portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting global

human & civil rights | imperialism & war

Libya and Syria: When Anti-Imperialism Goes Wrong

Reflexive opposition to Uncle Sam's machinations abroad is generally a good thing. It is a progressive instinct that progressively declined in the 1990s, as presidents Bush Sr. and Clinton deftly deployed the U.S. military to execute "humanitarian" missions in Somalia, Haiti, and the Balkans and progressively increased in the 2000s, as Bush Jr. lurched from quagmire to disaster in transparent empire-building exercises in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Libya and Syria
Libya and Syria
Syria - Human Rights
Syria - Human Rights
Syria - Human Rights
Syria - Human Rights
Syria - Human Rights
Syria - Human Rights
However, what is generally good is not good in every case. The progressive instinct to oppose anything the U.S. government does abroad became anything but progressive once the Arab Spring sprang up in Libya and Syria, countries ruled by dictatorships on Uncle Sam's hit list. When American imperialism's hostility to the Arab Spring took a back seat to its hostility to the Ghadafi and Assad regimes (their collaboration with Bush Jr.'s international torture ring notwithstanding), the Western left's support for the Arab Spring took a back seat to its hostility to American imperialism.

The moment the Syrian and Libyan revolutions demanded imperialist airstrikes and arms to neutralize the military advantage enjoyed by governments over revolutionary peoples, anti-interventionism became counter-revolutionary because it meant opposing aid to the revolution. Equivocal positions such as "revolution yes, intervention no" (the one I defended) were rendered utopian, abstract, and useless as a guide to action by this turn of events.

"Libyan Winter" Heats Up

To say that the Libyans were fortunate that anti-interventionists were too weak to block, disrupt, or affect NATO's military campaign would be an understatement. Libya would look like Syria today if the anti-interventionists won at home in the West.

In both cases, the Western left mistakenly prioritized its anti-imperialist principles over its internationalist duty to aid these revolutions by any means necessary. By any means necessary presumably includes aid from imperialist powers or other reactionary forces. If this presumption is wrong, then we are not for the victory of the oppressed by any means necessary and should remove those words from our vocabulary in favor of by any means we in the West deem acceptable.

When the going got tough and the F-16s got going over Libya, the revolution's fairweather friends in the West disowned it, claiming it had been hijacked by NATO. Instead of substantiating this claim with evidence that NATO successfully pushed the Libyans aside and seized control of their war against Ghadafi, the Western left instead 1) focused on the alleged misdeeds of the National Transitional Council (NTC) and 2) hid behind phrases such as "Libyan Winter" and "civil war," implying that the Arab Spring in Libya froze the instant NATO jumped in and that neither the rebels nor Ghadafi deserved anyone's support.

Both evasions of the central issue - that NATO's air campaign had mass support among revolutionary Libyans which was faithfully reflected by the NTC's stand against foreign invasion and for foreign airstrikes - were very serious methodological mistakes that only a handful of commentators managed to avoid, Clay Claiborne of Occupy LA being the most prominent. Far from freezing over, the struggle in Libya became a long hot summer of multifaceted conflict with international, conventional military, tribal, and underground dimensions that eventually culminated in Ghadafi's grisly execution, raising and personalizing the stakes for Assad.

Anti-imperialists were so focused on the NTC's cooperation with NATO, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and repressive Arab governments that they were as blindsided as Ghadafi was when forces independent of NTC control - Berber militias in Western Libya and underground networks in Tripoli - overthrew his regime in a surprise move on August 20. The NTC that the Western left portrayed as all-powerful due to its CIA and Arab state patronage was not able to move into Tripoli for weeks afterwards. To this day, the NTC has not disarmed rebel fighters, contrary to the confident predictions born of anti-imperial hubris by anti-interventionists who sought to convince us that the revolution was a mirage and that the West's pawns chosen from above were firmly in control of post-Ghadafi Libya.

