Syria - What should we do if anything?

[Tonci87 163]

And of course, Iran, Lebanon, Saoudi Arabia, Quatar, Russia and China aren't responsible for anything anytime.

Oh sorry, did I hurt your national feelings?

Of course those other countries are responsible for many bad things that happened, but Syria was under french control, like many other arab or african nations, and the french imperialism was most certainly a very bad thing.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Of course those other countries are responsible for many bad things that happened, but Syria was under french control, like many other arab or african nations, and the french imperialism was most certainly a very bad thing.

True, but take a parallel with something you know well : Yougoslavia. It was created after WW1 by the winners (France included), with the same kind of ethnic and religious troubles as we can see in Syria now. Is it responsible for what happened in the 90's ?

[PELHAM 10]

The current regime/family dynasty in Syria was and is supported by the Soviet Union/Russia, trying to point the finger at French imperialism as the problem behind all this is rather narrow - there are all kinds of reasons including the arbitrary map drawing. Eg Russia is the manufacturer of the landmines (PMN-2, it's written on the side) recently planted along Syria's borders to prevent refugees leaving the country. Many civilians are killed and injured each day by this indescriminate weapon. Local farmers were simply told not to enter orchards without permission, they were given no clear warning of the hazard:

4YmNwIgM76U

Edited June 29, 2012 by PELHAM

[gammadust 12]

Some arbitrary Map drawings:

MAP #2

JUNE 2006 - Blood borders

Credits: 2006 - Ralph Peters

[Nearly 100 percent of Iraq’s Kurds would vote for independence] As would the long-suffering Kurds of Turkey, who have endured decades of violent military oppression and a decades-long demotion to 'mountain Turks' in an effort to eradicate their identity. While the Kurdish plight at Ankara's hands has eased somewhat over the past decade, the repression recently intensified again and the eastern fifth of Turkey should be viewed as occupied territory. As for the Kurds of Syria and Iran, they, too, would rush to join an independent Kurdistan if they could.

Ralph Peters (AFJ)

JULY 2006 - New Middle East's Birth Pangs

what we're seeing here [destruction of Lebanon and the Israeli attacks on Lebanon - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Locations_bombed_Aug13_no_fact_box.jpg], in a sense, is the growing — the 'birth pangs' — of a 'New Middle East' and whatever we do we [united States] have to be certain that we’re pushing forward to the New Middle East [and] not going back to the old one.

Secretary Condoleezza Rice (Slate)

SEPTEMBER 2006 - Carved-up Map of Turkey at NATO Prompts US Apology

A map prepared by a retired U.S. military officer that sketches Turkey as a partitioned country was presented at the NATO’s Defense College in Rome, where Turkish officers attend.

The use of the map at a conference meeting by a colonel from the U.S. National War Academy angered Turkish military officers.

(...)

The U.S. State Department assured Ankara that the map did not reflect the official American view, and denounced it as unacceptable.

(Today's Zaman)

MAP #1

Arc of Crisis

Credits: 1992? - Bernard Lewis of "Clash of Civilizations" fame

MARCH 1992 - Rethinking the Middle East

[Alternative to the future direction of Middle East societies] which could even be precipitated by fundamentalism, is what has of late become fashionable to call 'Lebanonization'. Most of the states of the Middle East - Egypt is an obvious exception - are of recent and artificial construction and are vulnerable to such a process. If the central power is sufficiently weakened, there is no real civil society to hold the polity together, no real sense of common national identity or overriding allegiance to the nation-state. The state then disintegrates - as happened in Lebanon - into a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions and parties." (page 24)

Bernard Lewis (The Henry M. Jackson Memorial Lecture)

[eble 3]

landmines are not banned what gives you that impression, the US/Russia and Syria and quite a few other countries never signed the treaty, no difference between these and cluster bombs.

That mine was supposed to be in the ground just 15 days? looks older than that, no proof in this video, just some randoms talking.

[PELHAM 10]

landmines are not banned what gives you that impression, the US/Russia and Syria and quite a few other countries never signed the treaty, no difference between these and cluster bombs.

That mine was supposed to be in the ground just 15 days? looks older than that, no proof in this video, just some randoms talking.

I know they are not banned that's just a silly video title that some idiot put on afterwards, HRW likes to bitch about mines as they kill so many civilians. Listen to what the guy says and that's a genuine new mine - plastics still shiny, if it had been in the ground over winter it would look different.

[oxmox 73]

Around 160 countries did sign the Ottawa Treaty in which it is determined that landmines are banned. The USA aswell Poland are the only NATO countries who did not sign it as far i know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ottawa_Treaty_members.svg

True, but take a parallel with something you know well : Yougoslavia. It was created after WW1 by the winners (France included), with the same kind of ethnic and religious troubles as we can see in Syria now. Is it responsible for what happened in the 90's ?

