Wednesday, February 08, 2012

Comments - mostly about Syria - that Juan Cole would rather you not see


I often use this blog to publish comments that do not make it past Juan Cole's moderation filter. Because his most recent post on Syria has several, I've made them into a post instead of only putting them into my own comments section.

The first is one I did not expect, because it does not make an assertion, but asks for support for what has become the very conventional understanding of the situation in Syria.
The protesters who were attacked by the Syrian regime, and then took up arms in response, were not part of a secession movement.

That’s a commonly repeated narrative. But I have not seen compelling evidence that it is accurate.

What one link can you produce that best establishes that non-violent protests were attacked by the Syrian regime?
I'd make the same request of any reader here. I have not seen images or videos of large non-violent protests being dispersed by force, even such as I've seen from Bahrain. If anyone has a link, please present it.

The second comment regards a discussion that we've been having here ad nauseum. Dermot Maloney from our comments section is actually the second person I've ever come across who has actually tried to argue that Saudi Arabia is an independent country and not a US dependency. Recent comment sections will provide a reader with more than enough of this discussion to draw a conclusion on that point.
In another five years, this will be small potatoes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/29/saudi-build-nuclear-weapons-iran


I’m not too worried about your link that Saudi Arabia will get nuclear weapons in response to Iran's nuclear program.

The people of Saudi Arabia consider Israel more of an adversary, yet the government of Saudi Arabia has not responded for decades to Israel amassing hundreds of nuclear weapons.

The only possible explanation is that Saudi Arabia is not an independent state, but executes the foreign policy imposed on it by the United States, in which case the United States, regardless of Iran’s nuclear program, can and will exercise the option of not allowing Saudi Arabia to develop even legal nuclear weapons capabilities like those Brazil has.

While reporting the same claim, Reuter's sources agree that it is of no practical importance as long as Saudi Arabia remains under US control:

Few analysts believe Riyadh, the world's top oil exporter and a key ally for the United States, is likely to embark upon a weapons programme in defiance of U.S. calls for restraint.

In short, if Saudi Arabia is not independent enough to respond to Israel’s nuclear arsenal, it is not independent enough to respond to Iran achieving legal nuclear weapons capabilities like those Brazil has.
The next comment regards something I've seen in my own comments section as well. I've claimed that there is no non-violent way to establish "liberated territory". What I've meant by "liberated territory" is territory not under the control of the formal central government. For example, Castro and Guevara were able to establish liberated territory in regions of Cuba - by driving out the military presence loyal to Batista.

Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela represented movements that in some ways can claim to have liberated territory, but in each case with the cooperation of the central government. This is not the sense in which the term "liberated territory" is commonly used. But it seems that the meaning of liberated territory as territory taken from the control of a country's formal central government is not universally understood.

Anyway, my attempt to clarify that over at Juan Cole's website was not released from moderation.
Whew.

By “liberated territory” I mean territory outside of the control of the central government.

At no point will Cairo be that. Homs was liberated territory, as defined here, in 2011, the Syrian security forces had been forced out and had to reenter the town to reassert central government control.

Did you seriously not know what “liberated territory” means in this context?
Lastly, the comment that likely convinced Cole to block all of my recent comments is one that shows that while it may be the case that there have been peaceful protests, the narrative that opposition violence is an effort to protect peaceful protests is just false and even laughable.
The first report of an ambush against Syrian troops that I can find was from around April 10, 2011. That attack was not related to any protests but was done against troops going from one city to another.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20110411/163469831.html

The number of Syrian servicemen killed in an ambush on an armed forces unit in the country’s northwest has risen to nine, the Syrian SANA news agency reported on Monday.

The armed forces unit came under attack at a highway between the port cities of Latakia and Tartus on Sunday afternoon. Seven soldiers and two officers are among those killed, Sana said, quoting an official source.

Previous reports said one serviceman had been killed and dozens injured.


Less than one month after the beginning of protests there were ambushes and kidnappings of Syrian troops completely independent of any peaceful protest movement. The Arab League observers' report confirms that these attacks on government forces unrelated to protecting protests continues.

Barack Obama would respond to an armed group launching attacks against US troops on US soil (with even a possibility of foreign support) just as ruthlessly as Assad.
The current status of these comments is that they are awaiting moderation, which means they have not been rejected yet. It is possible that they will be released. But comments with later timestamps have been published so I don't expect these to be.

