|
Syria – Conflicting Reports, Dubious Witnesses Challenge Convoy Attack Case
The Washington Post tries an "explainer" piece to reconstruct the recent attack on an aid convoy in Urum al-Kubra, west of Aleppo. The sources are anonymous U.S. officials and members of the U.S./UK paid agitprop organization "White Helmets". I am curious about one of those "witnesses":
That Monday was a warm fall evening. Ammar al-Selmo, a local rescue worker, was making tea in a building across the street. Stepping onto a balcony just after 7 p.m., when it was already past dusk, he said he listened to a helicopter swoop in and drop two barrel bombs on the convoy.
Haven't we heard that name before? Ammar al-Selmo?
Reuters:
"There are planes in the sky now," Ammar al Selmo, the head of the Civil Defence rescue service in the opposition-held east, told Reuters from Aleppo on Saturday morning.
Another WaPo pieces also say that Selmo is not just a local tea drinking rescue worker in Urum al-Kubra:
By nightfall, more than 100 bombs had landed, and more than 80 people were dead, said Ammar al-Selmo, head of the Aleppo branch of the White Helmets civil defense group.
So Anmar al-Selmo is some average local dude in Urum al-Kubra, outside of Aleppo city. He is, at the time, head of al-Qaeda's propaganda shop within the besieged east-Aleppo. Let me guess: The guy sits somewhere in Turkey and is talking to "reporters" via some untraceable Internet application. They have no idea where he really is, nor any interest to find out.
There are more issues with the "explainer" piece. It says that the convoy was loading in Urum al-Kubra to then go into Aleppo city:
On a clear afternoon last Monday a line of humanitarian aid trucks eased to a stop in front of a cluster of warehouses packed with aid supplies 15 miles outside the Syrian city of Aleppo.
Omar Barakat, director of the local Red Crescent branch, supervised the loading of the 31-vehicle convoy, which was scheduled to drive into the battered city that evening.
But the International Committee of the Red Cross said the opposite:
Around twenty civilians and one SARC staff member were killed, as they were unloading trucks carrying vital humanitarian aid.
Other sources confirm this:
U.N. officials said the U.N. and Red Crescent convoy was delivering assistance for 78,000 people in the town of Uram al-Kubra, west of Aleppo city.
The convoy was unloading goods for Uram al-Kubra say the Red Cross and the UN. But it was loading goods for east-Aleppo says WaPo? Hmm …
Curious is also that the U.S. now claims that both, Russian and Syrian government forces, conducted a strike on the convoy:
Eyewitness accounts, along with social media postings and video, including footage of the wreckage, added to assessments by U.S. defense officials, show that the convoy was obliterated by airstrikes, first by helicopters dropping barrels loaded with explosives and shrapnel — a long-standing tactic of the Syrian government — and then by Russian bombers.
Earlier U.S. Secretary of State Kerry claimed that Syrian government forces were "evidently" responsible for the attack. Later U.S. intelligence claimed "the Russians did it":
Mr. Kerry initially said Syrian forces were "evidently" responsible for the convoy attack, which killed at least 12 people. The U.S. officials said new intelligence indicates that Russian forces, rather than the Syrians, conducted the strike.
And now it is both? And this conclusion is based on what? "Eyewitness accounts" from one Ammar al-Selmo who sits who-knows-where?
The "explainer piece also says that the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov demands an investigation of the incident. But it was UN aid chief Stephen O'Brien who first called for an independent investigation:
I call for an immediate, impartial and independent investigation into this deadly incident. The perpetrators should know that they will one day be held accountable for violations of international humanitarian and human rights law.
There is no response yet by the U.S. to this UN demand. Might that be because the U.S. and its media can't get the facts straight?
john delacour, paveway, ghostship and others.. thanks for the ongoing views and insights..
this is ot, but does anyone have any insight into the mh17 data being released by both sides at this point?
here is commentary from my friend, and i don’t personally share it, but thought it would put it out for anyone interested to offer feedback on.. thanks..