Broken Records Lead to Broken Crystal Balls

When NATO launched airstrikes in Libya, the anti-interventionists heard the same pretexts about human rights and freedom used to justify wars for empire and oil in Afghanistan and Iraq. This identical stimulus triggered an identical reaction - they used the contradictions and hypocritical flaws in the official rationales for intervention as the basis for opposing NATO's action - just as Pavlov's dogs reacted as if they were being fed when they heard a bell ring, regardless of whether any food was actually served.

This conditioned reaction to the broken record of justifications led anti-interventionists to conclude that NATO's end of the Libyan war would resemble the Afghan and Iraq wars and so their case against intervention was built around the following predictions:

1) Mass civilian casualties due to Iraq or Viet Nam-style aerial bombardment;

2) Foreign invasion/occupation due to imperialist "mission creep";

3) Future interventions would be easier and more likely elsewhere;

4) A neocolonial regime would be installed in Tripoli as the result of NATO-led "regime change," the logical conclusion of the "revolution was hijacked" conspiracy theory.

NATO's methods and the war's outcome were totally at odds with what the anti-interventionists envisioned:

1) There was no massive NATO bombardment of civilian targets, there was no Libyan highway of death, no Black Hawk Down, no Wikileaks-style helicopter gunship atrocities. The absence of wanton slaughter of civilians by NATO compelled Ghadafi to fake collateral damage incidents and civilian funerals and arbitrarily exaggerate the number of civilians killed.

2) The anti-interventionists believed that NATO would be compelled to send ground troops by the logic of "regime change," by the inability of forces loyal to the NTC to make significant headway against Ghadafi's forces. They seized on the presence of small numbers of NATO military advisers and special forces in Libya as a vindication of their prediction and as proof that the West put "boots on the ground." In reality, NATO boots played a secondary role; Libyans did the fighting and the dying, not Westerners. Out of 30,000 people who were killed in the Libyan civil war, how many were NATO personnel? Zero. That number would have been higher if NATO ground forces were in the thick of combat or invaded (much less occupied) the country.

3) Paradoxically, NATO's successful campaign in Libya made a future U.S./NATO campaign in Syria less likely. Russia and China are now determined to block any attempt to apply the Libyan model to Syria at the United Nations Security Council and the Obama administration is not willing to defy either of them by taking Bush-style unilateral military action for the time being.

4) The proponents of the hijacking theory failed to address the most obvious and urgent question that flowed from their own analysis: what could the Libyans do to take their revolution back from NATO's hijacking? A hijacking is a struggle for control between legitimate and illegitimate actors where the rogue elements get the upper hand. (Never forget 9/11.) Not one of the Libyan revolution's progressive detractors outlined how NATO could be elbowed aside by Libyans to regain control of their struggle.

This was no accident or coincidence.

The hijacking narrative did not arise from a factual foundation but from a simplistic, reflexive ideology, albeit an anti-imperialist one. The anti-interventionists did their best to substitute weak suppositions, NATO's bald hypocrisy, and guilt by association for the evidence they lacked to support their hijacking story. For them, the Libyan revolution's constituent elements lost their political independence, initiative, and lifeblood the instant NATO fired its first cruise missile. Nothing else mattered except that NATO chose to act; what Libyans said, did, thought, and organized was simply not a factor for them.

This image became very popular among Western leftists prior to NATO's intervention. Revolutionary Libyans did not feel that U.N.-backed airstrikes constituted foreign intervention, a term they used to describe invasion and other forms of unwanted imperialist meddling. The Western left disregarded the thoughts and feelings of their Libyan comrades and called for an end to NATO airstrikes against Ghadafi's forces.

The driving force behind the military offensive by Berber militias in western Libya that was timed to coincide with the surprise uprising in Tripoli that ousted Ghadafi was not NATO. NATO did not organize the underground network of neighborhood cells in Tripoli that penetrated Ghadafi's secret police. And NATO certainly did not pick August 20, the day Muhammad entered Mecca, as the day to launch a risky grassroots insurrection in Tripoli.

Hammered by NATO's airpower from above, by the Berbers from without, and by revolutionaries from below, Ghadafi's forces in Tripoli melted away. The "Libyan Winter" proved to be the hottest chapter of the Arab Spring thus far.

