Amnesty International on Assad's Bloody Crackdown
August 31, 2011 3:48 AM Subscribe
Deadly detention: Deaths in custody amid popular protest in Syria “These deaths behind bars are reaching massive proportions, and appear to be an extension of the same brutal disdain for life that we are seeing daily on the streets of Syria,” said Neil Sammonds, Amnesty International’s researcher on Syria.
“The accounts of torture we have received are horrific. We believe the Syrian government to be systematically persecuting its own people on a vast scale.”
Demonizing the Enemy a Hallmark of War:
"For most human beings, it takes an awful lot to allow them to kill another human being," said Anthony Pratkanis, a psychology professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz. "The only way to do it is to justify the killing, to make the enemy look as evil as possible."
Enough already.
posted by three blind mice at 3:55 AM on August 31, 2011
"For most human beings, it takes an awful lot to allow them to kill another human being," said Anthony Pratkanis, a psychology professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz. "The only way to do it is to justify the killing, to make the enemy look as evil as possible."
Enough already.
posted by three blind mice at 3:55 AM on August 31, 2011
Well, gosh. Thank you Amnesty, for discovering this heavily-concealed truth.
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:58 AM on August 31, 2011
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:58 AM on August 31, 2011
Take Assad out.
posted by Vibrissae at 4:40 AM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Vibrissae at 4:40 AM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]
And, by deliberately exceeding what the UN agreed to in Libya, we've ensured that there is absolutely no way that Russia and China will approve any UN measure to fix this.
Fuck Sarkozy. And fuck Obama for not reining him in.
posted by Malor at 4:45 AM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]
Fuck Sarkozy. And fuck Obama for not reining him in.
posted by Malor at 4:45 AM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]
Al-Jazeera's coverage of the Amnesty report included an interview with the brother of one of the victims; he starts haltingly but gets heated when he talks about the Syrian government's stupid, clumsy, insulting attempt to paint the torture and murder as a robbery (the announcer had heard the claim that it was suicide). If you want heartrending, despicable details from a relative of one of the statistics, just skip to 3:47.
posted by mediareport at 4:46 AM on August 31, 2011
posted by mediareport at 4:46 AM on August 31, 2011
There is 0 chance we're going into Syria. None. It would mean WWIII in the middle east.
posted by empath at 4:47 AM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by empath at 4:47 AM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]
Al Jazeera's coverage back in May of the 13-year-old whose mutilated body was returned to his parents after his arrest at a protest - a story which was also linked here in June.
posted by mediareport at 4:53 AM on August 31, 2011
posted by mediareport at 4:53 AM on August 31, 2011
And, by deliberately exceeding what the UN agreed to in Libya, we've ensured that there is absolutely no way that Russia and China will approve any UN measure to fix this.
Fuck Sarkozy. And fuck Obama for not reining him in.
No, fuck the Chinese and Russians for propping up this bad man. (and fuck America for the same thing in the Gulf States)
And fuck the UN. Just start bombing.
posted by Meatbomb at 5:39 AM on August 31, 2011
Fuck Sarkozy. And fuck Obama for not reining him in.
No, fuck the Chinese and Russians for propping up this bad man. (and fuck America for the same thing in the Gulf States)
And fuck the UN. Just start bombing.
posted by Meatbomb at 5:39 AM on August 31, 2011
Syria has an army three times the size of Libya's, 3 times as many aircraft, the population of the country is 4 times higher, in a geographical area one tenth the size, and it has military and financial support from Iran. There are also Kurdish separatist groups active there as well as a lot of terrorist groups with reach all over the region. They also have rockets that can easily reach Israel.
Would we win? Probably. But it would be a lot closer to Iraq than Libya was. And it would be the kind of thing that Obama would be able to get away with getting us involved in without Congress.
posted by empath at 6:12 AM on August 31, 2011 [3 favorites]
Would we win? Probably. But it would be a lot closer to Iraq than Libya was. And it would be the kind of thing that Obama would be able to get away with getting us involved in without Congress.
posted by empath at 6:12 AM on August 31, 2011 [3 favorites]
For comparison: Syria's army size is 300,000. Iraq had 350,000 when we invaded.
posted by empath at 6:17 AM on August 31, 2011
posted by empath at 6:17 AM on August 31, 2011
the population of the country is 4 times higher, in a geographical area one tenth the size
A much more target-rich environment, but heavier collateral damage likely.
posted by Meatbomb at 6:18 AM on August 31, 2011
A much more target-rich environment, but heavier collateral damage likely.
posted by Meatbomb at 6:18 AM on August 31, 2011
Empath - the idea is not to invade, just to bomb the shit out of the Baathist infrastructure of terror and oppression - let the locals fill the power vacuum.
posted by Meatbomb at 6:19 AM on August 31, 2011
posted by Meatbomb at 6:19 AM on August 31, 2011
Well, gosh. Thank you Amnesty, for discovering this heavily-concealed truth.
It is absurdly messenger killing to snark at Amnesty International for doing the legwork to document evidence of something terrible. It is better to provide evidence for a strong accusation than not.
posted by Babblesort at 6:20 AM on August 31, 2011 [2 favorites]
It is absurdly messenger killing to snark at Amnesty International for doing the legwork to document evidence of something terrible. It is better to provide evidence for a strong accusation than not.
posted by Babblesort at 6:20 AM on August 31, 2011 [2 favorites]
Empath - the idea is not to invade, just to bomb the shit out of the Baathist infrastructure of terror and oppression - let the locals fill the power vacuum.
