Syria

[NickPheas]

I think you're being a trifle kind to Syria on the Terrorism front.

There was lots and lots of evidence that the Syrians were behind the Lockabie bomb (PAN AM 103) before it became politically expedient to pin it on a Lybian, but the key player you make no mention of is Hizballah (probably spelt wrong, sue me).

Lobbing missiles at Israeli settlement every few weeks does seem fairly cut and dried 'Terrorism' even if they may have other interests. And in the end, that's probably the key factor in the Neo-Cons wanting to see Syria as their next target.

Is it a good idea? Probably not, but that's never stopped the Hand Puppet.

[bartl]

I think you're being a trifle kind to Syria on the Terrorism front.
Seeing that the Syrians were behind the second biggest terrorist attack against the United States, killing hundreds of Americans, you are correct.

Also note that, although Grant failed to mention that the civil war that wracked Lebanon back in the 70's was caused directly by Syrian intervention, heavily arming a small, militant group of radicals who weren't even Lebanese, then coming in with their own military support.

[NickPheas]

Seeing that the Syrians were behind the second biggest terrorist attack against the United States, killing hundreds of Americans, you are correct.


Out of interest which are you thinking of?

I thought the next one was Oklahoma City, and it would be unfair to blame that on either of the Assads.

[Drew Van T.]

Nope, that wasn't Assad. Just a sad gun enthusiast.

Bartl is presumably referring to the truck bombing of the American military compound in Lebanon that killed around 250 in 1982 (I think? Can't cross-check any of the details right now) and led to Reagan withdrawing his forces from Lebanon.

I'm hesitant to wade into the Lebanon/Syria debate. The relevant history here is quite complex and from before my time. Steven obviously knows it much better than I do. But whatever the political/ethnic variables, an invasion of Syria is something I'd fiercely oppose in any case, and most of the world will do the same. If it happens at all, it will be simply because it suits the next stage of neocons' big plan, not because of genuine terror ties or whatever else they can trump up.

As much as Lebanon/Syria is making the headlines right now (only because Bush put it there), the big thing in Europe is the Sgrena/Callipari case (which Bush would like nothing better than for it to disappear). Even after two years of occupation and Abu Ghraib, there haven't been many instances as extreme as this one that made US military look like such utter bastards.

All the claims made by the Pentagon in the aftermath - that the Italian car was speeding and that they were making all these stop signals - have been debunked by the released journalist as well as an intelligence officer that survived the hail of bullets. Frankly, it's inconceivable that anyone would speed at such a checkpoint by now (unless they were a suicide bomber). Any idiot alive knows that careless drivers have been shot at from these checkpoints at indiscriminately for the past 2 years, with lots of Iraqi civilians killed. And these were elite Italian intelligence officiers.

There is the theory that Sgrena was targeted because American command was deeply unhappy with the fact that the Italians had negotiated at all with the kidnappers, let alone successfully. The journalist herself had been championing the least fortunate in Iraq, being Italy's answer to Robert Fisk. She says that the kidnappers, upon releasing her, had warned her that she was going to be a target of occupation forces. All of which adds a lot of dramatic flair to the case, it has to be said. And of course, Nicola Calipari was apparently the Italians' own James Bond, hero cop slash secret agent, catching the bullets meant for the woman whose release he'd just negotiated.

The fallout from this may be so bad that it eventually brings down Berlusconi's government (and way past time it is, too).

[Steven Grant]

I somehow doubt that the US military and/or authorities are quite so flaming stupid they'd gun down allies out of sheer spite just because a hostage release was negotiated. My guess is it comes down to miscommunication and stupidity, and everyone involved is just too damn proud to own up to it...

[Drew Van T.]

Well, I was looking at it from the Italians' point of view and how it's playing in their media...you have all these theories making the rounds which, true or not, are adding a lot of fuel to the fire. The near-victim's anger being quite infectious. It's also that the Italians remember the 1998 incident where a grandstanding marine pilot clipped the lines of a cable car, killing the passengers, which they also attempted to cover up. It may well be an accident, but in that case, as with the Madrid bombing and Aznar's response to it , the initial coverup becomes the real issue.