Yougoslavia was a man-made multi ethnic nation and only the Tito Regime with its iron rule could hold the people together. After the fall of communism all these different types of people tried to split up and got confronted with the Yougoslavia Wars in the 90ies and the individual interests, it was a conflict based on ethnic, religious and economical issues. And the Balkans before Yougoslavia was always a place with many conflicts anyway.

At the end in many countries and areas with heavy influence from foreign Powers and without any consideration of the ethnics or religion problems did arise.

Edited June 30, 2012 by oxmox

[maturin 12]

Yugoslavia was a man-made multi ethnic nation and only the Tito Regime with its iron rule could hold the people together.

Yugoslavia fell apart because of a fascist invasion. The country was created with the power of Western states, but on behalf of a strong Yugoslav nationalist movement that dated back to the early 19th century.

There is no essential difference between Yugoslavia and Belgium. Both are equally 'artificial' and 'doomed.' It suits the biases of condescending Westerners (whose governments played a cheerleading role in the breakup of the country) to view it as inevitable.

Yugoslav nationalism was an idea that failed to be completed, not an idea that never had a chance. The country's history of violence wasn't insurmountable; WWII was the poison pill, and the Communists were unable to heal the wounds. Even they had a shot, though.

And slightly back on-topic, the idea that the Middle East's borders can be adjusted to rationally match ethnic and religious lines is a dangerous fantasy. No borders really can, except maybe in Australia. The only answer is pluralism, federalism and political nationalism.

[gammadust 12]

some updates:

U.S. intelligence indicates that a Turkish warplane shot down by Syrian forces was most likely hit by shore-based antiaircraft guns while it was inside Syrian airspace, American officials said, a finding in tune with Syria's account and at odds with Turkey.

WSJ

lending some credit to the earlier video while corroborating Syria's Foreign Minister version of the incident:

9jERVloXT8Y

Global powers agreed on Saturday to back a plan for political transition in Syria that did not include a specific call for President Bashar al-Assad to step down.

NYT

Action Group for Syria Final Communique 06/30/2012

Syria's main opposition groups rejected on Sunday a new international plan that calls for a transitional government because the compromise agreement did not bar President Bashar Assad from participating.

AP

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Oh, come on Gamma -- we'll partition Syria along with those other nincompoop "states" and form new ones as needed with respect to ethnic minorities; refer to the fall of USSR. You, as am I, are observing this from the comfort of liberal Europe, or shall I say "Liberated" from the irrationalities of religious persecutions, nationalism, racism of the XX century.

Europe has arrived at the point it is today only through two World Wars, and so it goes: Middle East must also pass through its own cultural "transformation", that will spark the Fire in the Minds of Men, even if it does mean war.

P.S. QF-4 @ Turkey's folly. ;)

---------- Post added at 00:01 ---------- Previous post was at 23:55 ----------

And slightly back on-topic, the idea that the Middle East's borders can be adjusted to rationally match ethnic and religious lines is a dangerous fantasy. No borders really can, except maybe in Australia. The only answer is pluralism, federalism and political nationalism.

This solution would apply to a selection of rational, "liberal" states steeped in pluralism and tolerance, but it is obviously not the case in the Middle East at the moment. For European Union to be born, we had to go through half a century of warfare, followed by dissolution of an irrational system - the USSR.

A Federation is a crown achievement, not to be bestowed lightly upon the ignorant masses.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Iroquois Pliskin

[maturin 12]

Oh, come on Gamma -- we'll partition Syria along with those other nincompoop "states" and form new ones as needed with respect to ethnic minorities; refer to the fall of USSR.

The fall of the USSR!!!!

The USSR was a state that respected the rights of ethnic minorities and enfranchised them. Its fall was disastrous, from that point of view, leading to nothing but brutal nationalism.

[PELHAM 10]

some updates:

ROFL at least they had some 9mm pistols and an AK and didn't have to shout bang, bang, bang. AA guns don't sound like that mate, it's an obvious fake.

The fall of the USSR!!!!

The USSR was a state that respected the rights of ethnic minorities and enfranchised them. Its fall was disastrous, from that point of view, leading to nothing but brutal nationalism.

Mushroom #2

From September to October 1937, more than 172,000 Soviet Koreans were deported from the border regions of the Soviet Far East to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan after suspicions of Japanese sympathy and rivalry for land by the small local Russian population. The deportees expected a Korean Autonomous Region to be created in Central Asia, but they never received a national territory despite meeting the criteria under the Soviet System. A significant population of ethnic Koreans still exist in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.

During the 1937–38 terror campaign against the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church and of other religions it is estimated that over 100,000 priests, monks and nuns were executed.

