Syria as a Game-Changer: US Political Impotence in the Middle East

C#1 submitted as comment to: "ICH 35068/Ramzy Baroud", here slightly revised.

I don't agree with Baroud's "Political Impotence" posit, but take issue here with a commenter:

aletheia · ~12:10, 26May'13
@Andy Perry: "the ideological framework that underpinned all actors in the Middle East collapsed with the end of the Cold War."

Me: No. Assertions must be a) obvious enough that they brook no argument (not so here), OR b) substantiated (no such here).

To substantiate the *opposite* of "collapse:"

1. Jabotinsky(~1923): "No native population would stomach the intrusion ... Unremitting force ... to Arab objections to Zionist control of the territory."

2. Ben-Gurion(1936-39): "We must see the situation for what it is. ... But in the political field we are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending themselves. They are living in the country and own the land, ..."

3) frus1945v08: "Oil resources constitute a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history"

4) Memo PPS23(George Kennan): "...we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts."

My assertion #1: That Jabotinsky's 'perpetual aggressive war' has not stopped, and the only way for it to *be* stopped is for a large enough majority in the rest of the world to *force* it to stop, possibly by 'sending Israel to Coventry' = a *total* boycott, *no* trade, *no* dialogue - no contact at all, only fence them in and ignore them - until they at least honour their promise to implement UNGA181(Palestine state)+194(return). That in turn means all stolen land/property to revest and/or full recompense/reparations, including 65+yrs lost rent.

My assertion #2: That the US is intent on total subjugation of any resistance, and will not stop unless stopped, and the only way that might happen is if both a) its subjugated satellites rebel and b) some effective muscle is put in the US' way, only perhaps possible by Russia and China combined (with India, if they ever got a pair).

As my substantiation, I simply say: Look and see. The aggressive Zionist invaders continually attack their neighbours, the US continually attacks the 'arc of instability' (includes all ME oil, then there's Africa and South America); actually fomenting = *creating* instability - also to attack Russia (Chechnya, say) and China (Uighurs, say) - About 2,820,000 results.

As "supreme international crimes" go, they are all "Go!" - for US/Zs.


Then, another interesting comment + 2 responses:

Clovis · ~14:00 25May'13
While Barzoud's cataloguing of the world of sorrow and death the US's imperial adventures have left in their wake is a necessary though depressing exercise, I think he is working from a flawed premise and therefore missing the forest for the trees. That is, I do not think the sociopaths in power measure the "success" of these adventures in the present functionality of the societies they have ravaged, in the "increased influence" they may or may not have gained in these societies, or in the military "victory" (or not) over the peoples whose regimes they have destroyed. On the contrary, I think the short-term goal is the "process" itself: i.e., the destruction of the relatively self-sufficient societies of Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc., the decimation of their fighting populations and military capabilities, the continual creation of new theatres of combat, the invention of a new class of international mercenary soldier, and the fragmentation of the respective polities of these countries. This is the precisely "new Middle East" they wanted: crippled, politically and socially dysfunctional, disunified and fragmented into warring ethnic enclaves, effectively incapable of independent existence. They have achieved a goal at once short-term and long-term, with the Empire's and the West's (and Israel's) hegemony increasing by default, as these countries flounder in their newfound abjection, powerless to affect the geopolitics of the region.

Fitzhenrymac · ~14:50 25May'13
Yes, Clovis. They are like the black death, a plague that left nothing but destruction in its wake. I agree that that was their partial aim - to so terrify other countries that none will stand up to them particularly India and China.
It's not just about profit anymore, its about power and control.

A side aim for some parties was to control oil, gas and the many other huge deposits of minerals their satellites and Russian geologists discovered in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Ipse_Dixit · ~0:55 26May'13
Excellent comment which I think may apply equally to our own societies whose democracies and standards of living are also being negatively affected by these wars.


Me: It's not just "these wars" (which, being 'murder for spoil,' illustrate the psychopathic depravity of the tyrants that *undemocratically* rule over us), but the wholesale destruction of "the Enlightenment" plus society in general. Thatcher: "There is no such thing as society" as self-fulfilling prophecy; check full context here = unmistakeable rhetoric to cut social services, à la Rand + Hayek -> wretched serfdom for any needy and squalid struggle for most. From the justified-optimism of the 60s, we the people now have *no* hope - except for first ousting the tyrants (who keep trying for an overwhelming monopoly on guns, thus *proving* their fear of us), then reinstalling truth + justice = peace.


