"Only when the regime dealt with the 2011 protests by drawing up tanks and firing on peaceful protesters, and by stationing snipers on rooftops, did the protesters gradually take up arms."
This may not be true. The regime claims they were attacked first and that could be the case. Outside provocateurs could have entered Syria and made such an attack in a successful attempt to start a civil war. Where else have we seen "stationing snipers on rooftops" and shooting protestors? Ukraine, where such an incident was used to justify the original coup. Those snipers now appear to be from the right sector or western-sponsored mercenaries.
Carney might be trying to stir up U.S. the public against sanctions the way they eventually opposed attacking Syria. Still, its alarming rhetoric all the same.
I more or less agree with the sentiments expressed here but I think there is another way to look at this sorry affair which is that politicians respond to people who can threaten them. The U.S. public has not responded so far when the government acts contrary to their interests and so the politicians don't give them much consideration. Germany, on the other hand, can cause trouble for the U.S.
"Some Iranian spokesmen have taken up the same line as Russia, that the rebels gassed themselves, though this conclusion is absurd on the face of it ..."
The most startling counterpunch to the White House spin remains the Mint Press News report by AP correspondent Dale Gavlak on the spot, in Ghouta, Damascus, with anti-Assad residents stressing that "certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the gas attack''.
"...contradicted by French, British, US and Israeli intelligence,"
Why should the claims of these governments be taken at face value? Half the time Obama does not even try to claim he wants to help the Syrians; he talks about helping Israel or protecting the Americans from a chemical attack. Does the U.S. want to end the Syrian civil war, or prolong it, as they did the war between Iran and Iraq in the 80s? Maybe Obama could care less about Syria and just sees an opportunity to undermine Iran, Hezbullah, and the Arab spring.
"The US and its Allies cannot stand idly by while yet another state flaunts the international norm against the use of chemical warfare "
Really? Maybe the U.S. should look at its own conduct in this matter. The U.S. used white phosphorous in Fallujah and Israel has used it in Gaza. When the U.S. violates international law, such as invading Iraq and killing 1 million+ people, there is nary a word of protest to be heard.
"That’s point number one from a realist perspective but for point 2 (h/t to Edward Luttwak) if either side in the Civil War emerges victorious, US national interests suffer."
So the carnage should continue for the sake of U.S. (and Israeli?) "interests". Evidently you encourage mass murder.
I was referring to a cease-fire between the groups in Syria.
"A hundred of those “expended,” at a million or more a pop? "
Isn't it ironic? The U.S. is in the middle of an economic crisis, not unrelated to some earlier misguided wars, and money can't be spent to help its beleaguered citizens. Yet endless dollars are available for wars to benefit Israel and military contractors. If only we had heeded Eisenhower's warning...
Given the U.S. track record, they should stay out of this conflict. What is really needed is a cease fire. If the U.S. attacks Syria it will also be illegal. Congress has not declared war on Syria and the U.N. security council has not authorized an attack.
As an American, I am glad Russia is giving Snowden asylum. As far as I am concerned, the real "frenemy" of the U.S. public is their government. What is weird about U.S. demands for Snowden's return is that he revealed cyberspying on Russia, among other countries. Perhaps the U.S. should be apologizing, not demanding.
This reminds me of record of the Republican cutting veteran's benefits after launching the Iraq war.
I have heard some bad things about Al Jazeera from Middle Easterners but I am not sure of the details. I think Asad Abu Khalil has been warning about problems with this network.
What is outrageous about the accusation that Iran is a dictatorship is that the U.S. is in bed with some of the worst dictatorships in the world. Efforts at independence by the developing world are opposed by America. The U.S. was opposed to Chavez, Nasser, the Arab League, Lumumba, Allende, Sukarno, Mosaddegh and on and on.
The situation is much more complicated then this. First of all, there are plenty of examples of western religious bigotry. Israel is a state founded and based on religious discrimination. The French carved Lebanon out of Trans-Syria to set up a Middle East State with a Christian majority. An associate of Blackwater chief Eric Prince says Prince regards himself as a crusader fighting Islam. The U.S. military is so rife with Christian fundamentalists that there is an organization trying to separate religion from the military. How many Gen. Boykins are there in the military?
