dan maertens's List: Sudeck

• The choice cannot be between either a military intervention on the Iraqi model, or a cynical neutral attitude.
• How can we describe what is going in Syria: is it a revolution or a civil war? This is not a question about appropriate terminology, this is a moral question with consequences. If it is a revolution, we have to support it. If it is a civil war, we have to try to stop it proceeding any further.
• First, the Syrian revolution is part of the Arab Spring. The revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and Syria have the same aims, to end dictatorship and build a democratic state that will respect human rights. Although we have to pay attention to the differences between these revolutions, also we have to keep in mind the principal motivation that unifies them. Longing for freedom, equality, and dream to build a just state for everyone is the reason why the Arabs rebel. If you support these aims, you support the Arab spring. If you don’t, then you must be backing the dictators. There is no middle ground.
• Second, when we describe what is going on as a civil war, we say that this is an equal battle. We say that the peaceful protesters are similar to those who shoot them. We say that the thousands who were tortured are equal to those who torture them. We say that the one million displaced people are equal to those who force them to leave their homes. We say that the regime who refused elections for forty years is equal to those who ask for free elections. We say that the oppressors are equal to the oppressed. This is a moral principle: it is our duty as moral agents to point at the criminals, and to sympathize with the victims. It is immoral to ignore the suffering of the Syrian people, and to ask them to forget all this. It is immoral to describe what is going on as a civil war, because this description betrays our mutual moral understanding of the world.
• Third, somebody might ask, what if the revolutionaries are committing the same crimes as the regime? We don’t want to ignore this possibility. But we want to clarify the following. It is the regime that prevents the media from covering what is going on, and it is the revolutionaries who ask, and try to help, the media to cover what is going on. This is a crucial point. We have to ask why. It is clear enough that the regime wants to hide its crimes, and that the revolutionaries want to show the truth. It is immoral to describe what is going in Syria as a civil war, while one side is hiding the facts, and the other side is trying to spread it. It is a moral duty to support those who want the facts to be discussed and exposed.
• Finally, it is important to keep in mind that this is a revolution, as long as it represents the moral values of the oppressed. As long as the revolution is a picture of the motivation of the Arab Spring. As long as it is not committed to sectarianism, to oppression and to despotism. As long as it is the opposite of what the regime is. And it is. It is the movement of millions of Syrians who have been under fire for a year and a half. Those Syrians are longing for freedom, and it is immoral to describe their revolution as a civil war. However, we can’t guarantee the future, we can’t guarantee that things might not turn out to be a bloody civil war. No one can do that. But we can guarantee this: as long as we keep our moral principles alive and discuss what is going on in Syria in the light of these principles, we can affect, and contribute to what is going in Syria.

4 more annotations...

• Despite its previous statements, the Syrian government refrained from condemning the U.S. attacks on Tuesday

• This time, a two-hour helicopter flight takes me through central Syria over areas controlled by the jihadists: "Islamic State" (IS), al-Nusra and al Qaeda. We fly very low, sometimes only 20 meters (66 feet) above the ground, as we see on the aircraft flight instruments. I feel as though it is even lower: as though we are about to touch the desert at any moment.
• With reconnaissance work, training and technological consulting, they have helped Assad's troops recapture Palmyra from IS. Now  they are clearing mines, the deadly traps left behind everywhere by IS: in walls and ceilings, behind columns and even in the ground under the asphalt. When we arrive, a mine-clearing team consisting of around a dozen people is already there. Centimeter by centimeter, they scan the ground. We are allowed to watch them working as long as necessary. The images are to speak for themselves; they will be seen around the world.
• Qaryatain, which means "two villages," looks like a ghost town today.

• Whether coincidentally or not, aid packages from a Russian military truck have arrived at the market square and are being handed out when we arrive. Around 100 people, mostly men, stand patiently in line. They look exhausted. Russians have already supplied the needy with 15 tons of food, according to their own accounts. "Russia is with you!" says a Russian officer and shows me a bag. "That's what's written on it in both Russian and Arabic. Everyone gets two kilos of rice, two cans of beef, two cans of fish, sardines and two kilos of sugar." Two flags fly over the truck, a Russian one and a Syrian one. The image is symbolic and memorable.

    

    ">
• Night vision devices are used on our flight back to the Russian maximum security unit - in the middle of Syria

3 more annotations...