Cole is sensitive about this narrative that peaceful protests in Syria were violently crushed by the government and that the armed opposition formed as an attempt to prevent the government from crushing protests. So sensitive that even asking for support for that narrative, much less demonstrating the falseness of part of that narrative cannot be tolerated on his blog.

Fortunately there are other places. I highly recommend Raceforiran.com which has an unmoderated comments section and Moonofalabama.org which also has an unmoderated if smaller comments section and publishes articles more often.

28 comments:

Castellio said...

I am torn. Having studied the May 18 uprising in Korea where a government sent its army against unarmed demonstrators, and then claimed they were putting down an uprising, I am reluctant to believe the government.

Nevertheless, it is clear that the west is funding and arming groups to bring down the Assad government as a preliminary action to future attacks in both Lebanon and Iran. Therefore the suggestion that the government forces are trying to protect civilians and itself from the armed insurgents is possible.

Who, on the ground in Syria, is reporting truthfully as to what the
Syrian troops might be doing? Are there any reports coming in any
language on any site that seem to have a handle on this? Can you direct us to them?

Lidia said...

of course, some peaceful protests were crushed by army - see. Bahrain, Egypt and Yemen. While some of protesters fought back with stones, bottles and so on, it was NOT about armed gangs, supported by foreign governments (foes to the rulers of Bahrain, Egypt and Yemen). All thous states are USA puppets, the same  is true regarding your example.  In such cases USA is NOT calling for UN SC intervention, but defends armed repression and helps it.

Regarding what is really going on in Syria. I could NOT rec. you the source which is 100% reliable. But I use rule of thumb - if USA(NATO, GCC, Zionists) support something, I do not. Such support is a good indicator that "revolution" is not worth such name.

You see, I am from USSR, I have some experience with USA "help". Not have I any illusion about USA goodness and will to bring democracy to the world :( 

Libya example is good enough as well. The same methods are used now against Syria. I do NOT wish Syria the same sort of "liberation", and NATO/GCC do. 

Lidia said...

Arnold, welcome to the club :( Sooner or later one could no more restrain oneself regarding Cole's propaganda aka "informed comments". I crossed the line during the rape of Libya by NATO, keenly supported by Cole. 

Arnold Evans said...

I haven't seen any verified fact that is inconsistent with Syria dealing with peaceful protests mostly reasonably.  It is certainly possible to get high death tolls without a regime being brutal if there is armed opposition to the regime operating on its soil.

Korea did not have foreign arms supplies.  That is a very important difference.

Arnold Evans said...

I don't know if just posts about Syria will not be published or what. I'll just post them here, so I'm not distressed.   It does say something about Cole.

Castellio said...

I understand your points, I'm wondering where to get the most reliable current information.

Yes, the uprising, in response to the massacre, was certainly not armed by any foreigners. I point out, however, that moving the Korean troops from the northern border south to Gwangju needed US permission. Many Koreans think of (or remember) the actions as a joint US-Korean action against peaceful demonstrators. You'll remember that this was in 1980, just after the Islamic Revolution in Iran, and the US thought it might be dealing with a similar situation.

 

Arnold Evans said...

I wish I had a good source for news inside of Syria, it is unfortunate that I do not, except the dissident press like Asia Times that Hack posts links to over at raceforiran.

Castellio said...

Lydia, I am aware of the hypocrisy of the west in relation to democratic movements in the Middle East, in the former Soviet Union, and throughout Asia.

I am looking for sources of current information coming out of Syria that Arnold (or you for that matter) believe are firsthand and reliable. French, Russian, Arabic, all would be welcome.

Castellio said...

Asia Times can be very hit and miss, but I do tend to go with what Pepe Escobar writes.

Dermot Moloney said...

Rape?

Libyans were under attack from government forces who committed mass human rights violations against its own people, thankfully the international community intervened and helped to hinder such actions from gaddafis forces.

Dermot Moloney said...

Define verified fact, for example please show an example of a verified fact of bahrains abuses and i will try to find a similar example of the same type of abuses produced in syria.

Arnold Evans said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwnUQcKXmMM

A peaceful protest fired upon by live ammunition that left a protester visibly injured.

Dermot Moloney said...

Similar things have come out of syria

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhNpw4ydBpY 

Dermot Moloney said...

"of course, some peaceful protests were crushed by army - see. Bahrain, Egypt and Yemen. "

And in syria also, in fact the violence in syria is worse than all those combined.

"All thous states are USA puppets"

Actually they are not.