Post-War Libya

Rebels who stormed Ghadafi's Tripoli compound were eager to expose his regime's relationship with imperialist powers and one of their commanders sued the British foreign minister for handing him over to Ghadafi to be tortured, hardly the acts of anyone on the CIA payroll.

Events shortly after Ghadafi was toppled provide even more evidence that the revolution was not hijacked by NATO. When rebels stormed Ghadafi's compound, they were quick to show Western reporters the dictator's scrap book featuring himself arm-in-arm with Condoleeza Rice. A top rebel commander publicly accused the British government of handing him over to Ghadai's regime to be tortured right before he filed a lawsuit against Jack Straw, Britain's former Foreign Minister for authorizing the rendition. The new Libyan government refused to hand over Ghadafi's son Saif to the International Criminal Court (now it has even arrested their lawyers), the body responsible for dispensing NATO's "justice" to Slobodan Milosevic. No U.S or NATO bases have been established in Libya unlike in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kosovo.

In other words, Libyan sovereignty emerged from the revolution intact despite NATO's involvement. This would not be the case if NATO was directly or indirectly in charge of Libya or set up some sort of neocolonial regime.

The bottom line is that the bulk of the Western left could not bring itself to wholeheartedly support a democratic revolution that co-opted foreign intervention for its own ends. The revolution landed safe and sound at a qualitatively more democratic destination precisely because control of the revolution never left Libyan hands.

Today, Libyans enjoy freedom of speech, freedom to protest and organize, and most importantly, freedom from fear of state repression. The Western left ought to join the revolutionary masses of the Arab and North African world in celebrating this historic victory, not isolate ourselves from them by mourning (or slandering) it.

Instead of trying to learn from their mistakes, the anti-interventionists simply moved on to Syria to make the same errors without a second thought about why the reality of post-intervention Libya looked nothing like their dire forecasts. This willful blindness makes them incapable of understanding why any Arab revolutionary in their right mind would look to Libya as a model, why Syrians would chant, "Bye, bye Ghadafi, Bashar your turn is coming!" while crowds in Tahrir Square chant, "If they want to be Syria, we'll give them Libya" in response to the Egyptian military's latest power grab.

The Main Enemy In Syria

The anti-interventionists are repeating their mistakes over the Libyan revolution blunder-for-blunder over the Syria revolution. In place of their attacks on the Libyan NTC, they denounce the Syrian Nation Council (SNC); they dwell on the Free Syrian Army's (FSA) U.S. backing, just as they painted Libya's rebels as tools of the CIA; instead of "hands off Libya," they put forward the slogan "hands off Syria," as if Syria's death squads were Uncle Sam's handiwork and not Assad's.

Hyperbolic condemnations of the FSA, SNC, or the coordinating committees do nothing for Syrians whose lives do not depend on the anti-imperialist credentials of these groups but on whatever assistance they can provide. Similarly, criticisms that the Syrian revolution should rely less on armed struggle and more on strikes by workers have a questionable relationship to reality at best. Since when has a strike ever stopped a death squad from breaking down a door and murdering a sleeping family or prevented a civilian neighborhood from being shelled by artillery? Does anyone seriously believe that the Syrian struggle is being led astray by trigger-happy gunmen (most of whom are working for Assad, not against him)?

German socialist Karl Liebknecht wrote an anti-war leafleft in 1915 under the title, "The Main Enemy Is At Home!"

Our first duty in the West is to do whatever we can to aid, abet, and provide material support for our Syrian brothers' and sisters' fight against the Assad regime. Our main enemy is at home in the West, but theirs is not. Washington, D.C. is not sending death squads door-to-door to execute women and children, the regime in Damascus is; the Pentagon is not shelling civilian targets and killing journalists in Homs, the regime in Damascus is. Their main enemy is at home, just as ours is.

This grim reality must be our starting point in any discussion about Syria, not a hypothetical U.S. military action down the road, the contours of which cannot be known in advance. We cannot have the same attitude towards U.S. airstrikes on Assad's forces and a full-scale ground invasion of Syria because their impact on and implications for the revolution would be completely different. The contours of imperialist intervention must shape our attitude towards it. Sending the FSA small arms and anti-tank missiles or video cameras is not the same as sending American marines into the streets of Damascus, although they are all forms of U.S. intervention.