[Steven Grant]

Oh, I agree with that. This "we're never in the wrong!" pose the USA likes to keep going overseas has got to go. Not that we were necessarily in the wrong in this instance -- I have no idea -- but that kind of behavior destroys credibility altogether. If we were in the wrong in "the Italian incident," it would've been much better to just admit it and apologize profusely.

Of course, then we'd have to also apologize to a lot of Iraqis...

[bartl]

Out of interest which are you thinking of?

I thought the next one was Oklahoma City, and it would be unfair to blame that on either of the Assads.
The suicide bombing in Beirut, which cost 241 American lives, and injured a bunch of others.

[bartl]

All the claims made by the Pentagon in the aftermath - that the Italian car was speeding and that they were making all these stop signals - have been debunked by the released journalist as well as an intelligence officer that survived the hail of bullets. Frankly, it's inconceivable that anyone would speed at such a checkpoint by now (unless they were a suicide bomber). Any idiot alive knows that careless drivers have been shot at from these checkpoints at indiscriminately for the past 2 years, with lots of Iraqi civilians killed. And these were elite Italian intelligence officiers.

The jounalist in question subscribes to a philosophy that there is no such thing as objective reality; only what our politics makes us see as reality. And her politics are that Western Civilization, Chistianity, and the U.S. in particular are the source of all greed and evil in the world.

[Drew Van T.]

The jounalist in question subscribes to a philosophy that there is no such thing as objective reality; only what our politics makes us see as reality. And her politics are that Western Civilization, Chistianity, and the U.S. in particular are the source of all greed and evil in the world.

None of which is especially relevant to the whole incident. She wasn't kidnapped for her politics, nor freed by Italian intelligence for her politics, nor do they invalidate any testimony she gives.

[Adam Crocker]

The jounalist in question subscribes to a philosophy that there is no such thing as objective reality; only what our politics makes us see as reality. And her politics are that Western Civilization, Chistianity, and the U.S. in particular are the source of all greed and evil in the world.

Out of curiosity, how does this fit in with the fact that the journalist's claim that the vehicle was moving slowly has been corroborated by the Italian intelligence officer who survived the shots?

[Steven Grant]

Bart may have been suggesting that while the US military says the car was speeding, in her subjective reality it was going at a very pleasant and restrained pace...

Some other interesting stuff about this journalist, courtesy of some Italian friends:

She pretty much singlehandedly screwed up the military's assault on Fallujah and forced them to pull back on it by writing articles about what seems to have been a deliberate assault on a civilian hospital in Fallujah filled to the brim with civilian casualities, and the articles got wide circulation in Europe.

She has also written a series of articles about our use of cluster bombs and other questionable weapons in Iraq (not sure if she mentioned depleted uranium weapons or not) that have also gotten considerable circulation in Europe.

In other words, she has been making the American military look very bad. But before anyone suggests she for some reason engineered the checkpoint incident just to make us look bad, bear in mind she never had to fake anything to make us look bad before.

And there's a rumor -- just a rumor -- running around that she was originally kidnapped after someone "let it slip" that she was secretly working for American intelligence... It's no particular secret we were very much against the Italians negotiating for her release.

There's some possibility anger of this whole thing in Italy will result in the ousting of Bertawhatsisname's government... More regime change, courtesy of the Hand Puppet...

[Drew Van T.]

Yes, I had read some of that, also there was something about the rumored use of illegal chemicals in Fallujah, another item she was working on. Thanks for that, Steven.

[Briareos]

Of course the picture of her car completely destroys her story about being shot at with a "Hail of bullets and a tank"


http://www.rightwingnews.com/graphics/sgrenacar.jpg

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20050308/capt.rom17103082011.italy_sgrena_car_rom171.jpg


So lets see we have someone who has a near delusional hatred of US making claims that we're trying to kill her despite all evidence to the contrary (especially the condition of her car)

yeah and the car was going so slow that they almost lost control trying to avoid a few puddles as she herself calimed:

The car kept on the road, going under an underpass full of puddles and almost losing control to avoid them. We all incredibly laughed. It was liberating. Losing control of the car in a street full of water in Baghdad and maybe wind up in a bad car accident after all I had been through would really be a tale I would not be able to tell."

she also descriped herself as a enemy of america to journalist Harold Doornbus:

"Be careful not to get kidnapped,' I told the female Italian journalist sitting next to me in the small plane that was headed for Baghdad. 'Oh no,' she said. 'That won't happen. We are siding with the oppressed Iraqi people. No Iraqi would kidnap us.'