China is no threat to our dominance in the Pacific Islands

Just because Chinese companies are engaged in economic competition in the Pacific Islands does not mean Australia's dominance in the region is under threat, writes Jenny Hayward-Jones.
Comment 1: Of course, I found the title to be 'confronting,' as did Pink Diamond (as uncounted others) below. What it means is 'Aus as deputy-sheriff' is back - another filthy demonstration of both Aus' vassal/quisling status and bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic so-called 'leaders,' plus the truly offensive notion that any country should even think of dominating any other. That the theme comes via an r-whinger think-tank justifies the inclusion of such in the M/I/C/$4a†-plex = military, industrial, Congress (US-speak for parliament); $ = banksters, 4 = 4th estate = MSM+PFBCs, 'a' = academia incl. think-tanks, † = the churches. That Lib equals Lab to too many decimal places is proven by Lab continuing Lib's wars.

Pink Diamond :

17 May 2013 4:04:34pm
'Dominance in the region...'
Says it all.
  • aletheia :

    17 May 2013 6:49:15pm
    "'Dominance ...' Says it all."

    Yes. Our tyrants play at least 4 'games:' democracy, diplomacy and monopoly... err, Q: That's only three? A: Yes, the 4th is called being loose with the truth. Actually, very loose; for a particular, involuntarily retired 'representative' (perhaps seeking anonymity in large numbers): "All politicians lie!"

    The game of monopoly mostly results in us, we the people (UWTP) being ripped-off (keywords: race to the bottom = spiral-down; neoliberalism, globalisation, privatisation (latter = theft from UWTP, followed by being toll-boothed into penury). Proof = privatised electricity, worst = medicine for profit.)

    The game of diplomacy results in many others than UWTP being killed (keywords: mass-murder for spoil.)

    The game of democracy mostly results in UWTP being *mis*-represented.

    The game of being loose with the truth results in UWTP being deceived, enabling the other three games to proceed.

    We, the people are being dominated by tyrants. Boo, hiss! Give us our country, democracy, (once bright) future, flogged-off government(egalitarian)enterprises + everything else stolen from us - back!

R.Ambrose Raven :

17 May 2013 11:45:39am
Whether or not Australia's dominant role in the region is "under threat" from China, it is the interests of the Pacific Islanders themselves that should matter.

We saw how eagerly the Australian Government colluded in the cover-up of the murder of the Balibo Five in order to curry favour with the Indonesian mass-murderer and war criminal Soeharto; even now, a third of a century later, the Australian Government still hasn't sought to arrest any remaining killers should they leave Indonesia. For all the arrogant and pompous talk of "human rights" and the "responsibility to protect" so favoured by such as KRudd and Gareth Evans, North Korea could not more ruthlessly discard such "values" once our Imperial interests are inconvenienced.

While Jenny's article is timely, as with so many such articles the serious shortcomings in economic and social development of the peoples themselves is effectively ignored despite its significance. Australia has taken part in military stabilisation operations in Bougainville, East Timor, the Solomons, and is attempting to improve the appalling governance of a number of other littoral states, not least PNG. Fortunately, notwithstanding the serious social and economic tensions – and corruption - most of them do live better than refugees recently released from our concentration camps, but not necessarily by much.

It is in fact exactly the same challenge as ending the cycle of poverty and dysfunction in Aboriginal communities, for exactly the same reasons. Any true balance requires that work, and income, be made to serve social interests, whereas ever since the Second World War consumerism has perverted society, requiring paid work to dominate with family and personal commitments being left the time and resources not wanted by employers. It would seem unlikely that any economic structure with a strong orientation towards cultural commitments would survive the brutality of market forces; it would need to be protected from the forces of greed if it was to deliver balance.

While those of the Den of Thieves - the NFF, CCI, AiG, the squatters' denialist organisation the PGA, etc - such as the IPA may write of Aboriginal improvement (meaning their conversion to culture-free aspirationals) their mentality is that of the sweatshop. They would ferociously oppose putting people before PROFITS.