Syrian revolutionaries know damn well what atrocities Uncle Sam is capable of - Iraq is right next door - and the Arab world knows better than we in the West ever will what the colonial boot feels like. To lecture them of perils and pitfalls they know better than we do is to insult their intelligence. To pretend that we know the dangers of dealing with imperialist devils better than Third World revolutionaries do is a kind of white anti-imperialist's burden, and its arrogant paternalism is just as misguided as its colonialist antipode.

We have no business criticizing the SNC, FSA, or the coordinating committees unless and until we have fulfilled our first duty by matching our words of solidarity with deeds and acts that can make a difference in the revolution's outcome, however small they might seem.

Self-Determination and Intervention

The biggest obstacle to Syrian self-determination today is the Assad regime which increasingly rests on Russian bayonets drenched in Syrian blood. He is determined to stay in power by any means necessary and will not rest until their struggle for self-determination (which is what a democratic revolution is) is buried, in mass graves if need be. Respect for Syrian self-determination means respecting how Syrian revolutionaries organize their struggle and their choices even when they conflict with our own preferences and choices.

If Syrian revolutionaries ask for Western airstrikes because they lack an air force to counter the Assad regime militarily, who are we to oppose those airstrikes? Who are we to tell them that all-out defeat is better than the triumph of a revolution "tainted" by an unavoidable compromise with imperialists powers? Who are we to tell them they must face Russian helicopter gunships without imperialist aid because "the revolution will be won by Syrians themselves or it won't be won at all"? Do we really want our Syrian brothers and sisters to confront tanks with rocks and slingshots as so many Palestinians have?

While the Western left is raising a hue and cry over the minimal aid Syria's rebels receive from the CIA and reactionary Gulf states, Russia is overtly ramping up its military aid to Assad. Whether we like it or not, the struggle between the Syrian revolution and Assad's counter-revolution has been internationalized just as the Spanish civil war of 1936-1939 was. The Western left in those days demanded foreign intervention in the form of arms, military aid, and volunteers for the Spanish Republic. The anti-interventionists (mostly fascists or fascist sympathizers) were more than happy to see the Republic starved in the name of "non-intervention" while Hitler bombed Guernica and did everything possible to ensure Franco's victory.

Those who oppose Western military action today against Assad in the context of a revolution that has developed into a full-blown civil war where segments of the revolution and the people are begging for foreign arms, aid, and airstrikes while the counter-revolution imports arms to slaughter them follow in the anti-interventionist footsteps of the Spanish Republic's opponents whether they are aware of it or not.

"Hands off Syria" should be the slogan raised at demonstrations in front of Russian embassies and consulates around the world, not the one directed at foreign powers aiding the rebels lest we become little better than Assad's unwitting executioners in the eyes of revolutionary Syrians. Instead of focusing our fire on the shortcomings of the SNC, FSA, and the coordinating committees, we should be organizing events and fund-raisers for humanitarian relief, fact-finding missions, and video and communications equipment with the aim of smuggling it into Syria. These activities are already taking place but not with the participation of the Western left since we are more worried about our precious anti-imperialist principles and hypothetical Libya-style airstrikes (as if the outcome there was a step backward and not a step forward) than tackling the ugly realities of the Syrian revolution whose straits become more desperate with each passing hour.

We fiddle furiously while Syria burns and Syrians bleed.

The most important thing for the Western left to do is to forge close and enduring relationships with revolutionary Syrians living abroad by demonstrating our unequivocal support for their revolution through deeds, through joint work with their communities. Only in that context and on that basis can criticisms we have about deals with U.S. imperialism or mistakes made by the SNC, FSA, and the coordinating committees gain a hearing among the people who count: revolutionary Syrians.

One way to begin building these relationships would be to organize forums and debates over the question of intervention with revolutionary Syrians of various shades of opinion. The single most embarrassing aspect of the Western left's opposition to NATO's Libya operation was the way revolutionary Libyans were barred from Libya forums organized by anti-interventionists.