“Do you remember back on July 23, 2014, when the Russian Defense Ministry (RDM) held a press conference showing “evidence” of an Ukrainian SU-25 fighter Jet in close proximity to the doomed MH17? Thus inferring that the SU-25 was responsible for shooting down MH17. At the time I easily poked holes in it, as did many others. I remember writing long e-mails, explaining how the “evidence” just didn’t make sense and was almost laughable, if it weren’t such a tragic event.
There’s a problem with lying, if one can’t remember what one has said (or thinks others won’t remember) and later says something different, it will come back to bite one on the ass.
Fast forward to September 26, 2016. Just two days before the expected release of an interim report by the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team (JIT), which will likely say that MH17 was brought down by a BUK missile, the RDM held a preemptive press conference using “recently discovered”, “raw radar data” from a civilian tracking station in a village in western Russia. How convenient! Timing is everything! They used this new found “raw radar data” to show that there is no evidence of a BUK missile in flight moments before MH17 disintegrated in mid-air. However, this “raw radar data” also shows, and was acknowledged by the RDM, that other than two identified civilian commercial aircraft on scheduled flights, there were no other aircraft in the vicinity of MH17. Meaning, and here’s where it gets good, there was no Ukrainian SU-25 fighter jet present as the RDM claimed back on July 23, 2014. It is now clear that the RDM scabbed together a scenario using phony evidence, in an attempt to counter the emerging story that “rebels” using a BUK missile, mistakenly shot down MH17. The RDM gleefully implicated Ukraine by placing a SU-25 fighter jet at the scene of the crime as it were. If the “raw radar data” is the real deal as they claim, it proves they lied about the existence of the SU-25 fighter jet on July 23, 2014. It’s what is known as an “ah ha moment” and it is a big one! One has to wonder, why would they do that? I think that somebody fucked up and didn’t think it through before they held this latest press conference. My point in all of this is, Russia or at least the RDM is just as capable of fabrication and manipulation as the US and it proves we can’t trust them either.
I looked to see how this story was being reported by RT. In this instance, RT failed to report or simply missed the fact that the new information proves RDM fabricated the story about the SU-25 fighter jet. However, RT dutifully reported that the “raw radar data” proves there wasn’t a BUK missile near MH17. Then RT goes on to accuse Ukraine of launching a BUK missile from within its territory, even though the “raw radar data” shows no evidence of a BUK missile within the vicinity of MH17. For me, it all comes down to whether the RDM is telling the truth about the new “raw radar data”. They can’t have it both ways, they either stand by their July 23, 2014 press conference, implicating a SU-25 fighter jet or admit to lying about it and standing by the September 26, 2016 press conference showing there’s no evidence of a BUK missile, as well as, no evidence of a Ukrainian SU-25. Perhaps they are lying about both things. Its most likely that there are two different spin doctors working in isolation and the second one either didn’t know or forgot the story told on July 23, 2014. The second spin doctor was likely told to whip up some kind of proof that there is no evidence of a BUK missile launch before the Dutch-led JIT releases its interim report. Someone is going to spend some time in Siberia!! The more I read, hear and watch, the more I realize its not about the truth, its about the spin and the ass covering. I don’t trust any of them. I chose not to send you links to the articles, you take me at my word on all of this or research it yourself, if you are interested.”
Posted by: james | Sep 28 2016 1:14 utc | 105
Ghostship@103 – “…I know you raised the “legitimate target” issue with him, but it’s the first part of the paragraph he should clarify. The SARC operates in all areas of Syria, it’s not explicitly supported by the United States and it cooperates with everybody and anybody…”
Since I dragged poor Mr. Cooper’s thoughts in here, I feel obligated to at least present his position as I understand it a bit more accurately. I maintain his answer was informative and well-reasoned to me – others here obviously disagree. I can’t say I agree about him mistaking SARC for the Syrian Civil Defense. I’m
The statement you gave above is what prompted my reply/question to him about how SARC could be a legitimate target. Keep in mind that Tom Cooper DOES NOT personally think the convoy should have been bombed – he’s trying to explain to my why he thinks his contacts in the SyAAF wouldn’t have any problem targeting it.
