China & Russia blocks UN sanctions on Syria

[SpaceMarine93]

From BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18914578

Syria conflict: West 'appalled' by Russia China UN veto

The head of the armed forces was named defence minister after Wednesday's bombing at national security headquarters
Continue reading the main story
Syria conflict

Officials killed: As it happened
City 'in grip of fear'
Time to intervene?
Profiles of officials killed
Russia and China have vetoed a UN Security Council resolution proposing further sanctions on Syria, prompting an angry Western response.

The UK, US and France said the UN had failed the people of Syria.

Syrian troops have been mobilised to oust rebels from parts of Damascus, after a bomb killed three senior figures in the defence establishment.

State TV has broadcast the first images of President Assad since the attack, as he swore in the defence minister.

It was not immediately clear where the swearing-in ceremony of armed forces chief Gen Fahd Jassim al-Furayj took place.

Syrian forces have deployed tanks, artillery and helicopters in parts of the capital and clashes have been reported south-west and north-east of the city.

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote

The whole city is shaken. Worried about passing any government building or checkpoint, people are choosing to stay at home instead”

Damascus-based reporter
Damascus: 'City in grip of fear'
'National interests'
Russia and China have wielded their vetoes twice before over Syria and Mr Lyall Grant told the Security Council that the UK was appalled.

"The effect of their actions is to protect a brutal regime. They have chosen to put their national interests ahead of the lives of millions of Syrians."

Under the Western-backed plan, the Damascus government would have been threatened with non-military sanctions under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter if it failed to move troops and heavy weapons from populated areas.

It was the use of Chapter 7 that stirred Moscow's objections. It opened the path to "external military involvement in Syrian domestic affairs," Russia's UN ambassador Vitaly Churkin argued.

But US ambassador Susan Rice said that any suggestion of military force was "paranoid if not disingenuous".

With sporadic battles breaking out for control of Damascus, international envoy Kofi Annan has pushed the international community to take urgent and decisive action.

The Security Council still has to decide whether to renew the mandate of a UN mission in Syria, due to end on Friday. The UK is said to be revising the text of the vetoed resolution proposing an extension for a "final 30 days".

'Imminent fall'
The bombing at Syria's national security headquarters claimed the lives of three high-profile figures in President Assad's defence establishment


The three men were at a security meeting at the time of the blast
Defence Minister and ex-chief of staff Gen Daoud Rajiha
Deputy Defence Minister Assef Shawkat, married to Mr Assad's sister Bushra
Assistant to the vice-president and head of crisis management office Gen Hassan Turkomani
Two other senior officials - interior minister Mohammad Ibrahim al-Shaar and National Security Bureau chief Hisham Ikhtiar- were wounded
Rebel groups said the bomb had been planted the day before the meeting at national security headquarters where it was detonated. They predicted the government's imminent fall.

After the attack the government vowed to root out ruthlessly what it described as armed terrorists backed by outside powers.


Unverified footage purportedly shows people celebrating following the death of the officials
Our correspondent says that video of one attack posted on the internet showed scenes of pandemonium after what activists said was a helicopter gunship attack on a funeral procession at Sitt Zeinab, south of the capital. They said at least 60 people were killed in this incident alone.

Activists also said there was fighting near the cabinet office on the western side of Damascus.

In the capital itself, state media said, security forces launched operations in many areas which have seen clashes in recent days, killing many "terrorists".

Activists reported more tanks moving towards the capital from the west.

But our correspondent says the rebels are on the offensive too, warning state TV and radio to evacuate staff before its headquarters comes under attack.

Needless to say, this once again supported what George Orwell had argued in his various writings about the reality that moral and/or ethical standards are ultimately irrelevant to Realpolitik, and thus the 'good guys' never will remake the world in their image.

Ever.

On the plus side, at least things are really looking up for the Syrian rebels.

[fgalkin]

On the plus side, at least things are really looking up for the Syrian rebels.

Really? Being taken over by Islamic militants is a good thing? Hint: pro-democracy activists don't use suicide bombers, but guess who does?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Block]

On the plus side, at least things are really looking up for the Syrian rebels.

Not really. Things are just getting started, Assad and his supporters have a lot of alternatives that they haven't really tapped into yet, and as long as Russia and China are blocking international action it becomes more and more likely that those alternatives will be used.

[Mr Bean]

On the plus side, at least things are really looking up for the Syrian rebels.

Hint: pro-democracy activists don't use suicide bombers, but guess who does?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

The Japanese Army? The Tamil Tigers? Desperate people always turn to suicide bombings, use of suicide bombers indicates only desperation not inherent villainy.