The Stalinist repression in Mongolia between 1937 and 1939. The number of people killed is estimated between 22,000 and 35,000. Nearly 18,000 victims were Buddhist lamas. Mass graves investigated in 1991 and 2003 found the corpses of hundreds of executed lamas and civilians, all were murdered with a gunshot to the base of the skull.

When Nazi Germany and the USSR were the best of friends and jointly agreed to partition Poland between them in 1939, 297,280 Poles were deported to Syberia during 1940, in June 1941 another 40,000. These numbers do not include P.O.W.s, prisoners, small groups, people who voluntarily moved into the USSR, and men drafted into stroybats.

Before and during World War II, Joseph Stalin deported to Central Asia and Siberia several entire nationalities for their suspected collaboration with the German invaders: Volga Germans, Crimean Tatars, Chechens, Ingush, Balkars, Kalmyks, and others. Shortly after the war, he deported many Ukrainians and Balts to Siberia as well. Moscow still can't understand why Baltic and Crimean peoples generally hate Russia and don't want to be in the federation. Errr they have been butchered and ethnically cleansed for over a century and are a bit sick and tired of it.

After WWII the elevated status of ethnic Russian people in the Soviet family of nations and nationalities was promoted by Stalin and his successors. This was clearly given full support with Stalin's Victory Day toast to the Russian people in May 1945:

I would like to raise a toast to the health of our Soviet people and, before all, the Russian people.

I drink, before all, to the health of the Russian people, because in this war they earned general recognition as the leading force of the Soviet Union among all the nationalities of our country.

This was a total reversal of Stalin's declaration 20 years earlier (korenizatsiya policy) that "the first immediate task of our Party is vigorously to combat the survivals of Great-Russian chauvinism." Although the official literature on nationalities and languages in subsequent years continued to speak of there being 130 equal languages in the USSR, in practice a hierarchy was endorsed with certain nationalities and languages having special status or viewed as having limited futures.

Russification:

From 1950's to the 1980's the Russian language was promoted as the official language. The number of schools teaching in native languages was gradually decreased meaning that in many regions ethnic minorities were effectively forced out of education or disadvantaged. Where schools did teach in native languages often the full curriculum was not available. Multiply that with other services such as healthcare.

It is well known that the 5th line on the Soviet identity documents was a form of discrimination. If it said something other than 'Russian' people knew they could expect a lower standard of service. If children had mixed parents they were able to choose a nationality. The majority of children in mixed families chose Russian as their nationality on their internal passport at age 16, they knew it was in their best interests to do so.

Afghanistan, in 1987, Soviet troops and the pro-Communist government were struggling to permanently control around 80% of the country. To reach this aim, the Soviet Union used methods of scorched earth and migratory genocide by systematically burning crops and destroying villages in rebel provinces, reprisal bombings of entire villages suspected of supporting the resistance. The USSR tried to force the local population to move to the Soviet controlled areas, to deprive the opposition of civilian support. When the Soviets withdrew in 1988, 1 to 1.5 million people had been killed, the majority were civilians and a third of Afghanistan's population had been displaced.

So Russian nationalism is nothing new at all and yes there was rampant racism and descrimination in the USSR but no one could discuss it or report it. While harping on about Western colonialism and imperialism it was in fact Russia/USSR that was the largest and fastest growing colonial empire of the 20th Century.

Edited July 2, 2012 by PELHAM

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

The fall of the USSR!!!!

The USSR was a state that respected the rights of ethnic minorities and enfranchised them. Its fall was disastrous, from that point of view, leading to nothing but brutal nationalism.

It was only natural for such nationalism to re-surge after 90 years of suppression in an irrational, schizophrenic system, which was the USSR, in whose destruction I have participated personally. ;) In order to resolve future conflicts, the nations in question (Syria, Iran, Iraq and many others in the region) must go through the common modus operandi, which had been used successfully in Europe in the previous century.

Kurdistan et all will see their Dawn one day. :)

[eble 3]

didn't Iran already go through this in the late 70's? you could argue they have done it already.

[maturin 12]

From September to October 1937, more than 172,000 Soviet Koreans were deported from the border regions of the Soviet Far East to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan after suspicions of Japanese sympathy and rivalry for land by the small local Russian population. The deportees expected a Korean Autonomous Region to be created in Central Asia, but they never received a national territory despite meeting the criteria under the Soviet System. A significant population of ethnic Koreans still exist in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.

Deporting hundreds of thousands during WWII based on suspected Japanese loyalties? Sounds like the exact same thing the U.S. did, and the U.S. was among the the most multi-ethnic and tolerant countries at the time.

During the 1937–38 terror campaign against the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church and of other religions it is estimated that over 100,000 priests, monks and nuns were executed.

I said 'ethnic minorities,' not religious majorities.