As it is, we have a Hard Right-dominated media (particularly a Murdoch rag, The Australian) ferociously hostile to Labor's comparatively enlightened approach in dealing with increasingly profound challenges (though often due to Green and Independent pressure). To it Labor's greatest crime is in not embracing and imposing Austerity and institutionalising ruling class power by joining with Joe Hockey in pronouncing the End of the Age of Entitlement.

  • aletheia :

    17 May 2013 5:58:19pm
    "... institutionalising ruling class power by joining with Joe Hockey in pronouncing the End of the Age of Entitlement."

    Agreed - partly, also to "comparatively enlightened approach."

    Also agreeing - more strongly, to "unlikely that any [compassionate policy] would survive the brutality of market forces" and "They would ferociously oppose putting people before PROFITS."

    It was not Fraser (accused of 'wasting time') but Cheating [thnx] who copycatted Thatcher's TINA! + "There is no such thing as society," also implied 'no community' = no working together. Then came Smirk; neoliberalism is bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic (since it offers the voter *zero* choice.)

    Recall that a choice between evils still results in evil - put Lab/Lib (your preferred order?) last!

    TheAus was active against EGW, a disgusting, dishonest campaign against a twice properly-elected PM (possibly Aus' best, in my lifetime anyway). Note that theAus did/does such a 'good' job that many (who really should know better) still spit when they hear Gough/other target(s) mentioned.

    To theAus must be added PFBCs, when they agree on some anti-fact meme; Proof: the "David vs. Goliath" myth, circa 1967. Recall 'hell/no fury/misinformed.' When one is given zero choice, and the result is anti-99%, it's not democracy, see Bernays: "Those who manipulate..."
Comment 2: One problem with the AusBC/unleashed forum is the relatively short time given for comments - leading to haste tending to take preference, then to the recommended 200-word limit, tending to compact text. While «see Bernays: "Those who manipulate..."» contains sufficient clues as to how to locate the idea, to give it its due impact, here it is in more detail:

  «The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society»
Comment 3: A shocker. Keywords: 'conscious and intelligent manipulation,' then 'unseen mechanism,' 'invisible government' and 'true ruling power.' What all that means is *no* people-power, which is neither 'logical' nor fair - let alone acceptable. Either one has a democracy "of, by, for the people" - or one has something else - and I suggest what we have is tyranny, run (dominated!) by psychopaths.

Bernays "felt this manipulation was necessary in society, which he regarded as irrational and dangerous as a result of the 'herd instinct' ..."

Me: So following this, we the people's minds are 'manipulated' into utter irrelevance. Q: Did any of us approve this system by a free and fair, fully informed vote? A: Silly question; *by definition* not, yet it 'fits' our situation 100% and tyranny dominated by psychopaths is proven.


The wrongly accused deserve compensation

aletheia made 3 comments; no response was made before comments were closed, ~1.5hrs after aletheia's last.

Zing :

10 May 2013 12:11:29pm
Police, court and prosecutors should only be punished in clear cases of incompetence or malice.

The public has confidence in the justice system when it makes the correct decision based on the available facts.

If the court was expected to be perfect, then we wouldn't have courts of higher appeal.
    • aletheia :

      10 May 2013 3:48:42pm
      Zing: "Police, court and prosecutors should only be punished in clear cases of incompetence or malice."

      Agreed, especially when there is blatant /prima facie/ evidence of an on-going vicious, murdering home-invasion/burglary, and that evidence is not followed up by SWAT-teams; arrest, prosecution and then the imposition of appropriate punishment, with the stolen land/property revesting, and acceptable reparations paid by the perpetrators (including foregone rent) to the improperly dispossessed erstwhile legal owner/occupiers. Of course, the very worst in such a situation, is that the vicious, terrorising home-invader/burglars are left to continue their foul crimes – which, as I'm assuming Zing would agree, is a massive miscarriage of justice on top of the exposure of the public to further mortal danger.

Zing :

10 May 2013 1:24:52pm
There is a fairly standard definition of "guilty beyond reasonable doubt".

It means that irrespective of your actual guilt, a reasonable person would be satisfied that you have most likely committed a crime and should be punished on the principle that you most likely deserve it.

Sometimes, that means an actual innocent person gets punished. Them's the breaks.

  • aletheia :

    10 May 2013 6:25:05pm
    Zing: "... a reasonable person would be satisfied that you have most likely committed a crime and should be punished on the principle that you most likely deserve it."