This outrage was the absurd but logical outcome of the white anti-imperialist's burden, a burden we must cast aside if we hope to act in concert with the Arab Spring.

Conclusion

The Western left should reject knee-jerk anti-imperialism because its unthinking, blind, reflexive, natureput us at odds with the interests and explicit demands of first the Libyan and now the Syrian revolutionary peoplesand in line with the interests of their mortal enemies.

Knee-jerk anti-imperialism leads to our enemies doing our thinking for us: whatever Uncle Sam wants, we oppose; whatever Uncle Sam opposes, we want. This method plays right into U.S. imperialism's hands because the last thing Uncle Sam wants is a thinking enemy.

Related Info:
Hama Massacre:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre
Hama Massacre:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Hama_massacre
Homs Massacre:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homs_massacre
Houla Massacre:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houla_massacre


 http://www.phillyimc.org/en/stop-imperialist-war-against-syria

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2012/08/417200.shtml?discuss

Death Squads a Go-Go 03.Aug.2012 03:39

theBruce

When it's naked aggression becomes apparent, the spooks come out to produce an overwhelming background noise of the official Pentagon narrative, hoping it will stick.
NATO Death Squads and al-CIAduh attack a peaceful nation on the road to war with Iran.

The West and the Glorification of Terrorism
By Thierry Meyssan

The Western members refused to apply to the attack in Syria one of the most basic principles of international relations: the condemnation of terrorism.
 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32069.htm

How about this 03.Aug.2012 07:39

it's all stupid

And here's a comment by a reader of Zerohedge to an article describing the pressence of Russian troop carriers and exercises in and around Syria. Seems they're ready to evacuate their nationals and protect their installations and property there. Just who are you gonna believe?

Quote:

"Oh, speaking of which, one of our sources in the oil patch sent us some pretty damn interesting background on how things are on the ground (away from the press) in

Syria:



"I have a guy working for me from Damascus. His mother and sisters are there now, and they talk every day by phone. I let this go because you have been on vacation, and didn't want to bother you and E. This stuff is going to unroll as it will regardless, because Americans are disconnected from their government until they decide to unite and TTBO (throw the bastards out).



My guy told me that his family is now on a hill on the outskirts of the city, along with thousands of others. They are surrounded by "rebels", and it is Syrian army that is protecting them at this point, and trying to get them out and away from the city. The "rebels" are composed of unknown people, mostly not Syrians and many of them that are Syrians are known jihadistas - end of the world types known as local nutjobs anyway. Looting is rampant, and everyone that has left their homes has had all their

possessions stolen or burned - they have nothing.



Yes, there are Syrian troops firing into the city, but the resident Syrians are (mostly) not there anyway. The army has been moving them out so they can get at the "rebels". Tariq told me that his sisters have seen the rebels murdering women and children for weeks, simply shooting anyone that doesn't profess to wanting a jihad and to destroy the Assad regime. Men are not questioned but shot if they do not take up arms with the "rebels".



Many men have taken up arms to avoid being shot when cornered by rebels. Many sneak away and try to flee at first opportunity. His family has been in a state of running and hiding for 4 weeks, calling him many times during the day. They are trying to get to the Lebanese or Turkish border. The hill they are on is Qudissah or something like that, but they were trying to get to Lebanon and got cut off by "rebels".



There are "rebel" strongholds in Lebanon from what they were telling him. The rebels all have radios - they are always talking to each other or someone via radio - so there is likely someone in charge of coordinating them somewhere, but this is no spontaneous uprising of rebels. Tariq literally spits when anyone tries to tell him these are "freedom fighters" and gets all unglued, so I had to tell the others to keep their politics to themselves in the shop.



Anyway, thought I would get this to you since you should be back by now. Tariq's position is that this is actually a huge Middle East thing where the progressives (moderate folks who want business and civilization and a degree of freedom) are being coerced and made to embrace jihad by the not-so-fringe Muslim jihadistas.