Secondly, in a classic imperial strategy, the West has supported extremely reactionary Islamic movements. The British set up the Gulf monarchies, the U.S. supported the Mujaheddin, and the Israelis initially supported Hamas.
I read an article a few days ago by an Iraqi cataloging U.S. attacks on Islam but I can't find it.
This is the type of sensational story U.S. journalists love, because it isn't expensive to produce. Several weeks before 9/11, CNN decided to adopt the FOX news journalism model; instead of producing hard news they would produce sensational stories that only appeared to be informative. This would reduce operating costs without reducing their audience, at least in the short run.
“Twelve American soldiers face charges over a secret “kill team” that allegedly blew up and shot Afghan civilians at random and collected their fingers as trophies.”
Seymour Hersh has written that this is the most brutal U.S. army ever. He was planning to write an article about this but it never materialized. I think a big question here is: "Where are the officers?" Any army will have psychopaths but the officers are supposed to keep them in line.
A war crime that has received zero attention is the allegation of "dead checking" that came up in a U.S. trial. This is the practice of executing wounded prisoners. An article in the LA TImes
Lopezromo said a procedure called "dead-checking" was routine. If Marines entered a house where a man was wounded, instead of checking to see whether he needed medical aid, they shot him to make sure he was dead, he testified.
"If somebody is worth shooting once, they're worth shooting twice," he said.
Marines are taught "dead-checking" in boot camp, the School of Infantry at Camp Pendleton, and the pre-deployment training at Twentynine Palms called Mojave Viper, he said.
I suspect this practice is what was behind the execution of wounded Iraqis videoed by a journalist several years ago in a mosque in Fallujah.
" I don’t recall anyone “desecrating” any bibles in order to put psychological “pressure” on us."
Maybe I am wrong about this but I think I did read somewhere that the S.E.R.E. program does include this. Or perhaps I am thinking of a S.E.R.E.-like program. The program might have changed since 1969. While this act might not disturb you personally, it could have meaning for a very religious person. I believe the S.E.R.E. strategy is to destroy your ego.
I believe prisoners at Guantanamo were harassed for a while by desecrating the Koran. Since the interrogation methods there are derived from the S.E.R.E. program, that is circumstantial evidence for my claim.
"technology magnifies the power of individuals and small groups"
I wish technology would magnify the power of critics of U.S. policy. Somehow I don't think the oligarchy-controlled U.S. media is going to magnify those views.
This is an interesting history that I was unaware of. Another possible comparison could be with the attitudes of the British toward the Irish when the IRA was active.
"...it is still all right to be a religious bigot, so Islam is being scapegoated by the Republican Party, as its ability openly to play on racial fears is being increasingly constrained."
The Republicans and to a lesser extent Democrats seem to be trying to cross every red line. So far, we have crossed the torture, habeas corpus, total information awareness, freedom of association, post-depression Wall Street regulation, and aggressive war red lines, to mention some examples.
"Even if a majority of Republicans in Louisiana once voted for Klan figure David Duke, in most of the country sounding like Duke is a distinct political liability"
I lived in Arkansas for a few years and that state can be added to the Louisiana category.
"I can’t imagine that most Americans are really afraid of their Muslim neighbors "
Cases such as the "paint ball six" make me believe the reality is somewhat mixed and unstable. I think the U.S. is trying to decide which path to go down in the future. Will it go down the racist xenophobe path or will it follow a more high minded path? Can Americans recognize the complexities of the situation or are they limited to simplistic demagogy?
Another candidate for desecrated ground is the U.S. "embassy" in Iraq, which was built on stolen land with slave labour. I wonder what Senor thinks about Israel's destruction of a Muslim cemetary in Jerusalem to build a museum of "tolerance".
"Only when the regime dealt with the 2011 protests by drawing up tanks and firing on peaceful protesters, and by stationing snipers on rooftops, did the protesters gradually take up arms."
This may not be true. The regime claims they were attacked first and that could be the case. Outside provocateurs could have entered Syria and made such an attack in a successful attempt to start a civil war. Where else have we seen "stationing snipers on rooftops" and shooting protestors? Ukraine, where such an incident was used to justify the original coup. Those snipers now appear to be from the right sector or western-sponsored mercenaries.