In Tom’s reply to me, he indicates that certain elements within the Syrian government/Baathist party/Syrian Arab Air Force(SyAAF)/Radical Assadists would have simply been focused on aid (of any kind) going to ‘the enemy’ as a legitimate target. It’s that simple for them at this point.
According to Cooper, the SAAF has been thoroughly purged of anyone not slavishly loyal to Assad and the Ba’athists. They wouldn’t have any problem following orders that come directly from the Ba’athist Party HQ in Damascus to bomb ‘rebel’ civilian targets or aid convoys if ordered. The Ba’athist party HQ has been issuing these orders to them throughout the course of the war. Rebel areas are enemy areas and everyone inside is there willingly (by Ba’athist/radical Assadist reckoning), therefore everyone inside is a legitimate enemy target. He explains this better in the quote a few paragraphs down.
The Syrian Arab Red Cross (SARC) itself isn’t universally targeted and does operate in government territory. There seems to be a couple of different issues at play that make the situation more complicated.
First, Tom Cooper says the SARC works with some bureaucratic level of the Syrian government and probably has ‘official permission’ to operate in that sense. The Syrian government has little actual authority in Syria anymore, though – it’s barely functional. Their permission would be fairly irrelevant at this point. SARC does not work with or get permission directly from the Baathist Party, the SyAAF, Air Force Intelligence or the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – all entities that DO have direct authority in Syria and call the shots. It’s probably more accurate to say SARC is merely tolerated by those entities when they are working with loyalists, but untrusted overall and certainly a legitimate target when they’re working in rebel areas. SARC/UN aid also provide a ready source of income for corrupt opportunists in any of those organizations, so it is welcome in loyalist areas if for no other reason than that.
Another issue not mentioned by Tom (so this paragraph is entirely my view) seems to be when they do any kind of joint operations with the Red Cross, which is perceived mostly as a singularly U.S. organization and (to a much lesser degree) somehow ‘Christian’ because of the cross. SARC and Red Crescent use the crescent moon symbol in their logo – a symbol recognized by and associated with Muslim nations even though Red Crescent is not religious or affiliated with Islam (other than geographically). Mistaking Red Crescent for Islamic means you are probably going to mistakenly associate Red Cross with the West and Christianity, so there’s a kind of lingering distrust among many Muslims whenever they see the Red Cross symbol and don’t know otherwise. The UN and a lot of their aid programs like UNICEF are also viewed suspiciously by many as Western tools. This isn’t suggesting every average Syrian distrusts them, but it’s more than enough reason for someone in Ba’athist Party HQ to dismiss any notions of them being impartial humanitarian organizations immune from their wrath.
Given the above, Tom’s impression of whether a (fanatic) Assadists would view an attack on SARC as irrational:
“…From ‘Assadist’ standpoint: not the least. Most of them I happen to know are fanatics, convinced they are fighting against a US-Zionist-Saudi-al-Qaida conspiracy (some might omit Zionists or Saudis, but that’s the ‘general arrangement’ of how they think); all their enemies are ‘Jihadists’, and those living in the areas controlled by ‘Jihadists’ are therefore either ‘Jihadists supporters’ or ‘Sunni scum’. For them, there is nothing to discuss in this regards: ‘Burn Sunnis’ or ‘Burn Jihadists’ is all that matters. They are literaly proud and boasting about doing exactly that…”
Tom brings up several other good points in his response to my question – I’m just reiterating the parts relative to your post @103, Ghostship. As I said, I found his response reasonable and certainly within the realm of possibility. If one insists on reducing the complexity, overlapping motivations and raw anger of both sides into a simple cartoonish good guy/bad guy fight, then none of this will ever make sense. That’s exactly what the U.S. leaders constantly attempt to do, and there’s no reason for me to think the Assadists do anything different on their side.