As a method to get a regime toppled, this has 'low hanging fruit' all over it, because arming these types, bringing more in and then pouring a little religious zealotry gas on it meant instant ignition. Same thing could happen here with rabid Christian right types if things are framed correctly by those wishing it...



So here we are, watching craziness unfold that has been urged by our freedom loving government here in the USA, all in the name of - what?? I am so ready for things to melt down... Oilman2"

Assad is a Butcher 03.Aug.2012 21:51

Right to Rebel Against Dictators

Assad is bombing Syrian cities indescriminately with MIGS and helicopters. Don't know who the rebels are? Fascist bastards like Assad will soon find out. American imperialists would of course like to move in for the spoils. Meanwhile, Clinton wrings her hands and lets Assad go on bombing.

What Contitutes A Democracy? 04.Aug.2012 06:37

Lloyd Hart dadapop@dadapop.com

This is an important question as The US has the worst record of democratic distribution of the nation's wealth compared to let's say, Libya prior to the Nato invasion. This goes for Syria as well. So what really matters the democratic distribution of a nation's wealth or the window dressing of democracy covering up the the distribution of the majority of a nation's wealth up toward it's rulers? You know, like America and Saudi Arabia.

Prior to the invasion, Libyans had better access to health care than Americans or Saudis do and everyone in Syria has a healthy supply housing, health care and food but thank to the Nato invasion Syria must now spend the nation's wealth fighting off the mercenary army Nato has injected into the nation.

America segregates it's racial minorities into ghettos and brutally punishes them for the color of their skin. America's health care system is based in a class. Even with the Obama/Democrat reforms health care will be distributed along financial income levels. The poor will have crappy care, the middle class better crappy care and the rich will still have access to the best doctors and hospitals just as they do now.

America tortures and commits mass genocide regularly especially on people with oil and dark skin. a lethal combination.

America has the most people in prison than any other nation and mostly because of racial and cultural differences. The group that ends up in prison are Black, Latino and white pot smokers and the people that put them their are mostly white racists.

When you add up America compared to Libya prior to the Nato invasion Libya was far more democratic than America.

The really disgusting thing about America is that they put a Black man in the white house while the white racist American generals fuck over Africa for the benefit their white racist corporate scumbag buddies who make the generals rich with insider trading deals on wall street.

When you add up Libya compared to America you would think America would invade itself if you were to fall for it's disgusting and specious propaganda which Pham is clearly being paid to distribute.

I don't consider myself an American 04.Aug.2012 16:18

Not that Anon

Or on either side of the idiotic in-group creating false dichotomy of left vs right. In the beginning of the revolution in Syria or at least from what I could gather from social media it seemed to me to be primarily people like me, human-beings whom wanted a better life than what they had and the elites of their society were not allowing them to easily rise above their often sectarian based class system. Now it seems like the jihadists from both with-in Syria and from Iraq have simply complicated matters to a point where there are no-longer clear sides in the civil war that has engulfed the nation. I think Occupy was in large part ruined by the same-kind of people. Ideologues whom felt their world view trumped the needs and wants of most of the people or opportunists whom used Occupy as a means to gain power with-in a temporary alternative class structure. As for Syria I have no idea what the solution there is anymore. It was obvious from the vary beginning that the enemies of freedom in Syria would use military force against the rebels and I supported arming the rebels so at least they had a chance but now I fear the opportunist and the Ideologues have already won and the result is far more bloodshed than what was necessary. And a society of localized in-groups has taken hold. Where survival trumps any concept of freedom. As for Occupy or whatever Occupy is becoming I think our focus should be less on promoting one world view and more on promoting solidarity and empathy amongst all parties. Our enemies some of whom are with-in and most of whom are promoted by the US government and big business, such as the FBI and DHS are not shelling us or bombing us yet. We still have time to get-over all of our stupid egos and create something better but that means reaching out to all people no-matter who they are; even our enemies. Finding out what their needs are and creating a system that meets their needs that is better than the greed and blame based capitalists society we live in today that seems to be headed towards social and ecological destruction. It means throwing out the liberal ideals of human nature and admitting we are as bad as any other animal on this planet and shaped by a biological order that only allowed for the strong to survive and overcoming it.

give me a break 04.Aug.2012 16:43

theBruce

"enemies of freedom in Syria would use military force against the rebels"
Parrots really aren't that smart.
But they sure can repeat what they hear.
The enemies of freedom are attacking that nation using terrorism sponsored by the degenerate monarchs in the Gulf and their western masters who keep them in power. They're not rebels, they're death squads sent in from NATO and al-CIAduh.
What is so hard to understand?