The Baathist infrastructure is in Damascus, a city of 2.4 million people. Who have not risen up or protested in large numbers, as of yet.
posted by empath at 6:20 AM on August 31, 2011
The Baathist infrastructure is in Damascus, a city of 2.4 million people. Who have not risen up or protested in large numbers, as of yet.
posted by empath at 6:20 AM on August 31, 2011
Because they are scared of the overbearing police state that is sitting on them. I bet with a nice juicy dose of bombing people will stand up pretty quick.
(and hey, I know it isn't going to happen, but the US action in Libya is one of the very very few cases when it feels to me like the US and the West actually did something good with their armed forces. I vote for more bombing of oppressive dictators and their control structures, everywhere)
posted by Meatbomb at 6:23 AM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]
(and hey, I know it isn't going to happen, but the US action in Libya is one of the very very few cases when it feels to me like the US and the West actually did something good with their armed forces. I vote for more bombing of oppressive dictators and their control structures, everywhere)
posted by Meatbomb at 6:23 AM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]
When a city of 2.4 million people is being bombed by a foreign country, 'protesting against oppression' probably will take a distant second in priorities after 'finding shelter'.
posted by empath at 6:24 AM on August 31, 2011
posted by empath at 6:24 AM on August 31, 2011
It's kind of depressing to find out how many people opposed the Iraq War just because they hated Bush rather than because of any kind of principles.
posted by empath at 6:27 AM on August 31, 2011 [7 favorites]
posted by empath at 6:27 AM on August 31, 2011 [7 favorites]
Meatbomb, empath's insults aside, you do seem to have changed position on bombing dictators over the years. Care to clarify?
posted by mediareport at 6:38 AM on August 31, 2011
posted by mediareport at 6:38 AM on August 31, 2011
It's a good thing the US has a naval base in Bahrain, it would be easy to insert some Navy SEAL teams to take out the dictator and his clan after they crushed peaceful protests with military force and police brutality....
oh wait.
oh wait.
Bahrain and the Arab Spring: time for some realismposted by ennui.bz at 6:42 AM on August 31, 2011
For far too long it has been fashionable to downgrade the merits of stability in the Arab world, writes Peter Pearson.
I don't think downtown Damascus is the right place to do the main bombing. The people in the outlying towns and cities would love some close air support, and easier to avoid collateral damage. Let's see how much the citizens of Damascus love Assad when he is nothing more than the mayor of the city.
empath: I think the Libya model would have worked in Iraq too, of course then the US wouldn't be able to control everything. And I am just one guy, not a lot of people...
mediareport: don't really want to make this a referendum on me, but - not a fan at all of the US empire, very against invading foreign countries, but providing the muscle that allows people to topple dictators sounds like on balance a good thing.
And no shit, Bahrain obviously shows the hypocrisy in the US stance.
posted by Meatbomb at 6:48 AM on August 31, 2011
empath: I think the Libya model would have worked in Iraq too, of course then the US wouldn't be able to control everything. And I am just one guy, not a lot of people...
mediareport: don't really want to make this a referendum on me, but - not a fan at all of the US empire, very against invading foreign countries, but providing the muscle that allows people to topple dictators sounds like on balance a good thing.
And no shit, Bahrain obviously shows the hypocrisy in the US stance.
posted by Meatbomb at 6:48 AM on August 31, 2011
I vote for more bombing of oppressive dictators and their control structures, everywhere
posted by Meatbomb at 9:23 AM on August 31 [1 favorite +] [!]
So you'll be supporting President Perry's air campaign against Hugo Chavez?
And no shit, Bahrain obviously shows the hypocrisy in the US stance.
There isn't any hypocrisy in the US stance: we don't bomb people because they are oppressive dictators or violate human rights, we bomb them when we decide it's in our best interest. We do however sell our little wars to the certain voting blocks by extolling the human rights benefits of bombing. Other voting blocks we sell the war by extolling the patriotic virtues of bombing, the glory of war itself etc.
posted by ennui.bz at 6:58 AM on August 31, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by Meatbomb at 9:23 AM on August 31 [1 favorite +] [!]
So you'll be supporting President Perry's air campaign against Hugo Chavez?
And no shit, Bahrain obviously shows the hypocrisy in the US stance.
There isn't any hypocrisy in the US stance: we don't bomb people because they are oppressive dictators or violate human rights, we bomb them when we decide it's in our best interest. We do however sell our little wars to the certain voting blocks by extolling the human rights benefits of bombing. Other voting blocks we sell the war by extolling the patriotic virtues of bombing, the glory of war itself etc.
posted by ennui.bz at 6:58 AM on August 31, 2011 [2 favorites]
When a city of 2.4 million people is being bombed by a foreign country, 'protesting against oppression' probably will take a distant second in priorities after 'finding shelter'.
Quite.
Also, one of the reasons the Syrian opposition has gained the enormous moral stature it now has is that Syrians who are out on the streets simply don't believe the regime's propaganda about the opposition's supposed foreign puppet-masters. If foreign bombs started dropping in support of the opposition, it would create an awkward problem: it might weaken the regime (though a decade of bombing and sanctions didn't in Iraq), but it would also strengthen the regime's claims about foreign interference.