The thing about Tom’s argument that appeals to me the most is the portrayal of power in Syria spread out among several different powerful, corrupt organizations united under Assad’s rule and loyal to him (to varying degrees), but each with their own ideas of how things should be, or how the war should be fought. There is almost no concern for the ‘little people’ in Syria, although each organization claims to be supposedly doing this for their benefit. It’s almost a kind of post-apocalyptic, Mad Max R2P of Assadism. I actually wonder how much control over them Assad really has at any given time. It sounds like he may have nothing personally to do with either the convoy or civilian attacks, but doesn’t do anything to prevent them, either. ‘Let it happen on purpose’ to clean out his enemies. There’s also the Alawite internal clan wars and Alawite/Sunni social class tensions that figure in to every aspect of this.
Yes, by my Westernized, sanitized, fantasy notion of what a government should do based on an equally fanciful organizational sense of a unified morality, a Syrian attack on a SARC convoy does seem absolutely irrational and easy to discount. I don’t know if Tom Cooper is absolutely right in his assertions, but his impression strikes me as much, much closer to the actual reality of the situation on the ground in Syria today. I don’t know if Syria ‘did it’, but Tom certainly makes a great case for the possibility that someone on their side could quite willingly do it – a possibility I had discounted outright until I considered his reply. Did four SyAAF Su-24s carry out the attack under orders as Tom understands it? I don’t know, but I can’t discount the possibility. For what it’s worth, I can’t believe Tom Cooper simply made that story up to serve some secret anti-Assad agenda. He’s not a fan, but he’s not a shill for the opposition. Others feel differently.
All of this has simply pushed me back into “It could have been anybody” now that I’ve discarded my knee-jerk reaction that Assad – or more precisely, anyone in the power centers that exist there – could not possibly have done it.
Posted by: PavewayIV | Sep 28 2016 1:40 utc | 107
PavewayIV | Sep 27, 2016 9:40:42 PM | 107
There is no such thing as the Syrian Arab Red Cross – there is only the Syrian Arab Red Crescent. From the ICRC website:
The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement is a global humanitarian network of 80 million people that helps those facing disaster, conflict and health and social problems. It consists of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and the 190 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
As far as I know, each country has a single Red Cross or Red Crescent Society and not both, but Tom Cooper knows that.
As for his claims about contacts in the Syrian Air Force, maybe he had some previously, but I really doubt he has any anymore. And as for his understanding of the situation inside the government held parts of Syria, I suspect it’s strongly coloured by his Skype “contacts” in Gazientep just like it is for most western journalists/reporters.
From another paragraph in the article, I strongly suspect he’s gone “native” with the jihadis:
In the Assadist ideology, Al Qaeda is a creation of a U.S.-Israeli-Saudi conspiracy that aims to destroy “progressive” governments such as that in Damascus. Correspondingly, the Syrian Arab Army is fighting U.S.-supported jihadists.
The idea that Israel and Saudi Arabia are enemies is a complete fiction, they have been cooperating unofficially since the 1967 War if not before. The United States encouraged and supported the use of religion of the Wahhabist variety as a weapon by the Saudis in it’s conflict with the government of Egypt back when Nasser was president before the 1967 War as did the British. Although Al Qaeda really wasn’t created by the United States, the United States and Saudi Arabia provided the primeval ooze in which it was born. And, by now, you should be in no doubt that the US government is supporting the jihadists including ISIS. So, Tom Cooper is the conspiracy theorist in this case because the Syrian government is dealing in hard facts.
As for the likely scenarios for the attack on the aid convoy, I doubt revenge was one of them and I also doubt the Syrians did it on their own as they’re too weak to face off with the Americans. All the Americans have to do in response is increase the number of TOWs supplied to the jihadists and the SAA is well and truly screwed.
As was demonstrated by the events after the shooting down of the SU-24 by Turkey, Russia really doesn’t do revenge as we understand it in the west – witness all the comments about what a wimp Putin was after he did nothing back – but they do seem to get even in the long run. So Russian “revenge” for Deir Ezzor should be seen as nothing more than American projectionism. Instead, if the Russians were involved, and that’s a big if, it was to send a message to the Americans which Tom Cooper with his belief that the Syrians and Russians are ruthlessly targeting civilians*** would not understand, and that was if you, the United States pull a stunt like that again, we will pull a similar stunt against a a correspondingly weaker target for us. That might explain why the senior national Red Crescent officials weren’t allowed to cross with the convoy into rebel held territory, why the OFAB 250-270 was a dud, and why John Kerry was so angry at the UNSC session on this topic – Lavrov had just completed delivery in private.
