#81
Online
Post rating: +
The conventional account of Libya's conflict and NATO's intervention is misleading in several key aspects. First, contrary to Western media reports, Qaddafi did not initiate Libya's violence by targeting peaceful protesters. The United Nations and Amnesty International have documented that in all four Libyan cities initially consumed by civil conflict in mid-February 2011—Benghazi, Al Bayda, Tripoli, and Misurata—violence was actually initiated by the protesters. The government responded to the rebels militarily but never intentionally targeted civilians or resorted to "indiscriminate" force, as Western media claimed. Early press accounts exaggerated the death toll by a factor of ten, citing "more than 2,000 deaths" in Benghazi during the initial days of the uprising, whereas Human Rights Watch (HRW) later documented only 233 deaths across all of Libya in that period.

Further evidence that Qaddafi avoided targeting civilians comes from the Libyan city that was most consumed by the early fighting, Misurata. HRW reports that of the 949 people wounded there in the rebellion's initial seven weeks, only 30 were women or children, meaning that Qaddafi's forces focused narrowly on combatants. During that same period, only 257 people were killed among the city's populationof 400,000—a fraction less than 0.0006—providing additional proof that the government avoided using force indiscriminately. Moreover, Qaddafi did not perpetrate a "bloodbath" in any of the cities that his forces recaptured from rebels prior to NATO intervention—including Ajdabiya, Bani Walid, Brega, Ras Lanuf, Zawiya, and much of Misurata—so there was virtually no risk of such an outcome if he had been permitted to recapture the last rebel stronghold of Benghazi.

The conventional wisdom is also wrong in asserting that NATO's main goal in Libya was to protect civilians. Evidence reveals that NATO's primary aim was to overthrow Qaddafi's regime, even at the expense of increasing the harm to Libyans. NATO attacked Libyan forces indiscriminately, including some in retreat and others in Qaddafi's hometown of Sirte, where they posed no threat to civilians. Moreover, NATO continued to aid the rebels even when they repeatedly rejected government cease-fire offers that could have ended the violence and spared civilians. Such military assistance included weapons, training, and covert deployment of hundreds of troops from Qatar, eventually enabling the rebels to capture and summarily execute Qaddafi and seize power in October 2011.
#82
Post rating: ~

daddyholes posted:

Lessons posted:
I've argued with pro-interventionists a fair bit. I don't think US war crimes in other countries are really relevant except to demonstrate US intervention wouldn't be helpful, even potentially worse.


Do you believe that we are already intervening or have already intervened in Syria; if so how do you approach people who believe we haven't, which in my experience is most people?


It wouldn't surprise me in the least if we have (if by 'intervene' you mean supplying weapons, I don't believe we've been doing covert military strikes or the revolt was a CIA plot or whatever) but there really isn't enough evidence to argue it

#83
[account deactivated]
#84
[account deactivated]
#85
Post rating: +

NoFreeWill posted:

IDK why you can't just hold that both Assad and the rebels and the US and Russia and Iran are all pieces of shit. Why do you have to take sides when the "support" of your meaningless leftist org doesn't change anything



It sure as hell doesn't at this rate. Obviously people can and should discuss whatever they want including the badness of the government of Bashar al-Assad but I don't really feel compelled to publicly broadcast that with equal force as my reaction to what the US does, because
1. i'm a US citizen
2. the US is the global hegemon and its actions are more important
3. i believe that syrians have a right to self-determination and should be allowed to figure their own shit out, thus my opinion about their government is not actually that important
4. in terms of public rhetoric, ANY public anti-Assad statements by leftists will be appropriated

discipline thank you for your consistently on-point posts ITT

#86
Post rating: ~
That also wouldn't surprise me
#87
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: ~

Lessons posted:

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if we have (if by 'intervene' you mean supplying weapons, I don't believe we've been doing covert military strikes or the revolt was a CIA plot or whatever) but there really isn't enough evidence to argue it



The concern I have is that we have been intervening there for a very long time, just not in the sense of "we are dropping bombs on Syria from our planes in a direct attempt to destroy the current Assad regime", and it seems important to me to take this debate away from

"Obama is too smart to intervene and if he did it would be from miles overhead, that's why we need to all vote Democratic, suck it Republicans" B)

vs. "Invade Syria now for Greater Israel, we know that won't happen but that's because Communists took over America" DX

But maybe it's not, maybe I'm wrong

#88
Post rating: ~

Backus posted:

NoFreeWill posted:4. in terms of public rhetoric, ANY public anti-Assad statements by leftists will be appropriated


Excuses and outright pro-Assad rhetoric however is bulletproof and can't possibly be used to discredit people

#89
[account deactivated]
#90
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: ~
instead of trying to convince tpaine's customers that bombing people might be morally problematic why don't we all get really rich
#91
Online
Post rating: ~

discipline posted:

Lessons posted:

Backus posted:
NoFreeWill posted:4. in terms of public rhetoric, ANY public anti-Assad statements by leftists will be appropriated

Excuses and outright pro-Assad rhetoric however is bulletproof and can't possibly be used to discredit people

This is a strawman, I haven't really seen any pro-Assad rhetoric bandied about by Americans. It's used as a smear, mainly

He's saying Assad and Syria but he's actually still arguing about Libya and the Qaddafi supporters round these parts.