• And yet, for all these destabilizing moves, Syria was a coherent focal point in a region short on leaders who could deal and deliver. On occasion, even the United States and Israel enjoyed close collaboration with Damascus.

• One reason is superpower politics. Russia and the United States are looking for ways to calm tensions, and diplomats from both countries believe an accord could lead to progress on issues they consider more important, like Ukraine. Another critical factor is exhaustion: Iran and Hezbollah backed the regime for years but, without Russia’s assistance, were unable to help it hold ground, much less win. Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the United States, the main sponsors of the opposition, have pulled back support whenever their proxies have surged, perhaps unsure that they’ll behave responsibly if they win power.

          

    <!--  ======================================================  THIS IS A GENERATED TEMPLATE FILE. DO NOT EDIT.  ======================================================  --> <!-- this file is generated from src/style.css -->   

   
• The ranks of fighters are dwindling, especially on the government side

1 more annotation...

• Paris- Many analysts believe that ISIS’ potentially close defeat in Syria could translate into al Qaeda’s offshoot, al-Nusra Front, taking the battlefield lead once again.

   
• saying that having no Arab or Sunni alternative on the field, may help ISIS maintain its most prominent territory and possibly restore some of the lost land.

• The Syrian analyst added that a grave defeat, especially against ISIS’ de facto capital in Syria, Raqqa, will not lead to the end of extremists in Syria. He went on saying that within the last four bloodied years of conflict, over 280 thousand were killed hence al-Nusra Front was forced to revolt against the organization and become ISIS’ threatening equal and opponent. Not to mention that al-Nusra Front had exploited other Islamist movements, especially Salafis affiliated to the Ahrar al-Sham nationalist movement.

   

• The analyst explained that after the defeat, many ISIS recruits will come to join al-Nusra Front ranks, and the latter will later manipulate the feeling of abandonment northwestern Sunni Syrians experience.

   

• In light of absent reliable peace talks, residents in each of Idlib, western Aleppo and Lattakia do not see any possibility of a political settlement for the five-year total war. The residents are subject to daily Russian and Assad air force bombardment, not to mention, the recurring genocides targeting children and civilians amid utter international disregard.

   

• Feeling abandoned, residents are driven towards extremism, with none but Ahrar al-Sham to play the sole role of local nationalist military force in the area, the Syria expert added.

   

4 more annotations...

• You talk about the dangers of regime change without taking into  consideration the fact that the Syrian revolution is completely  dependent on regime change, and that the overwhelming majority of  Syrians are in favor of regime change, precisely because of the danger  the continued existence of the status quo poses. You only inspect the  merit of regime change, and the Syrian revolution more generally,  through the prism of US interests. The proximity of the US government's  activities--whether real or imagined--define the extent of your interest  in Syria, and inform your horrendous biases. You speak about the  potential disasters of regime change while you mitigate the severity of  the current disaster on Syrian lives brought about by the continued  existence of that very regime. Hundreds of thousands dead, and you want  to talk about "potential disasters?" 
  
• What happened to internationalism? What happened to looking at popular  liberation struggles through the eyes of those who define them? Or are  the only causes worth supporting the secular ones, absent of all the  beardy-weirdy Islamists and "jihadists" you seem to now fear so much? 
  
• Just have a look at who is proudly sharing and endorsing your article on  social media. Every single pro-Assad scumbag is lauding your piece with  great enthusiasm. What does that say? More importantly, how should I  interpret your close colleague Rania’s sudden agreeability on Syria with  Max Abrahms, that filthy apologist for Israeli crimes? Or are you now  willing to forget about that because he slanders Syria with the same  fervor as you? 
  
• We are  the gatekeepers of our causes and narratives, we decide who stays in and  who stays out.

2 more annotations...

• Maybe the best thing would be to rely on the word of Vitaly Churkin, the Russian ambassador to the United Nations, who surely would agree with Escobar and MofA on the paltry numbers of people living in East Aleppo. As it happens, Churkin sees it differently. On the inimical RT.com, which surely is as reliable as Escobar and MofA, Churkin is quoted on the numbers game: “Over 200,000 residents of Aleppo are hostages of the Al-Nusra Front and groups allied with it.” Now if you can’t believe the Russian Ambassador to the UN, who can you believe?