*** – I doubt that Russia and Syria target civilians, hospitals, etc. on purpose but they don’t pretend to be a fastidious as the Americans do about collateral damage.
Posted by: Ghostship | Sep 28 2016 8:06 utc | 114
Ghostship@114 Re: Syrian Arab Red Crescent not Red Cross – yes, my mistake.
“…As far as I know, each country has a single Red Cross or Red Crescent Society and not both, but Tom Cooper knows that.
Yes, but the distinction is academic on the ground. Here’s what a Syrian sees on the aid boxes. Much of the aid provided by SARC comes through the ICRC. SARC workers have red vests with the crescent logo, but there are ICRC, IFRC and UNICEF/UNHCR workers at the loading points with their own jackets as well. Some trucks in the convoy were marked with UNHCR stickers, others had prominent WFC and UNICEF banners. The aid that reached Mouadamiya was clearly marked with the donor organization, The German Red Cross. I understand that SARC runs the show in Syria, but if someone is paranoid about ‘foreigners’, they’re going to find a non-SARC jacket or marking on a box of aid. I don’t know if the issue would be confusion about ‘Christian’ or just general suspicion of any foreign aid organization. That suspicion figures greatly into the average rebel. On the government side, I think that suspicion is more confined to certain Aliwite-dominant military organizations.
Re Tom’s remarks: “…In the Assadist ideology, Al Qaeda is a creation of a U.S.-Israeli-Saudi conspiracy that aims to destroy “progressive” governments such as that in Damascus. Correspondingly, the Syrian Arab Army is fighting U.S.-supported jihadists…”
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. This is kind of how I feel with the exception of the ‘progressive government’ part. The U.S. aims to destroy any non-obedient governments, progressive or not. Al Qaeda isn’t the only Assadist enemy, I think Tom was just trying to make a point about them (vs. the FSA). Correct me if I’m not understanding your point, here.
Re: Israel and Saudi Arabia. I agree that’s the situation now. It obviously wasn’t years ago. Still, I’m not sure why you’re bringing this up. Did Tom say they were still enemies somewhere? That seems at odds with his quote above where he describes their collaboration (at least from the Assadist standpoint).
“…As for the likely scenarios for the attack on the aid convoy, I doubt revenge was one of them and I also doubt the Syrians did it on their own as they’re too weak to face off with the Americans…”
Well, we have no proof either way. I would disagree to the extend that I can see revenge being part of it if they did it, and I don’t think they are worried about the threat of U.S. escalation. The U.S. has already flooded the head-choppers with all the TOWs they need – a couple thousand every few months. You may be right – I just think the more fanatic Assadists are way more pissed off than most people think. Deir EzZor isn’t the only reason. They always have their overriding hatred of anything and anybody that looks like a rebel (and perhaps a Sunni) to them. I see plenty of reasons they would be motivated jump at any chance for payback. As I stated elsewhere, I don’t even think SyAAF Su-25s have any night attack capability. Believing that they had the motivation is one thing, believing they had the capability and actually did it is entirely different. My opinion: motivated: yes, capable and guilty: no. And that’s before you even consider the unlikelihood of an air attack at all despite head-chopper shaky-cam that seems to indicate otherwise.
Russia regarding revenge: agree. No knee-jerk responses expected from them. However, history has shown that it is always an extremely bad idea to piss off a Russian – they have exceptionally good memories for that. That’s not a slam on them – they also remember for a very long time when someone helped them.
Regarding Syrians – specifically fanatical Assadists and die-hard Alawite Ba’athists – I won’t give them the same due. I’m inclined to agree with Tom about seeing all rebels and their supporters as jihadists or just undesirable Sunnis that should be destroyed. That doesn’t mean I think the U.S. should have stared a civil war there or Assad should go, it just means that I think there are some serious psychopaths running the show there today that have little value for human life (thanks to the U.S.). I kind of wonder if everyone just pulled out of there today and the war ended, what kind of Syrian government would really be left? Just a bunch of Ba’athist thugs and fanatic Assadists, or is there any good, decent people left in the government? We (the U.S.) should still leave there immediately and pull the plug on support for any of the terrorists we support there. I just fear for the Syrians what they’ll be left with.
