Chemical Weapons

[MLB]

What's good about them, mate? Are we talking about the same Michel Chossudovsky who has been banging on for the best part of a decade about the US being on the verge of a nuclear attack on Iran? The Michel Chossudovsky who is all 'new world order' this and '9/11 conspiracy' that? If we are, not sure I want to invest too much time into them.

 

 

You have committed a fairly obvious logical fallacy here. I'm sure you can spot it if you re-read what you wrote. If not, it might be worth your while studying the Trivium Method.

 

What's good about the videos I posted, in my opinion, is that they all look at the deeper geopolitical context of the conflict in Syria, beyond the propagandised hysteria about chemical weapons. If you are willing and able to refute the claims made in the videos then by all means, go right ahead. I'll be interested to see what you come up with. I am not for a second claiming that everything presented in them is 100% correct because that would be absurd.

 

My own belief, taking the published evidence (or lack thereof) and historical context in the aggregate, is that the conflict is about far more than some arbitrary and morally inconsistent "red line" vis-a-vis chemical weapons. I don't claim to know what each individual actor seeks to gain from the removal of Assad and the creation of internecine conflict in Syria because, hey, I don't work for the Pentagon or western intelligence/financial interests. I can make a few educated guesses though.

 

What do you believe?

 

For what it's worth, I think you would have to be incredibly naïve and/or historically illiterate to buy into the idea that the "Western Alliance" (or Russia and China for that matter) are acting with the best interests of the Syrian people in mind. It represents a cartoonish, Cowboys & Indians vision of history and politics wherein nationalist faith trumps empirical evidence.

 

I am much more interested in parsing the actual geopolitical imperatives behind the conflict (i.e. who seeks to profit, and how?) because that is the only way that we will be able to prevent more bloodshed in future.

[Nightcat]

The criminal Islamists, so called "rebels" who are slaughtering Christians, Shia and Allawites:

 

"Saudis sent death-row inmates to fight Syria.

 

Saudi Arabia has sent death-row inmates from several nations to fight against the Syrian government in exchange for commuting their sentences...."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/01/21/saudi-inmates-fight-syria-commute-death-sentences/1852629/

 

 

Syria hostage Domenico Quirico 'treated like animal'

 

"Our captors were from a group that professed itself to be Islamist but that in reality is made up of mixed-up young men who have joined the revolution because the revolution now belongs to these groups that are midway between banditry and fanaticism," he said.

"They follow whoever promises them a future, gives them weapons, gives them money to buy cell phones, computers, clothes."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24039309

[zigackly]

As of 18 months ago, the US had destroyed 90% of its chemical weapons, the last 10% is located at two sites which are being prepared for decommissioning and should be complete by the end of the decade.

 

So what's taking them so long?

[SpeedyG]

So what's taking them so long?

 

Don't know the specifics but you have to destroy the production facilities as well as just the chemicals.

[zigackly]

Seems a bit of a double standard though, that if Syria follow this plan they will get rid of theirs first. Maybe the UN can invoke sanctions against the US.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

You have committed a fairly obvious logical fallacy here. I'm sure you can spot it if you re-read what you wrote. If not, it might be worth your while studying the Trivium Method.

Nah, I haven't. I asked a question, which is entirely different to presenting an argument or drawing conclusions from false logic. For all I know, those videos might be the most earth-shatteringly informative, intelligent, and accurate pieces of media known to man. Had I said they were wrong because the guy is an absolutely joke, I'd have been making an appeal to ridicule.

 

I simply wanted to know whether or not it's worth investing a couple of hours of my time in. I'd do the same thing if somebody linked to a podcast of somebody else I'd not particularly liked in the past. Alex Jones, for example, would get the same treatment. Some people love him and think he's uncovering 'the truth', and maybe he is, but based on what I've heard from him in the past I'm unlikely to spend time watching him. I wasn't looking to get into a protracted sarcasm-off with you, nor starting a back-and-forth of belittlement, I was actually just asking what was good about them. Still, irregardless, there's no logically fallacy. No need for Aristotelianism or Platonism, just a question before clicking.

 

What's good about the videos I posted, in my opinion, is that they all look at the deeper geopolitical context of the conflict in Syria, beyond the propagandised hysteria about chemical weapons. If you are willing and able to refute the claims made in the videos then by all means, go right ahead. I'll be interested to see what you come up with. I am not for a second claiming that everything presented in them is 100% correct because that would be absurd.

 

My own belief, taking the published evidence (or lack thereof) and historical context in the aggregate, is that the conflict is about far more than some arbitrary and morally inconsistent "red line" vis-a-vis chemical weapons. I don't claim to know what each individual actor seeks to gain from the removal of Assad and the creation of internecine conflict in Syria because, hey, I don't work for the Pentagon or western intelligence/financial interests. I can make a few educated guesses though.

 

What do you believe?

I believe there would be multiple objectives of any military operation. In my opinion, it would be daft to talk about single objectives - 'they're going in for this, they're going in for that' - because nation states don't seem to operate like that in my experience. I'd suggest there would be a primary objective and a set of secondary objectives. What are those objectives? Well, that's conjecture.