Bashar's got to go, and the Ba'thi security apparatus has REALLY got to go. But it's not a simple question of 'bombs will make it better'. For every innocent person killed as, ahem, collateral damage, the opposition's hold on the moral high ground would weaken a little. Maintaining that hold--which is strengthened by evidence like the report we're discussing here--is a political imperative. But the political effect of foreign bombing would be hard to predict. It might well polarize the situation, increasing support for the regime among the elements most hostile to foreign meddling. It might also push people--especially people who don't support the regime but aren't yet on the streets demonstrating against it--AWAY from the opposition. Ordinary Syrians have plenty of reason to be fearful of foreign bombing and its effects: after the recent history of their near neighbours, they're very aware (far more aware than ordinary Americans or Europeans) that there's no such thing as a surgical strike. Syrians have been living with hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees since 2003 (and before), and briefly had another 600,000 Lebanese refugees flood the country in summer 2006. They've viewed foreign bombs as the cause of that misery. Persuading them that this time the bombs are nice, friendly, GOOD bombs won't be easy.
Bombs are not a simple solution to complex political problems. And I don't think Amnesty is hoping that Western governments will use this report to justify dropping good bombs on bad people.
posted by lapsangsouchong at 7:13 AM on August 31, 2011 [6 favorites]
Quite.
Also, one of the reasons the Syrian opposition has gained the enormous moral stature it now has is that Syrians who are out on the streets simply don't believe the regime's propaganda about the opposition's supposed foreign puppet-masters. If foreign bombs started dropping in support of the opposition, it would create an awkward problem: it might weaken the regime (though a decade of bombing and sanctions didn't in Iraq), but it would also strengthen the regime's claims about foreign interference.
Bashar's got to go, and the Ba'thi security apparatus has REALLY got to go. But it's not a simple question of 'bombs will make it better'. For every innocent person killed as, ahem, collateral damage, the opposition's hold on the moral high ground would weaken a little. Maintaining that hold--which is strengthened by evidence like the report we're discussing here--is a political imperative. But the political effect of foreign bombing would be hard to predict. It might well polarize the situation, increasing support for the regime among the elements most hostile to foreign meddling. It might also push people--especially people who don't support the regime but aren't yet on the streets demonstrating against it--AWAY from the opposition. Ordinary Syrians have plenty of reason to be fearful of foreign bombing and its effects: after the recent history of their near neighbours, they're very aware (far more aware than ordinary Americans or Europeans) that there's no such thing as a surgical strike. Syrians have been living with hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees since 2003 (and before), and briefly had another 600,000 Lebanese refugees flood the country in summer 2006. They've viewed foreign bombs as the cause of that misery. Persuading them that this time the bombs are nice, friendly, GOOD bombs won't be easy.
Bombs are not a simple solution to complex political problems. And I don't think Amnesty is hoping that Western governments will use this report to justify dropping good bombs on bad people.
posted by lapsangsouchong at 7:13 AM on August 31, 2011 [6 favorites]
Also, I see no evidence that the opposition is actually losing in Syria. They seem to be making steady progress, and non-violently.
posted by empath at 7:17 AM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by empath at 7:17 AM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]
C'mon. Everyone sing along. "Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb Syria."
It seems to me that the bomb-bomb-Syria folks in this thread are ignoring the fact that destroying Iran has always been the number one agenda of the neocons. The neutering of Iraq was THE pre-condition for taking on Iran. Establishing massive American military bases in Afghanistan was another. Syria is the next step.
So in my view this is less about Syria than it is about Syria's friend Iran and if anyone thinks a few bombs in Damascus won't end in a bloody, brutal war with Iran, I think they would be naïve.
It also seems clear that the neo-con agenda is not to liberate people from dictators, but to impose a new colonial power structure on the region. Some dictators stand in the way - whereas other dictators in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are on the "right side" and they get to stay.
posted by three blind mice at 8:00 AM on August 31, 2011 [2 favorites]
It seems to me that the bomb-bomb-Syria folks in this thread are ignoring the fact that destroying Iran has always been the number one agenda of the neocons. The neutering of Iraq was THE pre-condition for taking on Iran. Establishing massive American military bases in Afghanistan was another. Syria is the next step.
So in my view this is less about Syria than it is about Syria's friend Iran and if anyone thinks a few bombs in Damascus won't end in a bloody, brutal war with Iran, I think they would be naïve.
It also seems clear that the neo-con agenda is not to liberate people from dictators, but to impose a new colonial power structure on the region. Some dictators stand in the way - whereas other dictators in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are on the "right side" and they get to stay.
posted by three blind mice at 8:00 AM on August 31, 2011 [2 favorites]
Has oil been found in Syria yet or is a pipeline going through its borders?
posted by infini at 8:06 AM on August 31, 2011
posted by infini at 8:06 AM on August 31, 2011
It's kind of depressing to find out how many people opposed [insert Bush policy here] just because they hated Bush rather than because of any kind of principles.
I've found it bracing, actually.
It has also lessened my regret over the country's irreversible decline into fascism. I see now that nearly everyone will be getting the government they deserve.
posted by Trurl at 8:11 AM on August 31, 2011
I've found it bracing, actually.