Ghostship@116 – Re: “…Does he seem like a “Tom Cooper” to you?…”
Kind of irrelevant to me. I formed my opinions on Syria over years. I basically agree with his response you posted. That is the way I understand the social dynamics and power structure of Syria, especially with regard to certain Aliwite clans and the more fanatical government and military leaders. I did not form that opinion recently or because of Tom Cooper (or whomever he may be). That doesn’t mean I think we should have started a civil war or we have the right to kick out Assad, it just means the Syrian government had it’s warts like every other one on earth.
“…If the Assad regime is so murderous towards the SARC, why was Omar Barakat only the 54th official or volunteer of the SARC to have died in Syria?…”
Tom tried to distinguish (and I agree) between the Syria people, the Syrian government (regime), and the much smaller number of particularly powerful and fanatic political and military leaders (who do kill people). They do not have any universal homicidal reaction to SARC – they don’t want to kill all of them on sight. They generally don’t trust SARC or any international aid organization and resent them being in Syria at all, but they do mostly tolerate them. They (fanatical political and military leaders) do get a bit homicidal when SARC helps rebel areas. SARC rarely get the chance to do that, but I honestly think political/military fanatics would attack SARC again if they were distributing aid in rebel areas. Given the opportunity and plausible deniability for the attack, of course – they wouldn’t do it when anyone was watching.
The rebels? Same, except with the mafia/gang/thug element added. They don’t trust SARC or any other international aid organization, even if they’re there to help rebel areas. While they might be incented to attack aid programs for that alone, I think they would much prefer to grab the aid and sell it (or take it for their hometowns/tribes/mafia clans). Again, it probably does not reach the degree of ‘kill on sight’, but at best the rebels merely tolerate aid programs.
Drone: discussed on ACLOS. Not sure what part of Tom’s remarks regarding that you are questioning.
Sectarianism: It has always been in Syria somewhere below the surface. Alawites vs. lesser Alawites, Alawites vs. Sunnis, and Alawites vs. everyone else in Syria. This has been institutionalized in the Syrian political system, government and military for decades. Not the ideal state by any means, but it kept the country stable. Marginalized Syrians resented that established order and injustice and wanted change. I just don’t think they wanted to burn down all of Syria to fix it. Replacing that with Wahabbi-flavored sectarianism isn’t a solution, it just shuffles around the resentment to other groups.
Posted by: PavewayIV | Sep 29 2016 9:42 utc | 119
PavewayIV | Sep 29, 2016 5:42:45 AM | 119
Bold text are quotes from your comments.
Italic text are your comments.
Normal text are my comments.
There is no need to reply.
—————————————
Ghostship@114 Re: Syrian Arab Red Crescent not Red Cross – yes, my mistake.
“…As far as I know, each country has a single Red Cross or Red Crescent Society and not both, but Tom Cooper knows that.
Yes, but the distinction is academic on the ground. Here’s what a Syrian sees on the aid boxes. Much of the aid provided by SARC comes through the ICRC. SARC workers have red vests with the crescent logo, but there are ICRC, IFRC and UNICEF/UNHCR workers at the loading points with their own jackets as well. Some trucks in the convoy were marked with UNHCR stickers, others had prominent WFC and UNICEF banners. The aid that reached Mouadamiya was clearly marked with the donor organization, The German Red Cross. I understand that SARC runs the show in Syria, but if someone is paranoid about ‘foreigners’, they’re going to find a non-SARC jacket or marking on a box of aid. I don’t know if the issue would be confusion about ‘Christian’ or just general suspicion of any foreign aid organization. That suspicion figures greatly into the average rebel. On the government side, I think that suspicion is more confined to certain Aliwite-dominant military organizations.