The Stalinist repression in Mongolia between 1937 and 1939. The number of people killed is estimated between 22,000 and 35,000. Nearly 18,000 victims were Buddhist lamas. Mass graves investigated in 1991 and 2003 found the corpses of hundreds of executed lamas and civilians, all were murdered with a gunshot to the base of the skull.

When Nazi Germany and the USSR were the best of friends and jointly agreed to partition Poland between them in 1939, 297,280 Poles were deported to Syberia during 1940, in June 1941 another 40,000. These numbers do not include P.O.W.s, prisoners, small groups, people who voluntarily moved into the USSR, and men drafted into stroybats.

Before and during World War II, Joseph Stalin deported to Central Asia and Siberia several entire nationalities for their suspected collaboration with the German invaders: Volga Germans, Crimean Tatars, Chechens, Ingush, Balkars, Kalmyks, and others. Shortly after the war, he deported many Ukrainians and Balts to Siberia as well. Moscow still can't understand why Baltic and Crimean peoples generally hate Russia and don't want to be in the federation. Errr they have been butchered and ethnically cleansed for over a century and are a bit sick and tired of it.

These also don't have bearing on Soviet nationality policy as a whole, given that they are the personal policies of Stalin, provoked by wartime conditions were tens of millions were dying or had died. All you're doing is bringing up random crimes the USSR committed, almost all of which ceased after Stalin's death.

Here is the important part: The USSR AFTER STALIN was a federated state which not only guaranteed the rights of ethnic minorities but entitled many of them with near-statehood. Minority groups within SSRs had their own territorial units and Party branches, meaning that Uzbekistan was ruled primarily by Uzbeks. Minority national cultures were supported by state organizations, and people were enfranchised politically and economically based on culture. This is all markedly more tolerant, even liberal and harmonious, compared to what happened afterward. I'm not saying it wasn't an authoritarian state, or that there weren't tons of problems and tyrannies inside the positive aspects, but you can't argue the comparison between Soviet multicultural ethnofederalism and the sort of "_____-istan for the _____-istanis" politics that caused bloody wars in the immediate aftermath.

After WWII the elevated status of ethnic Russian people in the Soviet family of nations and nationalities was promoted by Stalin and his successors. This was clearly given full support with Stalin's Victory Day toast to the Russian people in May 1945:

This was a total reversal of Stalin's declaration 20 years earlier (korenizatsiya policy) that "the first immediate task of our Party is vigorously to combat the survivals of Great-Russian chauvinism." Although the official literature on nationalities and languages in subsequent years continued to speak of there being 130 equal languages in the USSR, in practice a hierarchy was endorsed with certain nationalities and languages having special status or viewed as having limited futures.

Are you just quoting Wikipedia at me? After the war, expressions of Russian nationalism became acceptable, but this did not translate to preferential treatment. The Russians lacked a Republic of their own where they were supposed to predominate, and got none of the affirmative action treatment that minorities did in their own territories.

From 1950's to the 1980's the Russian language was promoted as the official language. The number of schools teaching in native languages was gradually decreased meaning that in many regions ethnic minorities were effectively forced out of education or disadvantaged. Where schools did teach in native languages often the full curriculum was not available. Multiply that with other services such as healthcare.

Soviet policy focused on building ethnicities into national groups, which saw smaller ethnicities merged into larger ones. And there were hundreds of languages. Are you telling me that Western European countries today offer public education in every language that their immigrant groups speak? Okay, I guess France is more tyrannical to minorities then the USSR then, lol. You are just throwing random facts at me with no real understanding of Soviet history behind them.

It is well known that the 5th line on the Soviet identity documents was a form of discrimination. If it said something other than 'Russian' people knew they could expect a lower standard of service. If children had mixed parents they were able to choose a nationality. The majority of children in mixed families chose Russian as their nationality on their internal passport at age 16, they knew it was in their best interests to do so.

Time for your unsourced parade of quotes to stop. Especially with Stalin the Georgian and Khrushchev the Ukrainian ruling the country for half of the century. You're talking about popular biases, not state policy. The government can't stop people from being racist.

Afghanistan, in 1987, Soviet troops and the pro-Communist government were struggling to permanently control around 80% of the country. To reach this aim, the Soviet Union used methods of scorched earth and migratory genocide by systematically burning crops and destroying villages in rebel provinces, reprisal bombings of entire villages suspected of supporting the resistance. The USSR tried to force the local population to move to the Soviet controlled areas, to deprive the opposition of civilian support. When the Soviets withdrew in 1988, 1 to 1.5 million people had been killed, the majority were civilians and a third of Afghanistan's population had been displaced.

Once again, wartime policy in another country. And the Soviet killed fewer civilians than the US did in Vietnam. Once again, a stunning lack of critical comparative thinking on your part.

So Russian nationalism is nothing new at all and yes there was rampant racism and descrimination in the USSR but no one could discuss it or report it.