 

There are many many baseless arguments about why the Americans are 'really going in', some more absurd than others, but if I was going to believe one of the conjecture-based theories, I'd guess that the one theory most likely to be a secondary objective is the suggestion they're going in so they can better influence who takes over the country after the civil war. At least there's some actual benefit - for them and/or their allies - in them doing that. It's probably not nefarious enough for some people to buy into, though. It just makes good sense not to have Al-Nusra in power if at all possible.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

So what's taking them so long?

Destroying some chemical weapons is more difficult than destroying others. You have to actually create facilities - on site, in this case - to destroy the weapons. Having destroyed almost 90%, it might take time for them to totally destroy all of their other weapons. Still, I don't think there's too much risk of them using it on their own population in that times, so I don't think there's much issue about it.

 

Seems a bit of a double standard though, that if Syria follow this plan they will get rid of theirs first. Maybe the UN can invoke sanctions against the US.

On what grounds?

[zigackly]

Just for a laugh mainly.

[SpeedyG]

Seems a bit of a double standard though, that if Syria follow this plan they will get rid of theirs first. Maybe the UN can invoke sanctions against the US.

If syria is on an accelerated timeline, it's no doubt because they've just recently been dropping these things on people.  Fair is periperhal at that point.

[zigackly]

If indeed they have been, although I concede it's likely that it was them. Whatever the case, I think the solution that Russia has engineered is better than military intervention in all seriousness.

[SpeedyG]

If indeed they have been, although I concede it's likely that it was them. Whatever the case, I think the solution that Russia has engineered is better than military intervention in all seriousness.

They have been.  Maybe not in this particular case, but there is little doubt they've used them in the past.

[zigackly]

I don't think lots of other nations can take the moral high ground on that front though, certainly not the US, considering the amount of Agent Orange they poured all over Vietnam.

[SpeedyG]

I don't think lots of other nations can take the moral high ground on that front though, certainly not the US, considering the amount of Agent Orange they poured all over Vietnam.

Stay off the blue pills.  There is no moral high ground.

[zigackly]

Which was my entire point in this thread today.

[SpeedyG]

Which was my entire point in this thread today.

 

Fair enough, thought it was a generic anti-us moan.

[zigackly]

No, I'm not anti-US but I don't believe any of their hype.

[SpeedyG]

Whose do you believe?

[zigackly]

I try to take a skeptical approach. Always look for the motive behind the hype. America has little interest in peace, democracy and humanitarian causes in other regions, but they do have both political and material interests in the middle east. I believe they were interested in military intervention to further these aims in some way, but have been cornered into doing away with Assad's chemical weapons program instead because there is little political will back home or amongst their usual allies, and strong opposition from Russia and China, and because they said that's what they wanted to do. I suspect they don't believe the Assad regime really has the will or means to meet their deadlines though, and that they will be able to achieve their real aim of destabilising him with greater legitimacy further down the line. I don't believe any of that because anyone has told me to, it just seems common sense.

[SpeedyG]

Sorry, that was rhetorical.  The right answer was along the lines of "the one whose lips aren't moving".

[Barney_Rubble]

I try to take a skeptical approach. Always look for the motive behind the hype. America has little interest in peace, democracy and humanitarian causes in other regions, but they do have both political and material interests in the middle east. I believe they were interested in military intervention to further these aims in some way, but have been cornered into doing away with Assad's chemical weapons program instead because there is little political will back home or amongst their usual allies, and strong opposition from Russia and China, and because they said that's what they wanted to do. I suspect they don't believe the Assad regime really has the will or means to meet their deadlines though, and that they will be able to achieve their real aim of destabilising him with greater legitimacy further down the line. I don't believe any of that because anyone has told me to, it just seems common sense.

Totally agree with this.

 

As for the bold part, while I have no doubts that this is their aim, I am not sure they'll succeed (they'll try though) - they can't get the legitimacy they crave for if they don't go through the security council or widen the number of countries willing to join them (the frog-munching surrender monkeys won't be enough, I don't think).

 

The US has been outmanoeuvred by the Russians with that plan - it was a great coup by them and it is going to pay dividends down the line.

 

The only avenue the yanks have now is by making it difficult for Assad to comply - either by putting unrealistic/difficult deadlines into the agreement (which they already tried to do) or ask the rebels to try and prevent access to the sites where Assad's regime stockpiles these weapons (as I understand it, he doesn't have 100% control of these).

[zigackly]

I'm not sure they will succeed either, but I think that's what they're going for.

[Red Phoenix]

It seems like a recipe for chaos, trying to get rid of chemical weapons that are spread around at 50 sites in a country that's been in a state of war for 2 years, with groups of Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra, Wahhabi, and so on, backed by western agencies, just waiting and/or planning for the next episode to start up. But the alternative US bombing campaign could've been an instant fail and maybe the start of a massive middle eastern war involving several other countries, that could've been well underway today had Obama not decided to wait. Imagine if someone like McCain had been President? There's almost no chance he'd have waited at all.