#92
Post rating: ~

discipline posted:

Lessons posted:
Backus posted:
NoFreeWill posted:4. in terms of public rhetoric, ANY public anti-Assad statements by leftists will be appropriated

Excuses and outright pro-Assad rhetoric however is bulletproof and can't possibly be used to discredit people


This is a strawman, I haven't really seen any pro-Assad rhetoric bandied about by Americans. It's used as a smear, mainly


RedMaistre wrote an article for The North Star calling on people to support the Syrian government, stopping short of Assad specifically but it's basically the same thing. I guess he's a Brit though. I've definitely, definitely had people tell me both privately an publicly they support an Assad/government victory because the rebels are pawns of US imperialism.

#93
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: ~
my tactics are generally to follow the normal american liberal approach right now, simply asserting things in my 10-second slot while mocking anyone who disputes them afterwards. In my case I assert facts though, lol. Most of the time when I advance a Left line it's still surprising to most Americans that I meet, especially Democrats who when I criticize the President run through "republican" "conservative democrat" "libertarian" and then run out of ways to describe me because the existence of anyone with real Left positions is bad for business ("we have no Tea Party" or whatever) and thus considered a myth by most of them. This seems to have at least the impact of "it's not just a myth" and people walking away with that knowledge and with Left rhetoric they can use to attack others when they desire, but it's also probably the worst so I'm always open to suggestions.
#94
Online
Post rating: +
supporting the syrian gov't/assad against the rebels is not the same as supporting the syrian gov't/assad
#95
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: ~

getfiscal posted:

instead of trying to convince tpaine's customers that bombing people might be morally problematic why don't we all get really rich



Deng Xiaoping noted that these are the same. Would you like some mountain spring water.

#96
Post rating: +
#97
Post rating: ~

ilmdge posted:

supporting the syrian gov't/assad against the rebels is not the same as supporting the syrian gov't/assad


So what, supporting the US govt against Assad doesnt mean supporting the US govt, who gives a shit if you personally think the people involved are nice guys, this is not the important thing here

#98
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: ~
I should follow up that I also take the edge off my weird screeching politics by involving myself in community activities to improve the lives of the poor.
#99
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: +
i support assad. why not. don't be cowards. if you don't cry when mugabe dies soon why are you even a leftist.
#100
Post rating: ~
@zanu_pf's april fools' joke freaked me out
#101
Post rating: ~

Lessons posted:

discipline posted:

Lessons posted:
Backus posted:
NoFreeWill posted:4. in terms of public rhetoric, ANY public anti-Assad statements by leftists will be appropriated

Excuses and outright pro-Assad rhetoric however is bulletproof and can't possibly be used to discredit people


This is a strawman, I haven't really seen any pro-Assad rhetoric bandied about by Americans. It's used as a smear, mainly

RedMaistre wrote an article for The North Star calling on people to support the Syrian government, stopping short of Assad specifically but it's basically the same thing. I guess he's a Brit though. I've definitely, definitely had people tell me both privately an publicly they support an Assad/government victory because the rebels are pawns of US imperialism.



hes an american my friend. no catholics allowed here

#102
[account deactivated]
#103
[account deactivated]
#104
Post rating: +

Lessons posted:

ilmdge posted:

supporting the syrian gov't/assad against the rebels is not the same as supporting the syrian gov't/assad

So what, supporting the US govt against Assad doesnt mean supporting the US govt, who gives a shit if you personally think the people involved are nice guys, this is not the important thing here



But that's just the point. The term "pro-Assad" is totally abstract; Redmaistre can make an argument (in North Star which is a particular context btw) about provisionally supporting the Syrian govt on this issue; in this context what you call being "pro-Assad" only means "I would prefer they win in this instance." It doesn't mean he or any of us would support the Assad regime against a genuine popular uprising, but that's what the term suggests.

#105
Post rating: ~

discipline posted:

He's not a Brit and I can't see from your response to the article where you take issue from the piece


The last portion of his first article is all about how we need to defend the Syrian state. And no I don't support the US government against Assad, if it actually came down to an invasion I'd prefer Assad won (though obviously he couldn't).

Edited by Lessons ()

#106
Post rating: ~

Backus posted:

Lessons posted:

ilmdge posted:

supporting the syrian gov't/assad against the rebels is not the same as supporting the syrian gov't/assad

So what, supporting the US govt against Assad doesnt mean supporting the US govt, who gives a shit if you personally think the people involved are nice guys, this is not the important thing here

But that's just the point. The term "pro-Assad" is totally abstract; Redmaistre can make an argument (in North Star which is a particular context btw) about provisionally supporting the Syrian govt on this issue; in this context what you call being "pro-Assad" only means "I would prefer they win in this instance." It doesn't mean he or any of us would support the Assad regime against a genuine popular uprising, but that's what the term suggests.