[Block]

Those are really bad examples of not being inherently evil. Those organizations as they were structured were needlessly vicious and took a lot of actions that were pretty much evil.

[fgalkin]

On the plus side, at least things are really looking up for the Syrian rebels.

Hint: pro-democracy activists don't use suicide bombers, but guess who does?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

The Japanese Army? The Tamil Tigers? Desperate people always turn to suicide bombings, use of suicide bombers indicates only desperation not inherent villainy.

One doesn't just "become" a suicide bomber, there is a whole infrastructure involved- making bombs, a certain kind of psychological pressure applied to ensure you go through with it, etc. That kind of thing doesn't randomly appear overnight. But guess who in Syria has that expertise.

There has also been a change of tactics from the earlier conventional fighting and popular uprising to setting up Western journalists to be killed and suicide bombings. That should tell you that something's changed.

I mean, so far, the opposition isn't exactly winning- they've failed to secure a permanent stable base of operations, and they are defeated every time they try. Aside from defections and assassinations of key personnel, they haven't actually accomplished anything. That kind of constant hounding takes its toll, and the original opposition is on the ropes, giving all sorts of other groups a chance to move in.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Mr Bean]

Those are really bad examples of not being inherently evil. Those organizations as they were structured were needlessly vicious and took a lot of actions that were pretty much evil.

I could go further back in history for examples of suicide attacks by America, Dutch and other European countries if you want Block. The point is that having a suicide bomber attack is simply the only method left to some forces. If your the rebel forces you don't have access to Predator drones and hellfire missiles that make sneaking a vest of explosives into a high level meeting unnecessary since you know when and where you can simply blow it up from afar. But if your heaviest armor is a Ford with a .50cal on the back and sheet metal armor then sometimes you have to pick the wasteful attack.

And I'll throw this out now, direct attacks on civilians only designed to kill are never okay in any kind of conventional conflict, but hitting a meeting full of Syrian defense officials is a legitimate military target. But the method of killing makes little difference be it someone who sets off a bomb to close to himself and gets himself killed, or deliberately sets it off knowing he won't survive does not change the morality of the attack, what was wrong in one is wrong in the other. The method of killing matters little.

Or to put that another way on a scale of one to ten with ten being totally justified and one being a war crime rate the following
A man blows up an armor depot by calling in an airstrike from friendly F-16s
A man blows up an armor depot by sneaking in planting bombs and sneaking out to remote detonate them
A man blows up an armor depot by sneaking in to plant bombs but is caught so detonates early rather than be captured
A man blows up an armor depot by sneaking in with a suicide vest and blows himself up

They should all be equivalent as the target was a military target but I know many westerns who would say that only one and two were justified.
*Edit and just saw the latest post will respond in awhile.

[fgalkin]

And I'll throw this out now, direct attacks on civilians only designed to kill are never okay in any kind of conventional conflict, but hitting a meeting full of Syrian defense officials is a legitimate military target. But the method of killing makes little difference be it someone who sets off a bomb to close to himself and gets himself killed, or deliberately sets it off knowing he won't survive does not change the morality of the attack, what was wrong in one is wrong in the other. The method of killing matters little.

It doesn't? What if the method of killing was a Hellfire missile? Would it not be a clue to the identity of the perpetrator?

You somehow assumed that I am making a moral judgement on the validity of suicide bombing as a tactic, when I've said no such thing.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Losonti Tokash]

You're saying only bad people blow themselves up, but that's not a moral judgment?

[fgalkin]

You're saying only bad people blow themselves up, but that's not a moral judgment?

Where did I say that? Go on, find me a quote. I'm waiting.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Losonti Tokash]

Really? Being taken over by Islamic militants is a good thing? Hint: pro-democracy activists don't use suicide bombers, but guess who does?

Unless you're saying "Islamic militants" are good guys or the answer to your rhetorical question is "any number of groups."

[fgalkin]

Really? Being taken over by Islamic militants is a good thing? Hint: pro-democracy activists don't use suicide bombers, but guess who does?

Unless you're saying "Islamic militants" are good guys or the answer to your rhetorical question is "any number of groups."

The answer IS any number of groups? Duh? I never said that suicide bombing is the sole province of Al-Quada, that
would be nonsense.

It's just that not many of the groups who do it are active in the Middle East right now.

And I am still waiting for proof of the "only bad people do suicide bombings" statement.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[General Mung Beans]

From what I read yesterday, the bomb might have been remotely-detonated, not sure what's come out since then.

[Thanas]

On the plus side, at least things are really looking up for the Syrian rebels.

Really? Being taken over by Islamic militants is a good thing? Hint: pro-democracy activists don't use suicide bombers, but guess who does?