Obama Admits Funding Fake Revolutionaries to Attack Assad
By Susanne Posel

The US Treasury has granted release of funds to the FSA through the Syrian Support Group (SSG), a Washington representative of the Free Syrian Army to conduct financial transactions...
 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32083.htm

I am intolerant of liars, fools and spooks.

So are you saying al-Assad is a hero here? 04.Aug.2012 18:37

Not that Anon

@TheBruce, Are you saying that freedom is all about using artillery on peaceful protesters? It is also kind of strange that in a "free country" most of the leaders are Alawites and Bashar is the second al-Assad to rule over Syria as of late. Of course Obama and the gulf states have an agenda; So do you. So do the Russians and stuck in-between are a bunch of 'little people' whom have much smaller agendas. I'm saying all nation/states are wrong. And I could care less about any set of arbitrary borders or any concept of national sovereignty. We are one people. We face up to that or we die. We can fight each-other as the entire world burns or we can work together to try and put out the fire.

what? 04.Aug.2012 20:26

theBruce

aint 'saying' anything of the sort, so cease your strawman argument.
I AM claiming, with primary sources, that your freedumb fighters are arms of the dark network that is attempting world domination. Through NATO, al-CIAduh and all the other arms of the global finance sector. And they are the main cause of the massacres.
The vampire class. And their freaking minions who try to push this crap on us.
piss off

I'm not straw manning you 04.Aug.2012 21:51

Not that Anon

I'm just stating my position. I don't know what to do about Syria at this point as I said. I do see parallels between the Syrian Resistance and Occupy. As for information Clearing House being a good source. I used to think it was tell I started seeing article after article from RT ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_%28TV_network%29) and I kind of suspect the guy who runs the site went a bit nuts after his heart surgery. Anyways as for my point of view on the start of the Syrian Revolution, that comes from my interactions with Syrians via facebook before the revolution was much more than a Facebook page. Yeah, the US government is awful. So is this:

 link to www.youtube.com

and this:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJDON9LsHvQ

and this

 http://www.youtube.com/verify_controversy?next_url=/watch%3Fv%3Djwr8GkfJouc

But at this point the Obama administration is probably too late to do much of anything. They completely underestimated the scope of the conflict and now that there is a real risk it might affect Israel and the gulf states they are funneling arms to a bunch of people whom may be legitimate fighters or may be the same al-qaeda the USA supposedly awakened (bribed)in Iraq. It's a fucking mess but we can learn from the Syrians mistakes.

what, FACEBOOK? 05.Aug.2012 01:36

theBruce

Oh come on. Facebook? Real solid info there ( again, there needs to be a sarcasm font)almost as good as 'Twitter'...oh, yeah, and some YouTube snippets. Doing real good here...
What is so freaking hard to understand about terrorism by NATO and al-CIAduh with a trained chorus of seals in the western press to promote this new 'threat' to freedumb ( meaning these foreign terrorists )to allow them a free hand in these massacres?
And their weasel analogues who write swill like this?

I have to ask. 05.Aug.2012 22:09

Not that Anon

@TheBruce Two questions, 1) how is information clearing House any better than Syrian Revolution 2011? ( http://www.facebook.com/Syrian.Revolution) and 2) why is your style of argument so confrontational?