What country doesn't have rampant racism and discrimination? The fact was, tolerant policies towards ethnicities determined the entire physical structure of the country, among its central laws and policies. Protection for minorities was built into the federal system, and unlike guarantees of secession or free speech in the constitution, the ideas of nationality policy WERE respected. As opposed to what happened after 1989, when Georgia went to war with its minorities, Karabakh and Tajikistan imploded, Bulgaria tried to get rid of its Muslims...

The difference is the same as between Communist Yugoslavia and Sarajevo in 1995.

While harping on about Western colonialism and imperialism it was in fact Russia/USSR that was the largest and fastest growing colonial empire of the 20th Century.

Actually, it's a hotly-debated scholarly issue.

[PELHAM 10]

didn't Iran already go through this in the late 70's? you could argue they have done it already.

No the Iranians jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire. They had an Islamic revolution against a totalitarian monarch and got themselves a totalitarian socialist/religious regime. Instead of executing religious people as the USSR did, the Iranian socialists formed a pact with them which is far more of a problem than communism was. You see if you commit a basic freedom in Iran not only will it be a crime against the people, it will also be a crime against god. Then as they say, your ass is grass, squared. Same for anyone that challenges them internationally, you are going up against totallitarian socialism and god's authority. It's this double headed irrationality that gets everyone so worried. All they need to justify whatever they do is a convenient Fatwa from the men that speak for god.

@maturin Everything I wrote is all well recorded history. Yes immigrants to the UK receive free translation and tutoring in their own languages at school. Many have a translator that sits beside them during lessons. (Indigenous Welsh and Gaelic speakers also have their own schools.) Not really comparing like with like there are you? The people in the USSR were living in their own countries and were suddenly told their language, religion and culture no longer officially existed. They also didn't get a say in the matter, it was forced upon them. Not sure why the issue of the empire of the USSR is debated, it's blatently obvious if you look at a timeline and a map.

So, all the bad things happened under Stalin and the USSR was all good after that? Can I ask about the Kazakh people who were not evacuated, warned or educated about the damaging radiation they were exposed to from 1941 to 1991 at the Semipalatinsk test site? The story of the atomic lake in 1965 is particularly interesting. On January 15, 1965, a nuclear device was detonated to create a lake. The Soviet nuclear device was buried under the Chagan River, a waterway that seasonally evaporates then refills. The huge blast created a crater 100 meters deep and 408 meters wide.

The Soviet government was proud of Lake Chagan. They made a film with a happy athletic looking man swimming across it. The government also stocked the Lake with fish and encouraged local people to eat them.

The full impact of radiation exposure was hidden for many years by Soviet authorities. The general consensus of health studies conducted at the site since it was closed is that radioactive fallout from nuclear testing had a direct impact on the health of about 200,000 local residents. Specifically, scientists have linked higher rates of different types of cancer to post-irradiation effects. Likewise, several studies have explored the correlation between radiation exposure and thyroid abnormalities. Can I ask if this sort of thing happened anywhere near Moscow or was this reserved specially for ethnic minorities living in the far east?

Edited July 2, 2012 by PELHAM

[maturin 12]

So, all the bad things happened under Stalin and the USSR was all good after that? Can I ask about the Kazakh people who were not evacuated, warned or educated about the damaging radiation they were exposed to from 1941 to 1991 at the Semipalatinsk test site? The story of the atomic lake in 1965 is particularly interesting. On January 15, 1965, a nuclear device was detonated to create a lake. The Soviet nuclear device was buried under the Chagan River, a waterway that seasonally evaporates then refills. The huge blast created a crater 100 meters deep and 408 meters wide.

The Soviet government was proud of Lake Chagan. They made a film with a happy athletic looking man swimming across it. The government also stocked the Lake with fish and encouraged everyone to eat them.

The full impact of radiation exposure was hidden for many years by Soviet authorities. The general consensus of health studies conducted at the site since it was closed is that radioactive fallout from nuclear testing had a direct impact on the health of about 200,000 local residents. Specifically, scientists have linked higher rates of different types of cancer to post-irradiation effects. Likewise, several studies have explored the correlation between radiation exposure and thyroid abnormalities.

Why did you just write an entire non sequitur essay? You still don't seem to grasp my argument. I never said that the USSR was *good,* nor denied that it was *bad.* So why bring up environmental practices, exactly?

Can I ask if this sort of thing happened anywhere near Moscow or was this reserved specially for ethnic minorities living in the far east?