    Let's say we have means, motive, and opportunity + modus operandi, presence & premeditation, and even a confession and a plea-bargain.

    All above previously demonstrated, some including the latter two are mentioned here:



    Sooo, how reasonable is it, to a) assume a conviction would follow a court-case, and b) who do we hold responsible for no court-case, and exposing the region to a danger not theoretical, but almost continually seen to be fatally real?
  • aletheia :

    10 May 2013 6:48:07pm
    Zing: "Sometimes, that means an actual innocent person gets punished. Them's the breaks."

    Cynical, much? When the innocent persons have been continually getting punished, since the first alien invaders armed themselves behind an iron wall?

Comment: See 'acquiescence' in some definitions; no response is taken as agreement (at least until point acceptably negated), meanwhile IF an assertion is made contrary to an uncontested fact THEN that response will be deemed out of order.


Where will these weapons end up?

The subject is chemical weapons, and whether Assad is mad/bad enough to have used them. What do you think, on 'balance of probabilities?' Does Assad look suicidal? Most likely not, since he's lasted this long, under attack from the US/Zs' worst of the worst jihadis. But such discussions often wander.


Orly :

08 May 2013 11:05:04am
Do you really think Hezbullah won the 2006 war? In what way?

Lebanon was screaming for a ceasefire. Israel occupied territory in South Lebanon and only left to keep the international community happy.

As part of the ceasefire terms, Hezbullah was supposed to be completely disarmed by Lebanon. Hezbullah agreed to pull back all it's forces south of the Litani river.

Does that sound like an Israeli loss to you?
  • AJC :

    08 May 2013 1:42:31pm
    Yes, Hezbollah won that 2006 war. Simple facts of the matter are that Israel attacked first, tried to invade Lebanon, got kicked back out. Israel didn't leave willingly, suffered far more casualties than the Hebollah (counting Lebanese civilians as "combatants" is ridiculous, but I see many Israeli apologists pretend that these are equivalent) and diplomacy is also a tool of war. Israel never got very far at all within the Lebanese borders and was forced to leave. The IDF proved to be totally unprepared for what they were taking on. Hezbollah won. You can keep trying to spin it, but revisionist attempts are just as silly as claiming that the USA won in Vietnam.
    • Orly :

      09 May 2013 12:13:42am
      Lie: Israel got kicked out.

      Fact: Israel was not kicked out. It was still occupying South Lebanon when the ceasefire occurred.

      Lie: Hezbollah won.

      Fact: Hezbollah did not win. In fact, it was losing so badly, it had to offer to disarm in order to secure a ceasefire.

      Lie: Israel lost more casualties.

      Fact: The UN doesn't agree with you there. Neither does the Lebanese government. Neither does Hezbollah, for that matter.

      Face it. The only way you can claim Hezbollah won is by ignoring reality. Or by lying.
Comment 1: The 1st *real* lie here is Orly's "Israel ... only left to keep the international community happy." Q: Since when did Israel do anything to please *anyone* outside of the I/J/Z-plex? So to cover Orly's own arse, s/he has a tantrum. Israel covets territory, here "up to the Litani River;" it's part of the vile Z-plan. To retreat, sowing the area with squillions of land-mines, *proves* all of Z-loss, Z-spite and Z-criminality. Pull the other one, Orly (disgusting creature that you are). Any Z-loss is generally a win - for the rest of the world, and Orly's tantrum in response to AJC explaining the Z-loss in detail is proof of raw a Z-nerve.

Comment 2: Orly's "Fact: Hezbollah did not win. In fact, it was losing so badly, it had to offer to disarm in order to secure a ceasefire" must also be a lie, on the grounds that Israel thinks only it ever decides, is never forced, etc. - so no surrender, short of absolute = territorial loss by some target, is ever accepted by Israel. Sooo, some "higher power" must have prevailed over the Zs, but again, as never taking orders, the only "higher power" here would be a stop-loss for the Zs = Israel itself withdrew = loss for Zs, again.


aletheia :

08 May 2013 5:58:05pm
Orly: "...produced by the Syrian government. Where do you think the rebels got such weapons from? Prayer? ... So that's going to be the narrative."

Me: No.