It doesn't sound very nice to be critical of a fellow reporter. But Sgrena's attitude is a disgrace for journalism. Or didn't she tell me back in the plane that 'common journalists such as yourself' simply do not support the Iraqi people? 'The Americans are the biggest enemies of mankind,' the three women behind me had told me, for Sgrena travelled to Iraq with two Italian colleagues who hated the Americans as well.

(Doornbos goes on to explain how the women demeaned him for travelling as an embedded reporter with the US military, for security reasons. They didn't want to hear about any safety concerns.)

'You don't understand the situation. We are anti-imperialists, anti-capitalists, communists,' they said. The Iraqis only kidnap American sympathizers, the enemies of the Americans have nothing to fear."

[Wig of Doom]

The jounalist in question subscribes to a philosophy that there is no such thing as objective reality; only what our politics makes us see as reality.

That isn't really that different from how the current administration views things, either, is it?

They certainly don't seem to be willing to admit that scientific objectivity or even something close to it exists.

[NatGertler]

Of course the picture of her car completely destroys her story about being shot at with a "Hail of bullets and a tank"It does? Obviously, she wasn't hit by a solid shot from a tank, but not every shot hits. Meanwhile, even photos of the partially-covered car show damage beyond just a stray bullet into the car itself (note the flat tire).
she also descriped herself as a enemy of america to journalist Harold Doornbus:Who? Even with his name spelled correctly, this guy shows up on a grand total of four web pages that don't also have the word "sgrena" on them. Perhaps he's one of those right-wing journalists avoiding using his real name while writing exposes on life as a male escort...

[jonahhex]

Hello everyone this is my first post to this board, and I guess I am choosing a controversial thread. I was hunting for a Jonah Hex thread when I started to read this thread. my family is Assyrian. Assyrians are christians who speak their own language and live mostly in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Israel/Palestine. I still have relatives in Syria and Lebanon. (Noone still in Palestine all expelled by 1967, and I never had relatives in Iraq.) I have visited Syria and Lebanon, and love those countries as well as the U.S. I may get in real trouble since their is no real indication that anyone in this thread really cares about the Syrians and the Lebanese, people here are really talking about the U.S. I do not mean to offend. Please read the following while remembering I mean noone any personal disrespect.

Couple of thoughts:

How did this thread start and where? I assume about the assassination of the late, great PM Rafiq Harriri.

statement about a quote: "...although Grant failed to mention that the civil war that wracked Lebanon back in the 70's was caused directly by Syrian intervention, heavily arming a small, militant group of radicals who weren't even Lebanese, then coming in with their own military support." originally posted by NickPheas.

Can you give me your source for the allegation that Syria originally armed the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)? It is not in any material on the Civil War (mostly I read from pro-Arab sources) and have never heard that the Syrians were either supporters of the PFLP nor even friendly with the PFLP before 1980s. When the PFLP was founded the group organized around the slogan "Against Zoinist Imperialism And Arab Reaction." The PFLP considered even Libya, Nasser in Egypt, the correctionist Ba'ath in Syria, and even the leftist Ba'ath faction in Iraq to be reactionaries. I have read that PFLP got some "aid" from North Korea, Cuba, and South Yemen, but not Syria. But I am willing to concede on this point, if you can show me some documentation. As some of the funding came from robberies in the west with their allies in the IRA and the Baader-Meinhof gang, etc., the PFLP did not give a damn about where they got funding. Also, the matter is made more complex by the odd relationship the PFLP had with the PLO. The PLO was funded greatly by Syria and most other Arab states. But by 1975-76, the PFLP relationship with the PLO, never the warmest, was shattered. Syria solidly supported the PLO until Syria went into save the Lebanese from the Palestinians and the Israelis. After the Battle of Beirut, Syria allowed the PFLP to go to Damascus to retreat in a way that saved face, but by this time the group was completley shattered. If they have 300 members in the world today, I would be very surprised.