Yes obviously, and who cares. We're talking about who should win the current civil war.

#107
Post rating: ~
This is the same kind of argument as "I'm voting for Obama but that doesn't mean I support everything he does, he's just better than the Republicans. I'd vote for a socialist if they could win". Maybe you just shouldn't vote for imperialists fuckhead, and also don't support dictators and war criminals.
#108
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: ~
Is it though, because the U.S. is the most powerful actor here by far and that doesn't really line up at all with the relative power difference between the Democrats and the Republicans
#109
Post rating: ~
If the US is the most powerful actor in Syria why is Assad not only still in power but actually winning the war
#110
Post rating: +++++

Lessons posted:

If the US is the most powerful actor in Syria why is Assad not only still in power but actually winning the war



You are in a room with Robocop, Peter Dinklage, and 50 toddlers. The toddlers are all attacking Peter Dinklage, who is brutally crushing their skulls & ribcages with Russian-taught martial arts techniques. Robocop is giving the toddlers toddler-sized brass knuckles and telling them to smack Dinklage in the nuts, but is not actually bringing to bear the full force of his arsenal. Who is the most powerful actor in this scenario?

#111
Post rating: ~

jools posted:

Lessons posted:
If the US is the most powerful actor in Syria why is Assad not only still in power but actually winning the war


You are in a room with Robocop, Peter Dinklage, and 50 toddlers. The toddlers are all attacking Peter Dinklage, who is brutally crushing their skulls & ribcages with Russian-taught martial arts techniques. Robocop is giving the toddlers toddler-sized brass knuckles and telling them to smack Dinklage in the nuts, but is not actually bringing to bear the full force of his arsenal. Who is the most powerful actor in this scenario?


Me.

#112
Post rating: ~

Lessons posted:

if it actually came down to an invasion I'd prefer Assad won (though obviously he couldn't).



So you'd be pro-Assad? You support dictators and war criminals?

#113
Post rating: ~

Backus posted:

Lessons posted:

if it actually came down to an invasion I'd prefer Assad won (though obviously he couldn't).

So you'd be pro-Assad? You support dictators and war criminals?


In cases of aggressive war I support the party under attack, period. This doesn't commit me to insane and idiotic positions like "It's wrong for Americans to criticize Bashar al-Assad because they have US privilege" and "Actually all the allegations of war crimes against Assad are made up"

#114
Post rating: ~

Lessons posted:

if it actually came down to an invasion I'd prefer Assad won



why does invasion vs material support make the difference for you here

#115
Post rating: ~

Lessons posted:

"Actually all the allegations of war crimes against Assad are made up"



I agree and would not say this. I have not seen or heard anyone say this, though of course someone somewhere may have.

#116
Post rating: ~

Backus posted:

Lessons posted:

if it actually came down to an invasion I'd prefer Assad won

why does invasion vs material support make the difference for you here


Because one of them is war and one isn't. Also in practical terms an invasion and occupation is worse than selling guns.

#117
Post rating: +

Lessons posted:

jools posted:

Lessons posted:
If the US is the most powerful actor in Syria why is Assad not only still in power but actually winning the war


You are in a room with Robocop, Peter Dinklage, and 50 toddlers. The toddlers are all attacking Peter Dinklage, who is brutally crushing their skulls & ribcages with Russian-taught martial arts techniques. Robocop is giving the toddlers toddler-sized brass knuckles and telling them to smack Dinklage in the nuts, but is not actually bringing to bear the full force of his arsenal. Who is the most powerful actor in this scenario?

Me.



Bear in mind Robocop has hitherto killed over 9000 toddlers with one hand alone.

#118
[account deactivated]
#119
[account deactivated]
#120
Post rating: +

NoFreeWill posted:

Syria is not, but it is clear that the peaceful protests that kicked it off were a legitimate mass movement. Currently the rebels seem just as bad as Assad and their military victory which now seems less likely, might have gone either way on actually improving the situation for people in Syria.



NoFreeWill posted:

what "active and forceful role" can I take in opposing something which personally benefits me and I am powerless alone to stop, and there don't seem to be any real organized groups doing effective action either? can't I oppose US imperialism while still opposing Assad killing his people?



NoFreeWill posted:

IDK why you can't just hold that both Assad and the rebels and the US and Russia and Iran are all pieces of shit.



Lessons posted:

Qaddafi and Assad are tyrants and torturers whose misrule was so bad as to provoke full-scale revolts in their countries



Lessons posted:

I don't know, are you prepared to criticize NATO when Gaddafi gunned down his own people in the streets by the hundreds?



holy shit, what is wrong with your moron brains