I recently found this curious bit: "... although the original core areas, the Iron Age kingdoms of Israel and Judah, are often considered outside the core of present-day Israel."

Two more quotes:

Jabotinsky: "... only Jewish armed force would ensure the Jewish state".

Ben-Gurion(1936-39): “But in the political field we are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending themselves. They are living in the country and own the land, ..."

As improper dispossessors (proof = self-evident and "iron wall"), Israel has no valid title to most of the land it squats on; thus it has no right to 'defend' anything - except their own lives, but that only in the case of "an instant and overwhelming necessity for self-defense, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation" *attack*.

So the Israeli attack on Syria fulfils the definition of "supreme international crime." Further, the *real* narrative includes US-fomented via-Turkey invasion (*not* civil war), equipped by Saudi Arabia, Qatar with Croatian-type arms – we know this because NYT et al. told us; more "supreme international crime."


aletheia :

08 May 2013 6:54:31pm
Skeptic: "...about the Sarin gas. So the lone UN inspector told her version of facts which got in the way of the West's good story. She was discredited. Did that remind us of Mr.Hans Blix ?"

Me: Yes, but not only.

This week, Israel attacked Syria, a sovereign country - oh, that makes at least two, they (as 'immigrants,' partly illegal = alien invaders) attacked the place they squat on, starting before WW2 following Jabotinsky's strategy, amounting to perpetual war. Proof; Ben-Gurion(1936-39): “But in the political field we are the attackers and the Arabs are those defending themselves. They are living in the country and own the land, ..."

Now some say that there has been no court-case, but guilt is *totally independent* of courts; the real Q: Did 'modern' Israel result from improper dispossession, partly done by ethically cleansing ELO/Os = erstwhile legal owner/occupiers, by genocidal methods? IF A: Yes THEN QED.

Now, to the UN; "Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan," who ought to know. But no court-case there either; *proof* of UN corruption, self-convicted. Also self-convicted, by *not* enforcing UNGA273 (cites 181&194); even agreed to by Israel but to this day not honoured.
  • Zing :

    09 May 2013 12:31:12am
    There's nothing wrong with attacking a sovereign country when there is cause. Last time I checked, Syria and Israel are still officially at war.

    Guilt is not independent of courts. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, remember?

    After all, taking someone else's land away from them isn't automatically a crime. It's only a crime in some cases.

    And even if you could prove that Israel somehow "stole" the land, what then? To have a crime, you have to presume someone has the right to judge the criminal for his actions.

    Fact is, no nation has the right to judge the legality of Israel's creation any more then Israel can judge the legality of the creation of any other nation.

    Incidently, Kofi Annan is a politician. He is not a judge and his opinions have no legal value. Given that your legal arguments are gibberish, I'll presume you're not a judge either.
    • Eric the Echidna :

      09 May 2013 7:40:25am
      Zing: "Incidently, Kofi Annan is a politician. He is not a judge and his opinions have no legal value. Given that your legal arguments are gibberish, I'll presume you're not a judge either."

      As you claim greater expertise than a Secretary-general of the UN, what are your legal qualifications? Particularly in the area of interrnational law.

      On a particluar sta"tement:

      "After all, taking someone else's land away from them isn't automatically a crime. It's only a crime in some cases."

      What cases would those be?
Comment 1: One (actually 'they;' r-whingers &/ z-trolls) may lie - by commission, or by omission. As ever, the significance is in what they say - or don't say, what they challenge - or don't challenge, and here it is admitted that yes, well, err, ... perhaps - there may have been crimes, and yes, there may have been land/property theft by actual, mass-murdering violence = in my terms improper dispossession by genocidal methods. But all it takes is a close look, to see that the Zs did *not* acquire ELO/O's land/property by free and fair exchanges.

Comment 2: Normally, "Innocent until proven guilty" is correct. The problem here, though, is that despite prima facie evidence of vicious crimes in progress, 65+ bloody years long, there are no SWAT teams sent in to arrest the perpetrators (or heirs and successors); the crimes continue unchecked, with those same perpetrators (or heirs and successors) squatting on improperly alienated land/property = benefiting from the proceeds of crime. Where's an honest cop or three, when the world needs them? Zing concludes with what amounts to an ad hominem, a lot of these being hurled by z-trolls of late. Indicates that they know they're losing?