The Civil War was caused and continued to be fueled for four main reasons: 1. By a wretched postcolonial regime left by the French that favored Maronite Christians over all the other groups, including Orthodox Christians, and caused resentments to everyone except the Maronites. 2. By the horrible conditions of the 300,000 Palestinians refugees. The Maronites did not want another muslim majority ethnic group to be invloved in daily life, so the Palestinians could not work outside the camps, or build permanent homes in the camps, or even set up real businesses in the camps. Facing this rotten life, the Palestinians refugees began to turn to the radicals, the PFLP, and not the more moderate PLO. 3. Israel bombed Lebanon over 4000 times between 1967 - 1975 during a "non-war" period. This bombing wrecked the already weak state led by the most likely allies of Israel, the Maronites. The Lebanese state never gained enough power or legitmacy to simply put down the PFLP early in 1975 or 1976 the way the Jordanians had earlier been able to do during black september. 4. the cold war fueled the conflict. The Soviet Union tried to play both sides of the Civil War, or at least the PLO and the various Lebanese groups. The U.S. tried to maintain a reactionary status quo that was simply gone. Both sides of the cold war have blood on their hands in Lebanon.

The best thing about the end of the Civil War was that a multi-ethnic society survived, and is now thriving with the third highest standard of living in the region after Israel and Jordan, just 15 years after the end of the war. Unlike Israel, Lebanon recieves no large outside aid package. Unlike Jordan, Lebanon has no oil. I would NOT be surprised if in the next decade Lebanon overtook both Israel and Jordan to becom the leading economy in the region.

And the best thing about the recent demonstrations is that a variety of opinions can co-exist in the nation without people having to go war. The anti-Syria demos of the Falange (Maronites) and the Progressive Socialists (Druze) were tolerated and accepted with a committment to continuing peace and openess by the pro-Syrian parties Amal and Hizb Allah (Shi'ite). Who says we Arabs are hopeless? It is a miracle, especially after you talk to so many who survived the war.

I also have some hope in Syria. When Al Assad came to power in 2000, he was more moderate (not a democratic though) looking at China for transition to market ideas, and greatly opening trade up with Germany and other EU nations. In 2002, the rhetoric changed in the Syrian state news, Al Sana, in the face of open aggression from Bush and the neo-cons. In 2004, the Ba'ath legalized another political party, the fairly extreme christian anti-israeli formerly fascist now slightly leftist group, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (the name gives you some indication where this party's history comes from). I am not sure what this means, but it makes me nervous. Reform will happen in Syria, like in Iran, it will just be a matter of how scared the elites are of the west. Bush's open confrontation, I believe will just cause them to close ranks, grind their heels into the ground, and continue economic policies that are not working, all the while gaining greater public legitmacy as anti-imperialist fighters.

Shalom/salaam/peace.

[abbas.khan]

nice to have you here jonah. i pretty much agree with everything youve written.

[Steven Grant]

Thanks for the information, Jonah. This conversation started in response to an article I wrote in last week's PERMANENT DAMAGE (http://damage.comicbookresources.com) about the USA's saber rattling at Syria over Lebanon and our intentional distortions of what's actually going on in Lebanon in order to justify (to the American people) invading Syria if we feel so inclined to.

So, yes, to that extent I was talking about the USA rather than Syria or Lebanon, though I seriously believe neither of those nations should be destabilized or invaded.

[Briareos]

Here's some more on the incident:

http://www.postgazette.com/pg/05072/470072.stm

[bartl]

Thanks for the information, Jonah. This conversation started in response to an article I wrote in last week's PERMANENT DAMAGE (http://damage.comicbookresources.com) about the USA's saber rattling at Syria over Lebanon and our intentional distortions of what's actually going on in Lebanon in order to justify (to the American people) invading Syria if we feel so inclined to.
I suspect that the U.S. military strategy at this point is to maintain bases in Iraq, and give support to internal revolutionary movements and strategic strikes against terrorist bases. This is backwards reasoning; if one assumes that the U.S. is NOT Source of All Evil(tm) and Bush is NOT the Devil Incarnate(tm), this is the only millitary strategy that makes sense, and fully explains why Iraq was chosen as an invasion point (geographically speaking, Iraq is ideal for this sort of strategy, and most military experts were pointing this out even when it was still just Afghanistan).

