case officer Bob Baer, “If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear—never to see them again—you send them to Egypt.”
Sorry, it’s Wiki. But the Daily Mail is for once reticent on the subject. 🙂
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition
“The only use for nuclear weapons I can think of is as a deterrent to other powers.”
I’d say a far better use is a bin, to try and set an example, like those who don’t seek them already are, and to show that progressive change can be taken by someone who has them.
It’d be something (like abolishment of the death penalty) that we could have some pride in.
There are several reasons why the West would like a puppet in Syria, and for it to leave the Russian embrace; but the GNP of Syria wouldn’t really justify the bank explanation. Simply, the game wouldn’t be worth the candle.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines
This is more plausible. And it’s worth noting that the UK was thinking along similar lines even in the 50’s and 60’s.
Another angle, but still oil, as Brent crude prices rise above their prolonged baseline:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/09/syria-hardly-has-any-oil-so-why-does-it-matter-so-much-to-oil-markets/
Thanks Ba’al for remembering this facet too, if your recollect the Syrian interrogators (along with Egyptians) were notorious for using razors for cuts on the genital area of their “detainees” whom had been rendered there by the infamous CAI learjet.
No it’s not legal Craig, for moral law makes Manmade law irrelevant (when it lies counter to moral law). Any law that is OK with the deaths of civilians because some people declared it as (dare I say) “supreme” and “unchallengeable” is obnoxious in the extreme and cannot in fact make the illegal legal. Any pretence and acceptance of the claim is to be fiercely opposed and rejected.
I was actually sanded, but not surprised seeing the young Turks take on Jeremy…Many times they have good progressive ideas imo. But give up ‘our’ nukes “ahh well, no, I don’t think they should go that far…”
Undeliverable really human beings thinking we should keep these things. But they are ‘big men’ Americans…
But he did say to be fair, he’d still support JC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ_GFyUMelg
Truthfully I haven’t watched them in a while, maybe they’ve been getting worse anyway lately.
IBs and hedgies coming around to people’s QE:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/10/01/uk-britain-economy-qe-idUKKCN0RV3LC20151001
lwtc247
1 Oct, 2015 – 1:45 pm
That post makes no sense really, I can see what you want to say maybe. But if you accept the terms of law you can’t say it’s not legal….
You can say it’s not moral.
ps, I Think what your suggesting is ‘real’ legality has some inherent moral element, where as law has little to do with that.
Islmael. Why are you grafting-by-suggestion upon me that I accept the terms of such man-made law whereby because an administrator of one place asks for help in killing people from administrators of another place, is legal??
I don’t and it’s not. I clearly rejected that.
law is based on morality. Morality encompasses justice, kinship, equality freedom and righteousness. Any “law” that does against that is a sham and illegal. I see no compulsion to agree with any “law” far removed from those principles because a few people (doubleness of questionable character and nature) pulled it out of the air and clearly doesn’t protect the vulnerable. Do you see a compulsion to abide by all laws? Have you never broken one for reasons that you were against it in principle?
(and apologies for mistyping your name, Ishmael)
Information warfare sham:
Reports of civilian casualties caused by Russia in Syria mostly originate from the Syrian opposition forces, who blame Russia for helping President Bashar Assad. Some of the photo evidence of the ‘killings by Russia’ was easily disproven. A photo of a Syrian rescue worker carrying an injured girl –resulting from a “Russian strike in Homs” that killed 33 civilians, including three children first appeared on September 25, almost a week before the airstrikes started.
http://www.rt.com/news/317170-russia-accused-civilians-syria/
One obvious fact that I haven’t seen anyone state yet: all terrorists are civilians. By definition – if they weren’t civilians, they would have to be soldiers, and soldiers can’t be terrorists (although they can certainly behave like terrorists).
It’s easy to shriek “civilian deaths” without explaining that all the IS members who would have to be killed in order to “exterminate” the movement (as so many politicians have demanded) would be civilians.
I’m unhappy about Craig’s assertion that bombing is always wrong because it kills civilians. Surely that applies, not just to bombing, but to all application of military violence? And doesn’t that just leave pacifism? You often see it said that “it takes two to make a war” – which is one of the most wrong and foolish things anyone could ever say. Of course it only takes one to make a war. And quite often, the only way to end a war is to use violence against the people who are waging it.
@Mark Golding:
The technique of ascribing events (and casualties) that happened at other times and in other places is very popular these days. Indeed, it is used every day by the Ukrainian regime. This technique wouldn’t be very successful if the Western MSM didn’t adopt the policy of simply publishing everything they are told by sources that are known to be methodical liars.