I was just pointing out your mistake in referencing the “Syrian Arab Red Cross”. I doubt any recipients of Red Crescent aid really care where the aid comes from as long as they can put something in their and their children’s bellies. I also doubt that anybody in the government cares either as it absolves then of their responsibility to feed the people under their control. As for the jihadists, they might object on ideological and financial grounds.
Re Tom’s remarks: “…In the Assadist ideology, Al Qaeda is a creation of a U.S.-Israeli-Saudi conspiracy that aims to destroy “progressive” governments such as that in Damascus. Correspondingly, the Syrian Arab Army is fighting U.S.-supported jihadists…”
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. This is kind of how I feel with the exception of the ‘progressive government’ part. The U.S. aims to destroy any non-obedient governments, progressive or not. Al Qaeda isn’t the only Assadist enemy, I think Tom was just trying to make a point about them (vs. the FSA). Correct me if I’m not understanding your point, here.
I’m not saying anything here, that is a direct quote from Tom Cooper’s original article as you should know.
Compared to the medieval Gulf regimes favoured by the United States, the regimes in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Egypt (under Nasser) and Syria were/are progressive, although compared to most Western European countries now, they obviously aren’t. However, Spain, Portugal and Greece were all extremely conservative dictatorships in my lifetime
The U.S. aims to destroy any non-obedient governments, progressive or not. Al Qaeda isn’t the only Assadist enemy, I think Tom was just trying to make a point about them (vs. the FSA). Correct me if I’m not understanding your point, here.
It’s not only the US, it’s also Israel and Saudi Arabia. As far as I can make out here, Tom Cooper is presenting members of the Syrian government as being conspiracy theorist nutters by suggesting that the “U.S.-Israeli-Saudi conspiracy“ is a figment of their fevered imaginations. It’s not, and it’s been around for longer than most people are aware.
Most people would accept that the United States conspiring separately with Saudi Arabia and Israel is true but while few would accept that Israel and Saudi Arabia have also conspired together in the past, their joint behaviour is now too obvious.
Re: Israel and Saudi Arabia. I agree that’s the situation now. It obviously wasn’t years ago. Still, I’m not sure why you’re bringing this up. Did Tom say they were still enemies somewhere? That seems at odds with his quote above where he describes their collaboration (at least from the Assadist standpoint).
At the time of the Six Day War, Saudi Arabia and Egypt were involved in the civil war in Yemen and about half the Egyptian army including their best units and officers (not that they were much good), were fighting in Yemen. Aware of the danger to Egypt, Nasser asked the Americans to forward to the Israelis his promise that while he was posturing at Sharm el-Sheikh, he had no intention of going to war with Israel. At the same time, the Saudis told the Americans that they had no intention of becoming involved in any war between Israel and Egypt. So while, it wasn’t an open conspiracy, it was certainly aiding their supposed enemy. The conspiracy started twenty years later around 1987 when the Saudis and Israelis initiated a secret dialogue.
……………………………………………………
Regarding Syrians – specifically fanatical Assadists and die-hard Alawite Ba’athists – I won’t give them the same due.
I’m inclined to agree with Tom about seeing all rebels and their supporters as jihadists or just undesirable Sunnis that should be destroyed.
Where does Tom Cooper suggest that he sees all rebels and their supporters as jihadists or just undesirable Sunnis that should be destroyed? Or is that a mistake and you meant to say?
“I’m inclined to agree with Tom about the Assadists seeing all rebels and their supporters as jihadists or just undesirable Sunnis that should be destroyed.
As far as I can see, the Assad government does not equate Sunnis with the jihadists. There are still Sunnis in the SAA fighting the jihadists.
I’d like to know more about Tom Cooper’s views of the jihadists. Does he really think that there are moderate forces that can defeat al Nusra once Assad is gone? Would he be happy with al Nusra taking over the government of Syria? Is he happy with Saudi Arabia trying to propagate it’s medieval regime throughout the Middle East? Does he think that the jihadists in Syria are a home-grown movement? How much support does he think the jihadists receive from outside parties and which ones? How many jihadists are not Syrian nationals?