It has also lessened my regret over the country's irreversible decline into fascism. I see now that nearly everyone will be getting the government they deserve.
posted by Trurl at 8:11 AM on August 31, 2011
Empath - the idea is not to invade, just to bomb the shit out of the Baathist infrastructure of terror and oppression - let the locals fill the power vacuum.
--Meatbomb
That sounds familiar. I think they called it Shock and Awe. Any plans for what happens then?
We don't need no stinking plans! Things will just magically turn out well after we get rid of the bad guy--just like Iraq!
It is amazing how soon we forget.
posted by eye of newt at 8:43 AM on August 31, 2011
--Meatbomb
That sounds familiar. I think they called it Shock and Awe. Any plans for what happens then?
We don't need no stinking plans! Things will just magically turn out well after we get rid of the bad guy--just like Iraq!
It is amazing how soon we forget.
posted by eye of newt at 8:43 AM on August 31, 2011
It goes against my nature, but at this point I would cheer if President Obama sent just one damn cruise missile precisely target to go up Assad's ass.
posted by spitbull at 9:12 AM on August 31, 2011
posted by spitbull at 9:12 AM on August 31, 2011
That sounds familiar. I think they called it Shock and Awe. Any plans for what happens then?
At a guess? If the state collapses into anarchy instead of an ordered transition to democracy -- a couple of decades of sectarian warfare and terrorism as the Allawites, Kurds, Sunni and Shia go after each other and fight over control of resources and land. If we're lucky, Israel and Turkey won't get involved. If we're unlucky--a regional war involving Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Israel. Something that was never on the cards with the Libya intervention. The worst thing that was ever going to happen in Libya was a drawn out stalemate. The worst thing that could happen with a Syrian intervention is almost unimaginably bad.
posted by empath at 9:14 AM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]
At a guess? If the state collapses into anarchy instead of an ordered transition to democracy -- a couple of decades of sectarian warfare and terrorism as the Allawites, Kurds, Sunni and Shia go after each other and fight over control of resources and land. If we're lucky, Israel and Turkey won't get involved. If we're unlucky--a regional war involving Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Israel. Something that was never on the cards with the Libya intervention. The worst thing that was ever going to happen in Libya was a drawn out stalemate. The worst thing that could happen with a Syrian intervention is almost unimaginably bad.
posted by empath at 9:14 AM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]
Syrian forces beat up political cartoonist Ali Ferzat: Ferzat, who had become increasingly critical of Bashar al-Assad's regime, found bleeding at side of Damascus road
Assad's Cartoonish Crackdown: Ali Farzat, one of the Arab world's most famous satirists, was assaulted on the streets of Damascus today. Here are some of the drawings that landed him in the hospital.
posted by homunculus at 9:14 AM on August 31, 2011
Assad's Cartoonish Crackdown: Ali Farzat, one of the Arab world's most famous satirists, was assaulted on the streets of Damascus today. Here are some of the drawings that landed him in the hospital.
posted by homunculus at 9:14 AM on August 31, 2011
I'd be in favor of a Syrian intervention under the following conditions:
1) Mass Syrian army defections
2) There is a unified opposition government or organization who is committed to a non-sectarian democracy
3) The opposition has control over sizable chunk of territory and at least one city.
4) There is a refugee crisis
5) The opposition formally asks for an intervention.
6) The president gets congressional approval in advance.
7) The UN Security Council authorizes it.
8) There is danger of the conflict spilling over to neighboring allies (Turkey, Iraq, Israel) if we don't act.
Actually "in favor of" puts it a bit strongly. I wouldn't be strenuously opposed to it, but I would still probably think it was a bad idea to commit US troops.
posted by empath at 9:21 AM on August 31, 2011 [3 favorites]
1) Mass Syrian army defections
2) There is a unified opposition government or organization who is committed to a non-sectarian democracy
3) The opposition has control over sizable chunk of territory and at least one city.
4) There is a refugee crisis
5) The opposition formally asks for an intervention.
6) The president gets congressional approval in advance.
7) The UN Security Council authorizes it.
8) There is danger of the conflict spilling over to neighboring allies (Turkey, Iraq, Israel) if we don't act.
Actually "in favor of" puts it a bit strongly. I wouldn't be strenuously opposed to it, but I would still probably think it was a bad idea to commit US troops.
posted by empath at 9:21 AM on August 31, 2011 [3 favorites]
Fall of Tripoli Echoes Loudly in Damascus
posted by homunculus at 9:22 AM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 9:22 AM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]
If the Arab Spring Turns Ugly: The revolutions of hope could give way to a cascade of sectarian conflicts.
posted by homunculus at 9:23 AM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 9:23 AM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]
1) Mass Syrian army defections
Defections have been increasing, apparently, but the military is trying to stamp them out: Syria forces surround town after 'defections'
posted by homunculus at 9:45 AM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]
Defections have been increasing, apparently, but the military is trying to stamp them out: Syria forces surround town after 'defections'
posted by homunculus at 9:45 AM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]
Yep, and good for them. I hope more of them defect, or at the very least refuse to kill any more innocent people.
posted by empath at 9:50 AM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by empath at 9:50 AM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]
No US intervention is needed, Assad is doing just fine at hastening his demise.
posted by clavdivs at 10:32 AM on August 31, 2011
posted by clavdivs at 10:32 AM on August 31, 2011
Manipulating social networks: In Syria and Iran, among other places, social media users are lulled into a dangerously false sense of security.
posted by homunculus at 10:37 AM on August 31, 2011
posted by homunculus at 10:37 AM on August 31, 2011
Secret files: US officials aided Gaddafi. Al Jazeera uncovers evidence that influential Americans tried to help the now-deposed Libyan leader cling to power.
posted by homunculus at 10:58 AM on August 31, 2011
posted by homunculus at 10:58 AM on August 31, 2011
"Amnesty International is not aware of any independent investigation having been carried out into the causes of death in any of the cases in the report."