You may certainly ask, and the answer is no. The centerpiece of the first Five Year Plan was Magnitogorsk, which was populated by enthusiastic (in this case) Russian workers from the start. It is now poisonous to live there. In the industrialized Baltic region, there are power plants that have polluted surrounding countryside so badly that multiple members of the film crew from Andrei Tarkovsky's Stalker died from a few visits with cameras. Kazakhstan was chosen for nuclear experiments for obvious reasons. It is remote, far from any borders, and much of it is lightly-populated desert. You expect them to conduct hazardous activities in economically-important agricultural areas? The Ferghana Valley (next door to Kazakhstan) wasn't contaminated by the Soviet. Also, nearly half the population of Kazakhstan is Russian, which answers your question pretty solidly in the negative.

[PELHAM 10]

Why did you just write an entire non sequitur essay? You still don't seem to grasp my argument. I never said that the USSR was *good,* nor denied that it was *bad.* So why bring up environmental practices, exactly?

Errr it's a little deeper than environmental.....Just wondered why 100,000s of ethnic Kazahks were systematically exposed to radiation for 50 years, their presence in the area covered up, illnesses ignored and left untreated until well after the end of the USSR. The formal policy of the USSR might make it look like a utopia of equality but it's what happened in practice that counts. The people that initiated this and continued the practice were all members of the politburo/presidium so saying it wasn't official policy is rather naive.

The only thing non sequitur is this:

The fall of the USSR!!!!

The USSR was a state that respected the rights of ethnic minorities and enfranchised them. Its fall was disastrous, from that point of view, leading to nothing but brutal nationalism.

Edited July 3, 2012 by PELHAM

[oxmox 73]

I said 'ethnic minorities,' not religious majorities.

Maturin, Iam not sure in what period you are refering this. Many displacements did happen during the world wars, aswell in other conflicts after the end of ww2.

They had an Islamic revolution against a totalitarian monarch and got themselves a totalitarian socialist/religious regime.

Actually the Iranian Revolution was aswell a flame up of religious and national feelings. The religous aspect did play a higher role than the socialistic one like in other countries in this time. The Revolution itself was by the way a social revolution from the bottom of the society, the appeal of the Mustasafins (the social bottom) had a big influence. It was not only the totalitarian monarch who got supported by western powers like the USA, GreatBritain or Israel with its feared secret police. The nationalization of Oil ressources and the attempted western politics in form of severe embargos, money and oil impoundments abroad was for sure another reason why the revolution at the end did succeed for the revolutionists. A lot of things did happen in the middle east, at the end it is since the beginning of the last century a struggle for geopolitical interests, an inferno when it comes to religious and ethnic issues. The cold war had it impact aswell.

Interesting read about the atomic lake in the USSR, didnt hear about it but you see rather a lot of reports about the former nuclear tests at the Marshall Islands...

Edited July 3, 2012 by oxmox

[ProfTournesol 956]

AFAIK this topic isn't on USSR...

BTW, have a look on how nice Assad's regime is :

http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/07/03/syria-torture-centers-revealed

Edited July 3, 2012 by ProfTournesol

[gammadust 12]

Report dated 20 March 2012:

Syria: Armed Opposition Groups Committing Abuses

For some technical reason the page is sometimes offline, full quote follows:

(New York) – Armed opposition elements have carried out serious human rights abuses, Human Rights Watch said today in a public letter to the Syrian National Council (SNC) and other leading Syrian opposition groups. Abuses include kidnapping, detention, and torture of security force members, government supporters, and people identified as members of pro-government militias, called shabeeha. Human Rights Watch has also received reports of executions by armed opposition groups of security force members and civilians.

Leaders of Syrian opposition groups should condemn and forbid their members from carrying out abuses, Human Rights Watch said. Some of the statements collected suggest that certain armed attacks by opposition groups were motivated by anti-Shia or anti-Alawite sentiments arising from the association of these communities with government policies.

“The Syrian government’s brutal tactics cannot justify abuses by armed opposition groups,†said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Opposition leaders should make it clear to their followers that they must not torture, kidnap, or execute under any circumstances.â€

Human Rights Watch has repeatedly documented and condemned widespread violations by Syrian government forces, including disappearances, rampant use of torture, arbitrary detentions, and indiscriminate shelling of neighborhoods.

The protest movement in Syria was overwhelmingly peaceful until September 2011. Since then, an increasing number of media and other reports have said that a growing number of military defectors and local residents have decided to resort to arms, saying they are defending themselves against security forces’ raids or attacking checkpoints and security facilities in their cities. The intensity of the fighting has increased since early February 2012, when the government began large-scale military attacks against opposition strongholds throughout the country.

Many of the antigovernment groups reported to be carrying out abuses do not appear to belong to an organized command structure or to be following Syrian National Council orders. But Syria’s opposition leadership has a responsibility to speak out and condemn such abuses, Human Rights Watch said. On March 1 the SNC created a military bureau to liaise with, unify, and supervise armed opposition groups, including the Free Syrian Army (FSA).