Ghostship@116 – Re:
“…Does he seem like a “Tom Cooper” to you?…”
Kind of irrelevant to me. I formed my opinions on Syria over years. I basically agree with his response you posted. That is the way I understand the social dynamics and power structure of Syria, especially with regard to certain Aliwite clans and the more fanatical government and military leaders. I did not form that opinion recently or because of Tom Cooper (or whomever he may be). That doesn’t mean I think we should have started a civil war or we have the right to kick out Assad, it just means the Syrian government had it’s warts like every other one on earth.
I got this one wrong, he appears to be an author who was born and resides in Vienna, Austria rather that a jihadi sat in an apartment in Gazientep. But it’s always important to understand who you are communicating with.
“…If the Assad regime is so murderous towards the SARC, why was Omar Barakat only the 54th official or volunteer of the SARC to have died in Syria?…”
Tom tried to distinguish (and I agree) between the Syria people, the Syrian government (regime), and the much smaller number of particularly powerful and fanatic political and military leaders (who do kill people). They do not have any universal homicidal reaction to SARC – they don’t want to kill all of them on sight. They generally don’t trust SARC or any international aid organization and resent them being in Syria at all, but they do mostly tolerate them. They (fanatical political and military leaders) do get a bit homicidal when SARC helps rebel areas. SARC rarely get the chance to do that, but I honestly think political/military fanatics would attack SARC again if they were distributing aid in rebel areas. Given the opportunity and plausible deniability for the attack, of course – they wouldn’t do it when anyone was watching.
Did I mention the Syrian people in that quote? No, because Tom Cooper makes a very specific claim:
Because the SARC is operating in the areas controlled by such elements, and is supported by the United States, it’s cooperating with jihadists. Therefore the SARC is a legitimate target. That’s the Syrian regime’s way of thinking, at least.
Is there any evidence that the Syrian government or forces acting in support of it have attacked an SARC convoy? None that I can see beyond obstructing them or contaminating the food aid (according to the rebels). What people say they would like to do is irrelevant, what the actually do is the important part. And Tom Cooper hasn’t produced any evidence to support his claim that the regime or parts of it have ever acted murderously towards SARC convoys in the past.
………………………………………..
Drone: discussed on ACLOS. Not sure what part of Tom’s remarks regarding that you are questioning.
I looked for a discussion at A closer look on Syria wiki about any drones involved in this incident but I couldn’t find one. My point was that Tom states that his sources claim that the convoy was monitored all the time through until sunset.
Yes it was. My Syrian sources say Russians tracked it until the sunset, then withdrew. Duration of the video released by Moscow is entirely irrelevant in this regards.
Most reports on the incident infer this from the images shown by the military showing the Hell Cannon and the images streamed live by RT taken overhead the warehouse by assuming that they were the same drone and ignore that the streaming drone arrived over the warehouse separately to the convoy. If the Russian military were as Tom claims monitoring the convoy until sunset, then for about twenty minutes there would have been two drones over the warehouse. Funny none of the “eyewitnesses” have mentioned something out of the ordinary, instead they all talk about a drone.
Sectarianism: It has always been in Syria somewhere below the surface. Alawites vs. lesser Alawites, Alawites vs. Sunnis, and Alawites vs. everyone else in Syria. This has been institutionalized in the Syrian political system, government and military for decades. Not the ideal state by any means, but it kept the country stable. Marginalized Syrians resented that established order and injustice and wanted change. I just don’t think they wanted to burn down all of Syria to fix it. Replacing that with Wahabbi-flavored sectarianism isn’t a solution, it just shuffles around the resentment to other groups.
The Assad government has never been sectarian in the sense Tom Cooper implies as some of its highest ranked officials are Sunnis, If hatred for Sunnis was so strong don’t you think they would have been purged by now?
Tom Cooper strikes me as a jihadi fan boy, whether it because he’s anti-Russian, thus anti-Assad, as most of the authors at War Is Boring appear to be or for some other reason, I don’t know. As such I don’t think his article is worth any further discussion and I won’t be buying any of his books.
Posted by: Ghostship | Sep 30 2016 16:43 utc | 121
|