Ah, the fog of (impending) war
posted by simms2k at 11:56 AM on August 31, 2011
Ah, the fog of (impending) war
posted by simms2k at 11:56 AM on August 31, 2011
Bombs are not a simple solution to complex political problems.
Bombs can be (are almost always) a complicated solution to a rogue political regime that is killing its own people. That said, we should have bombed the living crap out of North Korea in the 50's, and pushed back against the Chinese when we had the chance - we didn't. Now look what we're dealing with, and what the North Korean people have to live with.
Someone above mentioned a targeted effort (missile) directed at Assad. Maybe that would work, maybe it wouldn't. That said, something has got to be done. The guy is a maniacal killer. How can civilized nations stand by and watch entire populations ruined by their so-called "leaders". Someone HAS to take that SOB out - kill him, and kill his inner circle - every one of them. The sooner, the better.
I still don't understand the international agreements forbidding assassination of foreign leaders. There are countries like China and Russia that are too powerful for targeted assassination to work. However, when countries like Burma, Iraq, N. Korea (years ago), Zimbabwe, Sudan, Chile, etc. etc. have leaders that kill their own people - or entire ethnic segments (e.g. Kurds in Iraq) - and those states are small enough to make severe, immediate impact via assassination, something should be done. Just look at the mess in Zimbabwe, with Mugabe. He's a pure nutcase that has destroyed an entire country, and he's still alive and well. This is indirect cruelty permitted via passive non-resistance of the West to pure evil. I'm not just talking about America; I'm talking about the weak-kneed West that lets these scenarios breed, and *always* pays in the end with unexpected blowback. When will we learn?
About Russia and China: they are soul-and-people-killing nations, run by despots of the highest order. In fact, Putin and the Chinese leadership are the worst type of scum. We have to live with them because we helped them get where they are, and they would not tolerate that kind of thing. But Zimbabwe? Sudan? Syria? Chile?
Yes, there would be repercussions and hand-wringing coming from those (China, Russia) that support these despicable regimes, but what are they going to do? They're not going to send missiles flying at the West, because that's assured mutual destruction.
Someone needs to evaporate Assad and his inner circle; it can't happen soon enough. Given the choke-hold he has on a pretty sophisticated security apparatus, his reign of terror will never be brought down by his people, alone. They need help. Kill the bastard.
posted by Vibrissae at 12:13 PM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]
Bombs can be (are almost always) a complicated solution to a rogue political regime that is killing its own people. That said, we should have bombed the living crap out of North Korea in the 50's, and pushed back against the Chinese when we had the chance - we didn't. Now look what we're dealing with, and what the North Korean people have to live with.
Someone above mentioned a targeted effort (missile) directed at Assad. Maybe that would work, maybe it wouldn't. That said, something has got to be done. The guy is a maniacal killer. How can civilized nations stand by and watch entire populations ruined by their so-called "leaders". Someone HAS to take that SOB out - kill him, and kill his inner circle - every one of them. The sooner, the better.
I still don't understand the international agreements forbidding assassination of foreign leaders. There are countries like China and Russia that are too powerful for targeted assassination to work. However, when countries like Burma, Iraq, N. Korea (years ago), Zimbabwe, Sudan, Chile, etc. etc. have leaders that kill their own people - or entire ethnic segments (e.g. Kurds in Iraq) - and those states are small enough to make severe, immediate impact via assassination, something should be done. Just look at the mess in Zimbabwe, with Mugabe. He's a pure nutcase that has destroyed an entire country, and he's still alive and well. This is indirect cruelty permitted via passive non-resistance of the West to pure evil. I'm not just talking about America; I'm talking about the weak-kneed West that lets these scenarios breed, and *always* pays in the end with unexpected blowback. When will we learn?
About Russia and China: they are soul-and-people-killing nations, run by despots of the highest order. In fact, Putin and the Chinese leadership are the worst type of scum. We have to live with them because we helped them get where they are, and they would not tolerate that kind of thing. But Zimbabwe? Sudan? Syria? Chile?
Yes, there would be repercussions and hand-wringing coming from those (China, Russia) that support these despicable regimes, but what are they going to do? They're not going to send missiles flying at the West, because that's assured mutual destruction.
Someone needs to evaporate Assad and his inner circle; it can't happen soon enough. Given the choke-hold he has on a pretty sophisticated security apparatus, his reign of terror will never be brought down by his people, alone. They need help. Kill the bastard.
posted by Vibrissae at 12:13 PM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]
I still don't understand the international agreements forbidding assassination of foreign leaders.