[Drew Van T.]

This is backwards reasoning; if one assumes that the U.S. is NOT Source of All Evil(tm) and Bush is NOT the Devil Incarnate(tm), this is the only millitary strategy that makes sense

It makes sense if they want to dominate the Middle East militarily and economically, yes. Now they just need to explain how that is a good thing, to have an entire volatile area like that - with a history of colonialism - being manipulated and controlled by some distant foreign power concerned only about its own agendas. Again. The opposition to that strategy is fierce and it bloody well should be.

[bartl]

It makes sense if they want to dominate the Middle East militarily and economically, yes. Now they just need to explain how that is a good thing, to have an entire volatile area like that - with a history of colonialism - being manipulated and controlled by some distant foreign power concerned only about its own agendas. Again. The opposition to that strategy is fierce and it bloody well should be.
What are the other choices? Sometimes, one takes a bad choice, when the other choices are worse.

[badMike]

I suspect that the U.S. military strategy at this point is to maintain bases in Iraq, and give support to internal revolutionary movements and strategic strikes against terrorist bases.At this point?? I think that was always the point...

[Drew Van T.]

What are the other choices?

One option would be to back off and let them work it all out themselves; self-determination, only for real this time. That's an option that's never been tried yet, not really, because while the British and French were forced out after WWII with their influence very gradually reduced (though they remained in there, in minor ways), they were supplanted by the Cold War and its various entanglements, its proxy conflicts and endless propping up of favorable regimes, as well as the whole Israel question. One cannot just say that there is no alternative to modern American power games (or Soviet, or French, or British power games, but none of these are relevant any longer) when the alternative has never been tried.

[bartl]

At this point?? I think that was always the point...
No, it was the goal. In order to achieve that goal, the government in Iraq needs to be reasonably stable and reasonably friendly to the United States (let the military experts define "reasonably").

[bartl]

One option would be to back off and let them work it all out themselves; self-determination, only for real this time.
Can there be self-determination when there are large well-financed groups within the country who are dedicated to ensuring that self-determination is never achieved? Can self-determination include the ability of a well-armed minority to enslave an unarmed majority?

[Steven Grant]

Can there be self-determination when there are large well-financed groups within the country who are dedicated to ensuring that self-determination is never achieved? Can self-determination include the ability of a well-armed minority to enslave an unarmed majority?

You do realize both those descriptions fit the US military? Or Halliburton (which claims to be pulling out) or Bechtel or Shell Oil or any number of other multinationals that have cut deals for themselves in the new Iraq situation...

I mean, there's self-determination and there's self-determination...

[bartl]

You do realize both those descriptions fit the US military? Or Halliburton (which claims to be pulling out) or Bechtel or Shell Oil or any number of other multinationals that have cut deals for themselves in the new Iraq situation...

Wow! Where are all these slaves that the United States and Halliburton are creating?

[badMike]

Wow! Where are all these slaves that the United States and Halliburton are creating?Wal-Mart.

Ba-dum-dum.

[bartl]

Wal-Mart.

Ba-dum-dum.
Not being created by the military, or by Halliburton, and they have the ability to quit and work elsewhere.

[Drew Van T.]

Can there be self-determination when there are large well-financed groups within the country who are dedicated to ensuring that self-determination is never achieved? Can self-determination include the ability of a well-armed minority to enslave an unarmed majority?

Numerous (if not all) countries had to go through similar phases on their long roads to self-determination. The point is to avoid adding MORE imbalances from the outside, because even if such attempts were entirely benign and devoid of self-interest (which they never are) they only end up creating more imbalance, more artificiality, more groups and agents of power being propped up with support and funding coming from abroad, with other foreign powers doing the same thing in response...

This is not to say that Iraq should be isolated, of course. They deserve debt relief, a sizable UN presence, money to rebuild their state oil industries, healthy relations with the rest of the world. But that's very different from trying to manipulate them this way or that in a struggle for power.