The Syrian rebels are being taken over by Islamic militants? Based on what?

[fgalkin]

On the plus side, at least things are really looking up for the Syrian rebels.

Really? Being taken over by Islamic militants is a good thing? Hint: pro-democracy activists don't use suicide bombers, but guess who does?

The Syrian rebels are being taken over by Islamic militants? Based on what?

My earlier post. Also the leader of the Syrian secular democratic opposition.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Thanas]

That is no neutral account, it is just an interview with somebody who wants to be the power broker. Clear-cut evidence it is not.

[fgalkin]

Here's the same claim repeated by another opposition leader.

Sure, they can be lying, but the change in tactics makes it seem unlikely. The Syrian Opposition is fighting differently, that is a fact that cannot be denied.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Thanas]

Here's the same claim repeated by another opposition leader.

Sure, they can be lying, but the change in tactics makes it seem unlikely. The Syrian Opposition is fighting differently, that is a fact that cannot be denied.

Yes, it can, by simply pointing out the rebels have had a lot of defectors with expertise defecting to them not so long ago. Not everything must be AQ and not everybody who knows how to fight a guerilla war or build bombs must be AQ as well.

[Losonti Tokash]

Really? Being taken over by Islamic militants is a good thing? Hint: pro-democracy activists don't use suicide bombers, but guess who does?

Unless you're saying "Islamic militants" are good guys or the answer to your rhetorical question is "any number of groups."

The answer IS any number of groups? Duh? I never said that suicide bombing is the sole province of Al-Quada, that
would be nonsense.

It's just that not many of the groups who do it are active in the Middle East right now.

And I am still waiting for proof of the "only bad people do suicide bombings" statement.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

My mistake. I thought you were making a statement, but instead you made a pointless, nonsensical post.

[fgalkin]

Here's the same claim repeated by another opposition leader.

Sure, they can be lying, but the change in tactics makes it seem unlikely. The Syrian Opposition is fighting differently, that is a fact that cannot be denied.

Yes, it can, by simply pointing out the rebels have had a lot of defectors with expertise defecting to them not so long ago. Not everything must be AQ and not everybody who knows how to fight a guerilla war or build bombs must be AQ as well.

Certainly not, but when numerous sources from prominent opposition figures to the Iraqi Foreign Minister and the US Director of National Intelligence keep insisting that AQ is present and growing in the country, denying it looks sillier by the minute, doesn't it?

Of course, the situation is far more complex than that. HuffPo is actually useful for once, with an article by the former US Ambassador to Morocco which gives a good breakdown of what is really happening on the ground, and what a gigantic clusterfuck the situation really is. Note that even he credits the Syrian Opposition's bomb-making skills to AQ.

My mistake. I thought you were making a statement, but instead you made a pointless, nonsensical post.

If you have no other contribution than to troll, perhaps you should go back to Testingstan, as it would be a better fit for you.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Losonti Tokash]

I would invite you to explain how "Pro-democracy activists don't use suicide bombs, but any number of groups, including pro-democracy activists, do" is not a nonsensical statement, but that'd require you to pop your own dick out of your mouth so we all know how likely that is.

[fgalkin]

And then there is the fact that Lebanon's most famous Islamist terrorist was killed in Syria while planting bombs for the rebels.

I do wonder how the Denial Brigade will try to explain this one.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[weemadando]

Holy shit galks, it's almost as if EVERYONE hates Assad and wants to kill him at the moment. It's funny how disparate groups can find a common interest when their lives are at stake? I mean after all, those fucking American terrorists helped the French Army out against the British?

[fgalkin]

Holy shit galks, it's almost as if EVERYONE hates Assad and wants to kill him at the moment. It's funny how disparate groups can find a common interest when their lives are at stake? I mean after all, those fucking American terrorists helped the French Army out against the British?

Yes, and? Was there a point hidden somewhere under all that snark?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Simon_Jester]

Put this way.

"Assad is a worthless waste of life who should be toppled" is something that terrorists and normal people could agree on. If you're a badly outgunned rebel against a powerful dictator, and some guy with ten years' experience with guerilla war and bombs (terrorist or otherwise) says "I'll fix you up with some huge bombs to help you get rid of him..." I'd say "Yes! Sic semper tyrannis!" I mean, does it really matter from the point of view of desperate rebels whether the offer is coming from the CIA or Al Qaeda in Nowherestan? People in that position take what they can get, and I can't blame them.

How pro-tyranny would I have to be, to deny the legitimacy of the whole revolt by pointing to the participants I like least? I'm reminded of shit like red-baiting: "Oh, the organization allows nasty people to be members, so it's nothing but a big front for nasty people!"