Then you should really probably not talk about foreign policy.
posted by empath at 12:18 PM on August 31, 2011
Then you should really probably not talk about foreign policy.
posted by empath at 12:18 PM on August 31, 2011
Ali Ferzat's work is powerful (from what little I've seen) and I regret that I learned of him because of these events and not through any positive circumstances. It's also depressing to think that he was probably only "given a warning" because he is famous, and most Syrians don't have even that to protect them.
posted by tykky at 12:25 PM on August 31, 2011
posted by tykky at 12:25 PM on August 31, 2011
Among the many problems with assassinating foreign dictators is that it stands a very good chance of not actually fixing the problem. I've heard accusations that the real power behind the throne of most of the countries on your list of targets is the military, and that if Mugabe or Kim Jong-Il suddenly disappeared, the generals would find someone to raise on their shields and everything would continue just as before. Hell, Burma is just a junta, no figurehead needed. In the specific example of Syria, considering that Assad is a doctor by trade and was thrust into the role of heir apparent relatively late in his life, I'm inclined to believe that it's really the Syrian military calling the shots here.
I guess you could run a campaign of assassination against the large, presumably geographically dispersed group of military leaders in Syria, but that starts to become indistinguishable from any other form of war.
posted by Copronymus at 12:35 PM on August 31, 2011
I guess you could run a campaign of assassination against the large, presumably geographically dispersed group of military leaders in Syria, but that starts to become indistinguishable from any other form of war.
posted by Copronymus at 12:35 PM on August 31, 2011
In the specific example of Syria, considering that Assad is a doctor by trade and was thrust into the role of heir apparent relatively late in his life, I'm inclined to believe that it's really the Syrian military calling the shots here.
half of his family run the military, the other half, the security services.
It's a family affair. They even have a Mr. French.
posted by clavdivs at 12:42 PM on August 31, 2011
half of his family run the military, the other half, the security services.
It's a family affair. They even have a Mr. French.
posted by clavdivs at 12:42 PM on August 31, 2011
I still don't understand the international agreements forbidding assassination of foreign leaders.
Then you should really probably not talk about foreign policy.
Oh, right, you mean the foreign policies - and the wankers who supported them - that brought us Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pinochet, Milosevic, Ceausescu, Mugabe, Suharto, Amin, etc. etc. The "foreign policies" that have led to one war after another, and made this good earth a living cauldron of hell for the poor and disenfranchised?
The one thing that always gets me is the shucking and jiving that "foreign policy experts" do when problems arise. There are endless meetings, public appearances accompanied by expressions of righteous anger; conferences; public denunciations; blockades; etc. etc. - and it ends up taking forever, while entire populations wither and die and become abused, because "foreign policy experts" are trying to coy their way into "optimal advantage". And where has that taken us? It's taken us to a place where petty dictators can rape entire regions, spread mayhem, and kill and torture their own people while "foreign policy experts" debate what to do. Foreign policy is, for the most part, as we know it, effete, ineffective, and mostly supportive of those capital interests that *purchase* power, whether by the ballot box, or by force.
Killing one's own people is wrong. Most governments - populated as they are by those who come from privilege - have a propensity to debate instead of act. That's one of the big reasons we have a world filled with scumbag dictators. There are other reasons, but "foreign policy experts" are way up high on the list of those who have helped our world fuck itself.
When someone is killing thousands of people, s/he should be stopped cold *before* they can accrue more power. We experienced Hitler and the Soviets and mad dog Mao all because the West didn't act soon enough; instead, it deliberated.
I don't know that there will ever be a way to get a large group of nations agreeing that small-time nutcases like Mugabwe should be offed before they get a head of steam; the variables that I speak of above (mostly driven by capital preservation interests, and not morality) are so convoluted and complex that it begs the question "how do we agree on even the smallest matters?"
In sum, it infuriates me to see any one person cause so much harm. It appals me that civilized societies have to sit by and watch innocents be killed in the most wanton and heartless of ways, while the people who carry out these atrocities all-to-often ride out their lives in luxury - even after they've been deposed.
posted by Vibrissae at 1:29 PM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]
Then you should really probably not talk about foreign policy.
Oh, right, you mean the foreign policies - and the wankers who supported them - that brought us Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pinochet, Milosevic, Ceausescu, Mugabe, Suharto, Amin, etc. etc. The "foreign policies" that have led to one war after another, and made this good earth a living cauldron of hell for the poor and disenfranchised?
The one thing that always gets me is the shucking and jiving that "foreign policy experts" do when problems arise. There are endless meetings, public appearances accompanied by expressions of righteous anger; conferences; public denunciations; blockades; etc. etc. - and it ends up taking forever, while entire populations wither and die and become abused, because "foreign policy experts" are trying to coy their way into "optimal advantage". And where has that taken us? It's taken us to a place where petty dictators can rape entire regions, spread mayhem, and kill and torture their own people while "foreign policy experts" debate what to do. Foreign policy is, for the most part, as we know it, effete, ineffective, and mostly supportive of those capital interests that *purchase* power, whether by the ballot box, or by force.
Killing one's own people is wrong. Most governments - populated as they are by those who come from privilege - have a propensity to debate instead of act. That's one of the big reasons we have a world filled with scumbag dictators. There are other reasons, but "foreign policy experts" are way up high on the list of those who have helped our world fuck itself.
When someone is killing thousands of people, s/he should be stopped cold *before* they can accrue more power. We experienced Hitler and the Soviets and mad dog Mao all because the West didn't act soon enough; instead, it deliberated.
I don't know that there will ever be a way to get a large group of nations agreeing that small-time nutcases like Mugabwe should be offed before they get a head of steam; the variables that I speak of above (mostly driven by capital preservation interests, and not morality) are so convoluted and complex that it begs the question "how do we agree on even the smallest matters?"