I don't necessarily disagree with a lot of what you are saying it's the way that you are saying it that I think might turn a lot of people off. And also what can we here in Portland Oregon do about what is happening in Syria? As for facebook, at least on facebook I was able to interact with people whom claimed they where on the ground in Syria but you are right, I don't really know what is going on over there. It seems unlikely to me that the large number of people on Syrian revolution 2011 are CIA sock puppets or spies but maybe they are. None of us here in Portland know because we are not there. It is just as likely that the Russians want to protect their Naval Base in Syria and are also afraid of further encirclement by NATO and one strategy they are using is flooding pro-Russian foreign policy related propaganda through out alternative media to turn INTERNET addicted American against any sort of intervention by NATO but to be honest; I don't know. And I don't really see any point in getting angry about it. We know the CIA has done all sorts of awful things and they will probably keep doing awful things. How is picking fights with people on Indymedia going to change that?

why? 06.Aug.2012 00:48

theBruce

Why am I so confrontational?
You !@#$%!! spooks are doing the exact same pony show that killed millions of innocent humans in Iraq. And Afghanistan. For the rat israeli state.
And Facebook is a joke that you are attempting to exploit in order to bring us justification for yet another blood bath in Syria.
I detest such entities more than I can express on Indymedia.
Believe me I would MUCH rather 'discuss' this F2F with your type instead of using this soft approach on a keyboard.
But one does what one's conscience compeles one to do even in a limited venue.
Any other inane questions?

USA !!

What is my type? 06.Aug.2012 02:21

Not that Anon

This is fascinating. Go on. How do you categorize me and what would you like to do face to face?

"What is my type?" 06.Aug.2012 06:22

theBruce

You're someone who says "I don't consider myself an American"
so, are you a foreign national? Perhaps a citizen of another foreign state? Maybe the rat israeli state?
Also you seem to( several times in this thread ) promote the exact same ComCorp media lies about 'rebels' being indigenous to Syria in the face of several primary sources that show otherwise.
You're a weasel wordsmith and you make me want to puke.
Why don't you go back to your Facebook? And your social network? It's where you belong among the other fools and psychopaths who are pushing the lie about a 'popular uprising' versus an armed invasion of foreign terrorists.
We could have a nice game of checkers while we discuss these things.

USA !!

Weird 06.Aug.2012 13:29

Not that Anon notthatanon@gmail.com

Nope, you got it wrong. I'm a person who lives in Portland whom thinks the entire idea of a nation divides people and creates fake national identities that people kill each-other over for no reason. And yeah foreign nationals are people and that is all that matters to me. Also I have been reading Portland Indymedia since the early 2000s and I'm not going anywhere. As for information clearing house being a primary source; it's not. Generally a primary source is a source that has personal knowledge of the events they are writing about; like they are in the events taking place. And proving that someone is a primary source via the INTERNET is next to impossible. Trust me I have tried. Information Clearing House is mostly a news aggregator. Yeah, there are few op-ed style writers on there and some of them are pretty good. I generally like what Mike Whitney has to say. I have been reading that site since at least 2004 and as of late the articles that are posted there seem a bit extremist to me. Checkers would be great. Do you like chess? I'm not vary good at it but I think it would be great if I had someone to play it with. Anyways I included an email address if you feel like setting up that checkers date. :)

personal knowledge 06.Aug.2012 17:18

theBruce

Oh and Webster Tarpley isn't a primary source? He was there and his account done on the ground isn't personal knowledge?
Like I said, go back to Facebook if you want to share your personal opinion about the NATO and al-CIAduh terrorists whom you call the 'Syrian Resistance'.
As you can see, your running mates in this thread who want us to believe these are 'rebels' wont look at the obvious scam and ComCorp media indoctrination, as what it is. Or they know better and have their own agendas miles from logic and truth. Or common sense.

Interesting 06.Aug.2012 22:40

Not that Anon.

How do I know it's real? Webster Tarpley from Damascus: 'CIA, MI6 and Mossad, together against Syria' (  http://www.voltairenet.org/Webster-Tarpley-from-Damascus-CIA )Of course the two articles you posted were by Thierry Meyssan and Susanne Posel, but that's cool. I would also like to point out that Mr Tarpley is appearing on RT, a news channel paid for by the Russian government. Than again not even Julian Assange seems to get how that works.

I mean if all those videos of Syrian protesters getting killed are fake how do I know Mr. Tarpley is not faking that he is in Syria? But thank you none the less. I do find it interesting.