Carney might be trying to stir up U.S. the public against sanctions the way they eventually opposed attacking Syria. Still, its alarming rhetoric all the same.
I more or less agree with the sentiments expressed here but I think there is another way to look at this sorry affair which is that politicians respond to people who can threaten them. The U.S. public has not responded so far when the government acts contrary to their interests and so the politicians don't give them much consideration. Germany, on the other hand, can cause trouble for the U.S.
We can thank the Bush administration for giving us Alshabab in the first place. This is the fruits of their regime change in Somalia.
"Some Iranian spokesmen have taken up the same line as Russia, that the rebels gassed themselves, though this conclusion is absurd on the face of it ..."
I just read this in the Asia Times (link to atimes.com):
The most startling counterpunch to the White House spin remains the Mint Press News report by AP correspondent Dale Gavlak on the spot, in Ghouta, Damascus, with anti-Assad residents stressing that "certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the gas attack''.
"...contradicted by French, British, US and Israeli intelligence,"
Why should the claims of these governments be taken at face value? Half the time Obama does not even try to claim he wants to help the Syrians; he talks about helping Israel or protecting the Americans from a chemical attack. Does the U.S. want to end the Syrian civil war, or prolong it, as they did the war between Iran and Iraq in the 80s? Maybe Obama could care less about Syria and just sees an opportunity to undermine Iran, Hezbullah, and the Arab spring.
"The US and its Allies cannot stand idly by while yet another state flaunts the international norm against the use of chemical warfare "
Really? Maybe the U.S. should look at its own conduct in this matter. The U.S. used white phosphorous in Fallujah and Israel has used it in Gaza. When the U.S. violates international law, such as invading Iraq and killing 1 million+ people, there is nary a word of protest to be heard.
"That’s point number one from a realist perspective but for point 2 (h/t to Edward Luttwak) if either side in the Civil War emerges victorious, US national interests suffer."
So the carnage should continue for the sake of U.S. (and Israeli?) "interests". Evidently you encourage mass murder.
JTMcPhee ,
I was referring to a cease-fire between the groups in Syria.
"A hundred of those “expended,” at a million or more a pop? "
Isn't it ironic? The U.S. is in the middle of an economic crisis, not unrelated to some earlier misguided wars, and money can't be spent to help its beleaguered citizens. Yet endless dollars are available for wars to benefit Israel and military contractors. If only we had heeded Eisenhower's warning...
Given the U.S. track record, they should stay out of this conflict. What is really needed is a cease fire. If the U.S. attacks Syria it will also be illegal. Congress has not declared war on Syria and the U.N. security council has not authorized an attack.
As an American, I am glad Russia is giving Snowden asylum. As far as I am concerned, the real "frenemy" of the U.S. public is their government. What is weird about U.S. demands for Snowden's return is that he revealed cyberspying on Russia, among other countries. Perhaps the U.S. should be apologizing, not demanding.
This reminds me of record of the Republican cutting veteran's benefits after launching the Iraq war.
I have heard some bad things about Al Jazeera from Middle Easterners but I am not sure of the details. I think Asad Abu Khalil has been warning about problems with this network.
Netanyahu did generously offer to continue the quasi-settlement freeze if the U.S. released convicted spy Jonathan Pollard.
What is outrageous about the accusation that Iran is a dictatorship is that the U.S. is in bed with some of the worst dictatorships in the world. Efforts at independence by the developing world are opposed by America. The U.S. was opposed to Chavez, Nasser, the Arab League, Lumumba, Allende, Sukarno, Mosaddegh and on and on.
The situation is much more complicated then this. First of all, there are plenty of examples of western religious bigotry. Israel is a state founded and based on religious discrimination. The French carved Lebanon out of Trans-Syria to set up a Middle East State with a Christian majority. An associate of Blackwater chief Eric Prince says Prince regards himself as a crusader fighting Islam. The U.S. military is so rife with Christian fundamentalists that there is an organization trying to separate religion from the military. How many Gen. Boykins are there in the military?
Secondly, in a classic imperial strategy, the West has supported extremely reactionary Islamic movements. The British set up the Gulf monarchies, the U.S. supported the Mujaheddin, and the Israelis initially supported Hamas.