In sum, it infuriates me to see any one person cause so much harm. It appals me that civilized societies have to sit by and watch innocents be killed in the most wanton and heartless of ways, while the people who carry out these atrocities all-to-often ride out their lives in luxury - even after they've been deposed.
posted by Vibrissae at 1:29 PM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]
A man purporting to be the top legal official in the central Syrian city of Hama has said he has resigned after witnessing crimes against humanity.
Syria: Violence in the dark
Tales of imprisonment and torture by state security forces paint a picture of a regime in panic.
Robert Fisk: Ghosts from the past: Syria's 30 years of fear
A grim report sheds light on the thousands of 'disappearances' during Hafez al-Assad's 30-year rule
posted by adamvasco at 2:32 PM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]
Syria: Violence in the dark
Tales of imprisonment and torture by state security forces paint a picture of a regime in panic.
Robert Fisk: Ghosts from the past: Syria's 30 years of fear
A grim report sheds light on the thousands of 'disappearances' during Hafez al-Assad's 30-year rule
posted by adamvasco at 2:32 PM on August 31, 2011 [1 favorite]
It appals me that civilized societies have to sit by and watch innocents be killed in the most wanton and heartless of ways, while the people who carry out these atrocities all-to-often ride out their lives in luxury - even after they've been deposed.
Dick Cheney's got a book out, I hear.
posted by Trurl at 5:47 PM on August 31, 2011
Dick Cheney's got a book out, I hear.
posted by Trurl at 5:47 PM on August 31, 2011
Vibrassae: Name a single example where assassinating a leader has accomplished anything?
I can name one counter exanple - WWII.
And lots of dead American presidents.
posted by empath at 9:02 PM on August 31, 2011
I can name one counter exanple - WWII.
And lots of dead American presidents.
posted by empath at 9:02 PM on August 31, 2011
Also, my grandfather was part of Phoenix Program in Vietnam. Have you heard of it? They did assassinations of vietnamese political leaders. The man is nearly 80 years old now and he was near tears telling me about the guilt he felt about what he was involved with, even though he never pulled the trigger.
That's the kind of shit that happens when you put assassinations on the table.
posted by empath at 9:04 PM on August 31, 2011
That's the kind of shit that happens when you put assassinations on the table.
posted by empath at 9:04 PM on August 31, 2011
In sum, it infuriates me to see any one person cause so much harm.
IF you think Assad is the only reason that people are being killed in Syria, you're hopelessly naive.
posted by empath at 9:05 PM on August 31, 2011
IF you think Assad is the only reason that people are being killed in Syria, you're hopelessly naive.
posted by empath at 9:05 PM on August 31, 2011
In further news, Iran is sending a warship and a sub into the Red Sea. This is interesting because the Red Sea leads into the Gulf of Aden, which connects to the Suez Canal, which leads to the Mediterranean. The Red Sea is a long way away from Iran, but it's the first place you would send ships if you wanted to bring them to the coast of Syria.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:23 PM on August 31, 2011
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:23 PM on August 31, 2011
Name a single example where assassinating a leader has accomplished anything?
I can name one counter exanple - WWII.
And lots of dead American presidents.
Bin Ladin - and, had Clinton not missed just before he left office, I'll bet $$$ that we wouldn't have had a tragedy like 9/11. Convince me that Bin Ladin's assassination was not a good thing.
However, I'm not aware of assassinations of small state rogue leaders by more developed nations, because of the strictures against them. I don't consider internal assassinations in my argument (like the Kennedy assassination). I'm calling for more scrutiny of small state rogue leaders like the ones I've pointed out, above - Saddam, Mugabwe, Assad, etc. *before* they accumulate too much power, and only *after* they have shown that they are willing to commit genocide.
I wish someone could have gotten to Milocevic (sp?) during the Balkan wars. The Sudanese leaders need to go. What good has it done keeping them alive; that's the corrolary that I want you to address. It's easy to spout policy analysis hypothetical about what we shouldn't do, because "maybe" it wouldn't work. btw, I'm also not arguing for overt assassination that is forewarned. I'm talking about covert operations that find a way to the evil leader and if possible his/her inner circle. Let that happen 6-7 times to these killer/leaders, and then watch them start to think twice before causing national and regional mayhem.
Also, about Assad; it's not just Assad, but Assad is more than just the figurehead in Syria; his family and power circle are deeply embedded in all of this. Don't even think about trying to claim that if Assad and 15-20 of his inner circle were taken out that it wouldn't have a dramatic mobilizing impact on the Syrian Spring. I don't know what the outcome would be from that, because the security forces might become even more vicious. That said, Syria is where it is now because we have, over decades, permitted the Assad family to kill their own people and build a huge internal security apparatus that is almost impossible to penetrate. We have to get to these rogue leaders *before* they are able to build that kind of power base - and I'm not just talking about the US. It would have to be a cooperative, covert effort.
posted by Vibrissae at 1:31 AM on September 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
I can name one counter exanple - WWII.
And lots of dead American presidents.
Bin Ladin - and, had Clinton not missed just before he left office, I'll bet $$$ that we wouldn't have had a tragedy like 9/11. Convince me that Bin Ladin's assassination was not a good thing.