Of course, no mention of the apparent arrival of the Chinese aircraft carrier. Laoning into the Syrian port of Tartus for what looks like a long stay.
Yes Mark.
There will be lies by the people that have stuff to lose by Russia’s bombing, but we need be mindful that Russia’s bombs only kill terrorists.
Each sides(!) news services are quite polarised in whose bombs are legit.
OFF-TOPIC: Craig, sorry for off-topic post, but I remember you criticsing media allegations that the Snowden leaks had exposed under-cover intelligence agents. This article shows how the soviets worked out with incredible accuracy who were spies and who weren’t, and all these methods apply today still: http://www.salon.com/2015/09/26/how_to_explain_the_kgbs_amazing_success_identifying_cia_agents_in_the_field/
In summary, the day-to-day behaviour of CIA agents and genuine diplomatic staff, and their salaries and career paths are so different, that actual spies have a very obvious pattern of behaviour which is easy to spot if you’re looking hard (and well resourced)
Here’s what the dubious DEBKAfile Web site says about the projected stay of the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning in Tartus:
http://www.debka.com/article/24909/A-Chinese-aircraft-carrier-docks-at-Tartus-to-support-Russian-Iranian-military-buildup-
Sounds like a true International Brigade defending the republican/legitimate/loyalist side in the Syrian civil war.
US media, overnight, has developed an intense concern about targeting precision, accuracy of bombing claims, identity of airstrike victims
@ggreenwald
The only use for nuclear weapons I can think of is as a deterrent to other powers.
@Rob. Sadly they are also considered as a first strike weapon, an attack capability with unknown consequences, even their smaller varieties are still indiscriminate.
Did the carrier pick up those alleged Iranian troops too?
lwtc.
“law is based on morality”
I’d agree it’s meant to be bases on that. Or tries to be in best cases, may be akin to it. But it’s not and can never be morality, It a set of rules someone writes down. Unless you believe their is some divine ‘law’ out there in the cosmos?
More often morality has ‘dictated’ individuals to break law. ‘unjust law’. Though imo there can never be a totally just law. Serving justice or virtue, yes these can be employed by peoples in action. But they are subtle intangible things based upon circumstance and in my experience often go beyond even what individual reason can comprehend.
You only have to observe sacrifice to see this. many who do things don’t logically reason virtuous action imo, especially when they end up dead etc. It’s something instinctive in human nature that can kicks in, or is allowed, But it’s often totally unreasonable. And one set of actions or rules that may illustrate it one day may be opposite the next.
There is a real massive difference between lived experience of real people and this set of guidelines. IMO, If only they where seen as more that way, Ie what they are at best, maybe people would look a little deeper into human affairs. And themselves….
DEBKA is more than dubious. It ranks joint equal with Sorcha Faal as the least reliable news source on t’web, and is Israeli-operated. From Wiki, again:
Yediot Achronot investigative reporter Ronen Bergman states that the site relies on information from sources with an agenda, such as neo-conservative elements of the US Republican Party, “whose worldview is that the situation is bad and is only going to get worse,” and that Israeli intelligence officials do not consider even 10 percent of the site’s content to be reliable.[1] Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf calls Debka his “favorite alarmist Israeli website trading in rumors.
I’d even give Sputnik credence over DEBKA:
http://sputniknews.com/world/20150928/1027641739/china-syria-aircraft-carrier-rumors.html
In which: Israeli military sources went even further, claiming late last week that the Liaoning-CV-16 had already docked at the Syrian port of Tartus.
Can’t help wondering who’s pulling the strings.
The presence or absence of the Chinese carrier off Syria is easy to check out, and don’t forget all the unreliable Western agencies when mentioning more unreliable ones.
The current situation in the Middle East stems from the US 1998 Iraq Liberation Act and the UK’s unconditional support of Regime Change in Iraq.
All the babies and children who have been blown up subsequently are a result of this co-operation.
Until the US stops trying to redesign the region, babies and children will continue to be blown up; the US still believe the consequences of their actions are worth paying, including the deaths and maiming of their own military personel.
When you are safe in your home or office and you have twits that will do your killing for you the decisions are easier to make but make no mistake it is US and UK politicians who are responsible for what is happening today, irrespective of their reasons or ownership of the thext bomb that is going to kill a child.
If Russia and China can help reduce the number of children that will die, I for one cannot condemn them.