Everyone in the custody of the FSA and other opposition forces, including members of the Syrian security forces and shabeeha, should be treated humanely in accordance with international human rights standards, Human Rights Watch said.

“It is imperative for armed elements of the Syrian opposition to protect human rights,†Whitson said. “They need to make it clear that they envision a Syria that turns the page on Assad-era violations and welcomes all – regardless of their religious group or background – without discrimination.â€

Kidnappings

A number of witnesses told Human Rights Watch that non-state armed groups identifying themselves with the opposition are kidnapping both civilians and members of the security forces. “Mazen,†a Syrian activist, told Human Rights Watch that members of the Abu Issa group in Taftanaz, a village north of Saraqeb, Idlib, told him that they had kidnapped people who worked with the government and tortured three of them to death. “Mazen†also said he spoke to a member of the Syrian security forces who was kidnapped and detained by opposition fighters in Saraqeb:

The detainee told me he was a first assistant in the National Hospital in Aleppo ... I asked the revolutionaries to bring him to me so I could speak to him. He said that opposition fighters had beaten him with electrical cables on the head ... and he was blindfolded. He said they let him speak to his parents ... and that they asked them for money to release him.

“Samih,†another Syrian activist who said he has worked closely with the FSA in Saraqeb, told Human Rights Watch that while he was there he saw residents of Saraqeb complain to the FSA on more than one occasion that the Al-Nur battalion, a Salafist group that is not part of the official FSA structure, was kidnapping civilians for ransom. He said, “The people in Saraqeb were fed up with the battalion and asked the FSA to intervene but the Al-Nur battalion did not respond to the FSA.â€

“Samih†also told Human Rights Watch that members of the FSA were kidnapping soldiers:

They would kidnap them and ask their parents to pay a ransom to let them go. One time, the FSA in Saraqeb kidnapped a colonel from the Presidential Guard. In return, the military kidnapped two children from Saraqeb. The children were 15 and 16-years-old. I was working with the FSA members and local government officials to negotiate a trade. At one point, the family members of the two kids called me pleading that I speed up the negotiations as much as possible. They said that they got a call at home from the captors and that they could hear their kids being tortured. They told them their kids would be released when the FSA released the colonel. We were able to negotiate a trade for the colonel and the kids have now been released.

The media coordinator for another group operating in Homs, the Al-Farouq battalion, told Human Rights Watch that the battalion is not kidnapping soldiers but detaining them during military operations:

We are not kidnapping soldiers. During an armed confrontation, soldiers surrounded by the FSA are surrendering themselves to the Al-Farouq battalion so we are capturing and not kidnapping the soldiers. After capturing the soldiers, the FSA calls the government to negotiate the terms of their release, but they refuse to negotiate simply because they don’t care about the captured soldiers. The captives are placed in a room, not a prison. The room has one door with a lock but no windows. Al-Farouq battalion is treating them very well.

Human Rights Watch also expressed concern about FSA kidnappings of Iranian nationals, some of whom the group has confirmed are civilians. On January 26 the Al-Farouq battalion claimed responsibility for capturing seven Iranian nationals, five of whom appeared in video footage claiming to be members of the Iranian armed forces. In an interview on February 22 with Human Rights Watch the Al-Farouq battalion media coordinator said that the other two people detained are civilians but that they were detained because no Persian speaker was available when the Iranians were detained and that their civilian status was only confirmed later. When asked why the civilians had not yet been released, he would not comment.

Iran's MAPNA Group, an Iranian power company in Syria, told SANA, Syria’s state media outlet, that the five people accused of being fighters were in fact Iranian engineers. The Islamic Republic News Agency reported that all seven men were released on February 10, but on February 15 it indicated that the report was false and that the men remained in custody. The Al-Farouq battalion media coordinator told Human Rights Watch on March 16 that the seven detainees were still being held in Syria and that they were in good health.

In addition to politically motivated kidnappings, Human Rights Watch has received information indicating that other armed groups may be kidnapping people, sometimes claiming to be operating in the name of the opposition. “Marwan,†an Alawite resident of Karam el Zeytoun, Homs, told Human Rights Watch that on January 23 armed gangs entered his neighborhood and kidnapped his elderly parents from their home:

When the armed gang went into the house my father called me on the phone, but they grabbed the phone from him. I tried to call back and couldn’t reach him, so I called a neighbor, who told me they took my father and mother, put them in a car, and went south. The head of the gang, known as Abees, called me the next day. He told me they had my parents and asked for money and weapons as ransom. He told me my father was okay and was with them. I said I would give him what he wanted, but that he had to let me hear my father’s voice.

I spoke with him, and he noticed I was crying. He said: “Don’t cry. Don’t be afraid. I am not afraid. This is what God has written.†My father had the Quran as his weapon. He said, “Don’t worry and don’t listen to them.†After that they cut the line. I tried calling back a number of times but the phone was closed.