However, I'm not aware of assassinations of small state rogue leaders by more developed nations, because of the strictures against them. I don't consider internal assassinations in my argument (like the Kennedy assassination). I'm calling for more scrutiny of small state rogue leaders like the ones I've pointed out, above - Saddam, Mugabwe, Assad, etc. *before* they accumulate too much power, and only *after* they have shown that they are willing to commit genocide.
I wish someone could have gotten to Milocevic (sp?) during the Balkan wars. The Sudanese leaders need to go. What good has it done keeping them alive; that's the corrolary that I want you to address. It's easy to spout policy analysis hypothetical about what we shouldn't do, because "maybe" it wouldn't work. btw, I'm also not arguing for overt assassination that is forewarned. I'm talking about covert operations that find a way to the evil leader and if possible his/her inner circle. Let that happen 6-7 times to these killer/leaders, and then watch them start to think twice before causing national and regional mayhem.
Also, about Assad; it's not just Assad, but Assad is more than just the figurehead in Syria; his family and power circle are deeply embedded in all of this. Don't even think about trying to claim that if Assad and 15-20 of his inner circle were taken out that it wouldn't have a dramatic mobilizing impact on the Syrian Spring. I don't know what the outcome would be from that, because the security forces might become even more vicious. That said, Syria is where it is now because we have, over decades, permitted the Assad family to kill their own people and build a huge internal security apparatus that is almost impossible to penetrate. We have to get to these rogue leaders *before* they are able to build that kind of power base - and I'm not just talking about the US. It would have to be a cooperative, covert effort.
posted by Vibrissae at 1:31 AM on September 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
Bin Ladin - and, had Clinton not missed just before he left office, I'll bet $$$ that we wouldn't have had a tragedy like 9/11. Convince me that Bin Ladin's assassination was not a good thing.
Did Al Queda fold up? Agree to stop killing people?
Don't even think about trying to claim that if Assad and 15-20 of his inner circle were taken out that it wouldn't have a dramatic mobilizing impact on the Syrian Spring.
What do you think the world and Syrian reaction would be if the US massacred 20 of their political leaders?
How would the US have reacted if the Iraqi's had assassinated Bush, Cheney, Condaleeza Rice and Don Rumsfeld? They're likely guilty of war crimes, and it was well known that they were at the time.
What's your current hit-list right now? And where does it stop? And what justifies extra-judicial murder to you?
posted by empath at 5:44 AM on September 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
Did Al Queda fold up? Agree to stop killing people?
Don't even think about trying to claim that if Assad and 15-20 of his inner circle were taken out that it wouldn't have a dramatic mobilizing impact on the Syrian Spring.
What do you think the world and Syrian reaction would be if the US massacred 20 of their political leaders?
How would the US have reacted if the Iraqi's had assassinated Bush, Cheney, Condaleeza Rice and Don Rumsfeld? They're likely guilty of war crimes, and it was well known that they were at the time.
What's your current hit-list right now? And where does it stop? And what justifies extra-judicial murder to you?
posted by empath at 5:44 AM on September 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
Yours is the logic of Assad, who assassinates his enemies. Every one of those killings that you're decrying now, is a political assassination, using the same logic that you are -- if only I could kill these trouble makers, all of my problems would go away.
posted by empath at 5:47 AM on September 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by empath at 5:47 AM on September 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
Syrian soldiers executed for refusing to target activists: Protesters claim deaths happened at Damascus barracks as analysts report increasing number of troop defections
posted by homunculus at 6:51 PM on September 9, 2011
posted by homunculus at 6:51 PM on September 9, 2011
Protesters call for international help: Syrian protesters have taken to the streets in their thousands following Friday prayers, calling for international protection from the security forces.
posted by homunculus at 6:54 PM on September 9, 2011
posted by homunculus at 6:54 PM on September 9, 2011
Ambassadors to Syria unite in public solidarity at vigil for murdered activist: Prominent human rights activist and non-violent protester is believed to have been tortured and killed by security forces
Ambassadors as human shields in Syrian revolt: The appearance of British and other western envoys at an activist's wake signals an upping of stakes in the stand-off with Damascus
posted by homunculus at 1:03 AM on September 15, 2011 [1 favorite]
Ambassadors as human shields in Syrian revolt: The appearance of British and other western envoys at an activist's wake signals an upping of stakes in the stand-off with Damascus
posted by homunculus at 1:03 AM on September 15, 2011 [1 favorite]
Syria’s Protesters, Long Mostly Peaceful, Starting to Resort to Violence
posted by metaplectic at 10:51 PM on September 16, 2011
posted by metaplectic at 10:51 PM on September 16, 2011
Fears are mounting that Syria may be on the verge of civil war as reports emerged yesterday that hundreds of army deserters were battling Bashar al-Assad's forces in the first major confrontation against the regime.
Activists said the regime was targeting academics.
posted by adamvasco at 12:10 AM on September 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
Activists said the regime was targeting academics.
posted by adamvasco at 12:10 AM on September 29, 2011 [1 favorite]
« Older Australia's High Court Rules The "Malaysian... | F**k Statistics Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Won't somebody 'shop together a pic of Assad and an old Russian nuke, so we can go get this guy already?
yeah, I know, it's way more complicated than that. but the screaming injustice and tragedy makes everything go red and flashy for me...
posted by Vetinari at 3:54 AM on August 31, 2011