" In such cases USA is NOT calling for UN SC intervention, but defends armed repression and helps it."

Actually the us has been critical of bahrains actions and in regards to yeman and egypt it sided with those who wanted the leaders to step aside.

"But I use rule of thumb - if USA(NATO, GCC, Zionists) support something, I do not. "

Surely it would be best to put biased feelings aside and look at the situation logically, gather all the available facts and then form an opinion which supports the option which helps alleviate or prevent human distress.

"Libya example is good enough as well. "

Libya is actually a nation which benefited from the international intervention by removing a dictator who was committing mass human rights violations against his people.


Out of curiosity do you believe that assad should step down and allow for free elections, and overall make efforts to improve the freedom in his nation which is among the more oppressive in the region.

Arnold Evans said...

I didn't expect you to be able to produce that, but you did.

With that said, Bahrain, Syria and also Saudi Arabia and Egypt are four examples of countries that should be ruled by representative and publicly accountable political bodies and and outside intervention in any of those countries should be in the direction of making a transition to democracy with no or minimal loss of life.

In all four countries, no involvement at all is preferable to US policy in Bahrain, Mubarak's Egypt and Saudi Arabia which is involvement that helps maintain the government in place.  Involvement that maintains the government in place is preferable to US policy in Syria and Libya which is outside involvement that actively encourages or exacerbates a civil war that would predictably cause vastly more death.

Maloney, if you're going to respond, please do so directly to the post as this thread is already running out of width.  Just put a marker here saying which post is responsive.

Lidia said...

Castellio, I would not call it "hypocrisy", just good old imperialism. I personally follow this twitter account  http://twitter.com/mrzine_notes

It is good and have a lot of info and analysis.

Lidia said...

yes, I am aware about such peculiar "morals" or "lawfulness" of Cole. I remember well his arguments that the USA crimes against Fallujah population were OK, because of UN fig leaf "authorization"  for USA occupation army in Iraq. 

I was mad, but I also was taking aback - I just could not fathom how it is possible to think such way. I still cannot get it, even though I have no illusions last regarding Cole and his ilk.

But the comments on this post are mostly horrible on their own right. It is no strange that you got himself banned from this one. On some questions from people who are not 100% buying Cole's propaganda Cole or answers in dishonest fashion, or not answers at all. 

personally, I found disgusting his mentioning of 1968. There were NO victims of "tanks" in Czechoslovakia, but still it  broke Cole's heart, because he could not hope that USA would bomb USSR. But still, USA did a bit of bombing the same year - in Vietnam, for ex, with a lot of victims, but I suppose it was OK for Cole. 

On the other hand, Cole could be content now, because even though Czechoslovakia is no more, at least the "liberated" Czech are used as cannon fodder in USA wars, while in 1968 USA could NOT use them in Vietnam, so the happy end is sure here. 
  

Dermot Moloney said...

I didn't expect you to be able to produce that.
Considering how uninformed you are about the middle east this isnt surprising.

"In all four countries, no involvement at all is preferable to US policy in Bahrain, Mubarak's Egypt and Saudi Arabia which is involvement that helps maintain the government in place."

Sanctions it is then.

" Involvement that maintains the government in place is preferable to US policy in Syria and Libya which is outside involvement that actively encourages or exacerbates a civil war that would predictably cause vastly more death."

US involvement in libya did not lead to greater amounts of death, as reported gaddafis forces caused the most damage, if they were not hindered they would have had access to a greater amount of territory for a greater amount of time to cause excess distress.

US policies towards syrias arent that negative, if one did have to blame an outside power it would clearly be russia who are providing vast amounts of arms to assad and protecting him from reasonable un resolutions. 

Dermot Moloney said...

Surely even you are aware that this magazine would provide quite biased coverage, imagine a right wing person directing someone to frontpage magazine claiming that it has good info and analysis.

Arnold Evans said...

Me: In all four countries, no involvement at all is preferable to US policy
in Bahrain, Mubarak's Egypt and Saudi Arabia which is involvement that
helps maintain the government in place.

DM: Sanctions it is then.

Weird response, but the US could have withdrawn support that helps keep regimes in place in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Egypt without sanctions.

Dermot Moloney said...

Weird response 

Not really, cutting off any involvement with a country involves putting them under sanctions.

Again you are making a flawed presumption, you seem to believe that the us is providing a certain type of support that keeps them in power. This however isnt true, even without us support the current governments would still be in charge.

Arnold Evans said...