The next day I kept trying; Abees answered and was swearing. He said to stop calling, and that they had killed my parents. After that we saw a video on YouTube showing their dead bodies. We have not received the bodies back despite numerous pleas. They took them because they want money. Myself, I am a supporter of the government, but this is a sectarian crime, and it has to do with money. My father has nothing to do with the government.

Torture

Human Rights Watch has reviewed at least 25 videos on YouTube in which Syrian security forces or their alleged supporters confess to crimes under circumstances in which it appears that their statements were made under duress. At least 18 of these videos show detainees who are bruised, bleeding, or show other signs of physical abuse. Human Rights Watch cannot independently confirm the authenticity of these videos.

In one video, three people described by the accompanying text as shabeeha are asked their names, where they are from, their religion, and what they are doing in Tal Kalakh. They are shown on their knees during this interrogation, their hands bound. The face of one is clearly badly bruised. All identify themselves as Shia, from el Rabwie, Homs, and “confess†that they had killed peaceful protesters.

In another video bearing the emblem of the FSA Khaled Bin Al Walid battalion, an unnamed person described by the accompanying text as a shabeeha member is interrogated. He appears bound and his face is bruised. At the end of the video, he denies an allegation against him and the interrogator calls him a liar, tells the videographer to stop shooting, and directs someone off camera to bring him the “electricity machine.â€

Executions

Other video footage reviewed by Human Rights Watch and information received in interviews indicates that members of armed opposition groups have executed people in their custody whom they suspected of crimes against the opposition.

One video, released on YouTube on February 4, shows a man hung from a tree by his neck in front of several armed fighters. Commentary indicates that he is a shabeeha fighter captured and executed by the FSA Kafr Takharim battalion on January 22. In a second video,which appears to have been released by the FSA Al-Farouq battalion on YouTube, a person identified as a member of Air Force Intelligence based in Homs is interrogated and confesses to shooting at protesters. The detainee’s face is very badly beaten, cut, and bruised, and he appears disoriented. Written statements accompanying the video state that it was filmed before his execution, and the interrogator in the video, amid curses, asks him for his final request before dying.

The Al-Farouq battalion media coordinator told Human Rights Watch about the execution of another Air Force Intelligence member.

“The death of the member of the Air Force Intelligence was an act of revenge because the branch is responsible for horrific killings in Homs,†The media coordinator said.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Report dated 20 March 2012:

Syria: Armed Opposition Groups Committing Abuses

For some technical reason the page is sometimes offline, full quote follows:

What a wonderful world...

[gammadust 12]

What a wonderful world...

Yep... no surprises there alright, but the reason i bring up this is to allow us to compare the mainstream media coverage of both reports.

Google "Syria: Torture Centers Revealed": (Today - 3 July 2012 - hours old)

- 1st 10 results brings Huffington Post's coverage

- Google News search totals 2 Hits (I have no doubts this will increase)

Google "Syria: Armed Opposition Groups Committing Abuses": (20 March 2012 - 3 months old)

- 1st 10 results not one mainstream media appears (but a guardian.co.uk instance as a result of a user comment mentioning it)

- Google News search totals 1 Hit of a known alternative news website

Up for anyone to interpret.

Edited July 3, 2012 by gammadust

[gammadust 12]

[EDIT/UPDATE]

Google News Search for:

"Syria: Torture Centers Revealed" - "For 27 Detention Sites: Locations, Commanders’ Names, Torture Methods"

90 Results found under 24 Hours (as expected)

"Syria: Armed Opposition Groups Committing Abuses" - "Kidnappings, Forced Confessions, and Executions"

1 Result found over 3 Months

Is this anecdotal? Is it because googlebot is broken? Or is it because, indeed, there was only one news website (listed as such by googlebot) that actually reported the (equally damaging) HRW report of the 20th March 2012?

What does this tell us regarding mainstream media coverage of the conflict?

Should we rely on these mainstream media alone to form our views on the Syrian conflict?

What interests does this "balanced" reporting serve (if any)?

Peacemakers? Warmongers? Syrian ethnicities? Kurds? Shia, Sunni, Alawites, Druze...?

Religious? Secular? Patriots? Nationalists? Capitalists? Socialists? Industrialists? Liberals? Journalists? Propagandists? Sectarians? Zionists? Globalists? Communists?

Cui Bono?

Edited July 4, 2012 by gammadust

[PELHAM 10]

Well maybe the level of reporting of each case reflects the frequency of it occurring? As the Syrian government is more organised, better funded, has the man power and purpose built facilities maybe they arrest and torture more people? They also have the benefit of experience, after all they have been governing using these methods for decades.

It's hard to argue that there is something wrong with the reporting when the actual frequency of the event is so one sided also.

Edited July 4, 2012 by PELHAM