 

It also seems far from over though. The more you research into the groups involved and their histories, the more it seems like it's just a matter of waiting for the next problem to start. The last group I had a quick read of and am making sure to go back and research more, are the Wahhabi. When you have groups like that around the problem isn't limited to just Syria, it's spread out all over the world. It's baffling at first to realize that there's not a huge awareness of how messed up some of these groups are and what they get up to with their huge funding, but when you look at the state of the media and their usual interests, it can probably make a lot more sense eventually.

[MLB]

Nah, I haven't. I asked a question, which is entirely different to presenting an argument or drawing conclusions from false logic. For all I know, those videos might be the most earth-shatteringly informative, intelligent, and accurate pieces of media known to man. Had I said they were wrong because the guy is an absolutely joke, I'd have been making an appeal to ridicule.

 

I simply wanted to know whether or not it's worth investing a couple of hours of my time in. I'd do the same thing if somebody linked to a podcast of somebody else I'd not particularly liked in the past. Alex Jones, for example, would get the same treatment. Some people love him and think he's uncovering 'the truth', and maybe he is, but based on what I've heard from him in the past I'm unlikely to spend time watching him. I wasn't looking to get into a protracted sarcasm-off with you, nor starting a back-and-forth of belittlement, I was actually just asking what was good about them. Still, irregardless, there's no logically fallacy. No need for Aristotelianism or Platonism, just a question before clicking.

 

 

I believe there would be multiple objectives of any military operation. In my opinion, it would be daft to talk about single objectives - 'they're going in for this, they're going in for that' - because nation states don't seem to operate like that in my experience. I'd suggest there would be a primary objective and a set of secondary objectives. What are those objectives? Well, that's conjecture.

 

There are many many baseless arguments about why the Americans are 'really going in', some more absurd than others, but if I was going to believe one of the conjecture-based theories, I'd guess that the one theory most likely to be a secondary objective is the suggestion they're going in so they can better influence who takes over the country after the civil war. At least there's some actual benefit - for them and/or their allies - in them doing that. It's probably not nefarious enough for some people to buy into, though. It just makes good sense not to have Al-Nusra in power if at all possible.

 

 

 

Fair enough. I probably came off as a bit patronising there, and if so I apologise. I will admit that I lack patience when it comes to discussing things like this because I have run up against innumerable ad hominems, straw man arguments and logical fallacies in the past. I'm happy to debate facts and evidence with anyone who is genuinely interested in truth and justice. I just don't have the time or inclination to teach people how to construct a logically coherent argument before even getting into the information itself. (That's not aimed at you by the way, it's just a general statement about the kind of debates I've had previously.)

 

Anyway, I don't want to write a long, boring essay about politics and history, so I'll just say this:

 

A long time ago I was what you would describe as a Guardian-reading leftist. I had read the likes of Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn and believed that I was pretty clued up about things. I never saw any reason to doubt that these widely-acclaimed titans of "progressive thought" (and others of a similar ilk) were anything other than what they appeared to be: deliverers of harsh truths about political realities and fearless exposers of establishment lies. And up to a certain point, they are. But after a great deal of independent reading and research I discovered that, like many in their position, they are only willing to go so far.

 

What I'm talking about here is not "conspiracy theories" (a weaponised term popularised by the C.I.A. to undermine legitimate enquiry into what Peter Dale Scott calls "deep events") but rather historical facts uncovered over decades by diligent researchers of the highest integrity. I'm talking about books, essays and peer reviewed scientific papers that are extensively footnoted and refer to primary documents. I'm talking about information that is accessible to everyone if only they possess will to seek it out and the intellectual acuity to draw simple, logical conclusions from it.

 

If you think I'm talking bollocks then that's fair enough. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything here. I'm just making the point that if you research political history thoroughly, independently and with intellectual honesty, you will very likely come to the conclusion that the world works in quite a different way than you had previously imagined.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Funnily enough, I've researched a little political thought And intellectual history myself, and I too place emphasis on logic, facts, reasoning, justice and the pursuit of truth. Still, I'm not really sure what your posts has to do with me or the thread. Probably just a misunderstanding with my post in reply to yours. You might have felt like I was having a dig at you - I was probably a little coarse - but I was genuinely just questioning whether I should bother or not. Anyway, keep up the autodidactism.

[SpeedyG]

 

It also seems far from over though. The more you research into the groups involved and their histories, the more it seems like it's just a matter of waiting for the next problem to start. The last group I had a quick read of and am making sure to go back and research more, are the Wahhabi. When you have groups like that around the problem isn't limited to just Syria, it's spread out all over the world. It's baffling at first to realize that there's not a huge awareness of how messed up some of these groups are and what they get up to with their huge funding, but when you look at the state of the media and their usual interests, it can probably make a lot more sense eventually.

 

There's the usual interests but there's also the press don't like to stray too far from "Good vs. Evil".  Us plebs couldn't handle it, you see.