I read an article a few days ago by an Iraqi cataloging U.S. attacks on Islam but I can't find it.
This is the type of sensational story U.S. journalists love, because it isn't expensive to produce. Several weeks before 9/11, CNN decided to adopt the FOX news journalism model; instead of producing hard news they would produce sensational stories that only appeared to be informative. This would reduce operating costs without reducing their audience, at least in the short run.
“Twelve American soldiers face charges over a secret “kill team” that allegedly blew up and shot Afghan civilians at random and collected their fingers as trophies.”
Seymour Hersh has written that this is the most brutal U.S. army ever. He was planning to write an article about this but it never materialized. I think a big question here is: "Where are the officers?" Any army will have psychopaths but the officers are supposed to keep them in line.
A war crime that has received zero attention is the allegation of "dead checking" that came up in a U.S. trial. This is the practice of executing wounded prisoners. An article in the LA TImes
link to articles.latimes.com
included the following description:
Lopezromo said a procedure called "dead-checking" was routine. If Marines entered a house where a man was wounded, instead of checking to see whether he needed medical aid, they shot him to make sure he was dead, he testified.
"If somebody is worth shooting once, they're worth shooting twice," he said.
Marines are taught "dead-checking" in boot camp, the School of Infantry at Camp Pendleton, and the pre-deployment training at Twentynine Palms called Mojave Viper, he said.
I suspect this practice is what was behind the execution of wounded Iraqis videoed by a journalist several years ago in a mosque in Fallujah.
" I don’t recall anyone “desecrating” any bibles in order to put psychological “pressure” on us."
Maybe I am wrong about this but I think I did read somewhere that the S.E.R.E. program does include this. Or perhaps I am thinking of a S.E.R.E.-like program. The program might have changed since 1969. While this act might not disturb you personally, it could have meaning for a very religious person. I believe the S.E.R.E. strategy is to destroy your ego.
I believe prisoners at Guantanamo were harassed for a while by desecrating the Koran. Since the interrogation methods there are derived from the S.E.R.E. program, that is circumstantial evidence for my claim.
Did you find the S.E.R.E. training useful?
By the way, when is Gen. Petraeus going to fire Gen Boykin?
"technology magnifies the power of individuals and small groups"
I wish technology would magnify the power of critics of U.S. policy. Somehow I don't think the oligarchy-controlled U.S. media is going to magnify those views.
One of the forms of psychological pressure put on U.S. soldiers in the SEAR program was to desecrate copies of the bible.
So Enright sees checkpoints as a form of attack on Muslims.
As I recall, Muslim-looking cab drivers were attacked after 9-11, especially Sikhs.
This is an interesting history that I was unaware of. Another possible comparison could be with the attitudes of the British toward the Irish when the IRA was active.
"...it is still all right to be a religious bigot, so Islam is being scapegoated by the Republican Party, as its ability openly to play on racial fears is being increasingly constrained."
The Republicans and to a lesser extent Democrats seem to be trying to cross every red line. So far, we have crossed the torture, habeas corpus, total information awareness, freedom of association, post-depression Wall Street regulation, and aggressive war red lines, to mention some examples.
"Even if a majority of Republicans in Louisiana once voted for Klan figure David Duke, in most of the country sounding like Duke is a distinct political liability"
I lived in Arkansas for a few years and that state can be added to the Louisiana category.
"I can’t imagine that most Americans are really afraid of their Muslim neighbors "
Cases such as the "paint ball six" make me believe the reality is somewhat mixed and unstable. I think the U.S. is trying to decide which path to go down in the future. Will it go down the racist xenophobe path or will it follow a more high minded path? Can Americans recognize the complexities of the situation or are they limited to simplistic demagogy?
Another candidate for desecrated ground is the U.S. "embassy" in Iraq, which was built on stolen land with slave labour. I wonder what Senor thinks about Israel's destruction of a Muslim cemetary in Jerusalem to build a museum of "tolerance".
"For those interested in desecration of “Sacred Ground” one would be hard put to beat the locating of a U.S. Military Base close to Hiroshima"
How about locating a U.S. base on an Iraqi archeological site?
Excellent post; the controversy over the center puts in stark relief what certain racists really think about Muslims.