OK. The "sanction" of ceasing to provide arms and intelligence support.

You may be the only person in the world who would describe that as a sanction.

Dermot Moloney said...

A sanction is a penalty put towards a state to get it to comply with a certain position.

So yeah, it is a sanction, try to understand what it entails before you imply that others dont know what it means arnold.Also its another one of your famous presumptions to think that if the us did do such a thing these governments would fall, and like your previous presumptions the evidence does not back it up.

Sineva said...

What I think Arnold is talking about is not the formal breaking off of diplomatic relations,which by the way can take place without it being part of any sanctions regime,but rather non interference on the part of the US the best example I can give of this would be the non interference of the ussr in the lead up to the dissolution of the eastern block,had the soviets wished they could of intervened to help crush the protests and ensure the survival of the eastern block regimes they had done this before they could have done it again but this time they did not,quite the opposite in fact it was made clear to the east german government  that the ussr  would not help to prop them up,after that events took their natural course,I have little doubt that if the us did the same thing you would quickly see the end of americas middle eastern block  or colonies or vassal states or.. well the name isn`t really important now is it?

Keep up the great work Arnold reading your posts  is a pleasure

Dermot Moloney said...

"personally, I found disgusting his mentioning of 1968. There were NO victims of "tanks" in Czechoslovakia, but still it  broke Cole's heart"
They were victims of the ussr's and its allies aggressive actions.

"But still, USA did a bit of bombing the same year - in Vietnam, for ex, with a lot of victims, but I suppose it was OK for Cole. "

Could you provide evidence that cole was ok and supportive of us involvement in vietnam?

Dermot Moloney said...

Cole is saying whether a war is legal in regards to international law is a factor which contributes to him seeing a war as being just or not.

This is a very reasonable position.

Lidia said...

1) Cole openly said that what USA did in Falludja was LAWFUL. Everything else is just sham. 
2) USSR tanks were NOT used to murder Czech, but still Cole wanted USA to make armed intervention. USA tanks and planes and chemical weapons WERE mass-murdering Vietnamese, but Cole did NOT say a word about it while shedding crocodile ties for the Czech. USA were mass-murdering Vietnamese because  Vietnamese
were NOT willing to be ruled by anti-democratic ruler, so it is clear that USA were NOT giving a damn about "democracy" in Czechoslovakia or anywhere else, they just wanted to prop THEIR dictator and puppet.
3) The same is true about Syria. USA is supporting (and arming) Bahrain king who is busy repressing unarmed protesters (NOT an armed gangs, like in Syria). So, all Cole's post is a one big fat  lie.

Now DM could find more excuses for Cole and USA imperialism, but I suppose I have read so much of it that I could NOT pay more attention :)

Dermot Moloney said...

"1) Cole openly said that what USA did in Falludja was LAWFUL. Everything else is just sham. "
Lidia in order for your argument to be effective juan cole would have to had been incorrect in stating that certain actions were lawful, however he provides strong evidence that they were. Such as the un resolution which allowed for such actions.

Juan was then critical of certain actions which would not have been approved and therefore were illegal. You should read his pieces properly when you try to critique him.

"USSR tanks were NOT used to murder Czech"

Juan was bothered rightly by the aggressive and oppressive actions of the ussr using violence against those wanting to live in a freer society.

Trying to bring up vietnam doesnt work for juan cole was also critical of that conflict also. 1968 was a poor year for both the ussr and the usa.

"The same is true about Syria. USA is supporting (and arming) Bahrain king who is busy repressing unarmed protesters"

Actually the us has been critical of bahrains actions and the reason why the two are overall treated differently is because the violence in syria is so much worse, because it is worse it makes sense that others would take a stronger line against it.

 "(NOT an armed gangs, like in Syria)."

They are indeed armed gangs in syria, but they are also innocent protesters who have been treated much worse than the protesters in bahrain, again the number of civilians killed by the syrians is far higher and that is why syria is treated differently.

Surely you do stand with the non-violent protesters who wish assad to step down, surely you support the idea of assad stepping down anyway for he is in charge of an oppressive government?

"So, all Cole's post is a one big fat  lie."

Where did he exactly lie.

"Now DM could find more excuses for Cole and USA imperialism,"

Actually i have presented reasonable arguments that shows your position to be flawed

"but I suppose I have read so much of it that I could NOT pay more attention :)"

Unlikely, you have often made many errors critiquing coles work that could only come about by failing to properly read his work :/