We Should Not Attack Syria

     One can go through my past posts and see how much I support the Syrian rebels and their fight against a dictator for freedom and liberty. These rebels are some of the most bravest and most steadfast fighters I have seen in years. They're taking on not only the Syrian dictatorship, (who is being supplied and financed by Russia, <--- fascist assholes,) but Hezbollah and Iran also, as well as fighting against extremist rebels who wish to turn Syrian into an al-Qaida playground. That's a lot to go up against, especially when they are receiving minimal support from anyone else.

     So if I want the rebels to win, why would I not support a U.S. strike against the Syrian dictatorship? At first glance that would see counter-intuitive. In a sentence, a U.S. strike in the manner that President Obama described would not help the Syrian rebels, it would actually hinder them in the long run by emboldening Bashar al-Assad's dictatorship.

      Obama wants to launch a limited cruise missile attack from our Navy against Syrian government installations. Here are the things wrong with that:

1. Since he already announced he was going to do it, (like the blundering idiot that he is. Who publicly the exact time they're going to attack? Honestly?), the Syrian government has already moved lots of its personnel out of government and military installations and into civilian areas, http://tech.mit.edu/V133/N34/long1.html. So any attack on those installations would cause minimal causalities. That defeats the whole purpose of attacking. And if we wanted to cause massive causalities, we would have to bomb civilian areas, which defeats the whole point of wading into this civil war to save civilians' lives in the first place.   
2. Obama says he wants to bomb Syria to punish them for using chemical weapons against their own people and to deter them from doing it again. But if a limited cruise missile attack is all that's going to happen to Assad for doing that, that's not going to deter him at all. It will only hurt him in the slightest bit; it'll just be like a fly momentarily annoying him. There's no incentive for him to not do it again.
3. If Congress doesn't approve and nothing happens, it'll embolden Assad even more. He'll think "The Americans said they were going to punish me, but yet they ended up doing nothing. Oh, better gas civilians again then!"
4.  An American strike would strengthen Assad's narrative that he is fighting against Western imperialism and their NATO-trained rebel death squads. 
5. As bad as Syria has been for decades, they still have not attacked us. So why should we attack them? They didn't do anything to us. We're already like in 10 different wars, do we really want to get involved in another one? When will we stop wanting to kill so many people around the world who aren't even doing anything to us?!
6. The US is in no position to be the enforcer of using no chemical weapons. The US used depleted uranium in Iraq that is just as harmful as the chemical weapons Assad used, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-considine/us-depleted-uranium-as-ma_b_3812888.html and continuously gives billions of dollars to the apartheid regime known as Israel, who has used chemical weapons against the Palestinians, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/25/israel-army-white-phosphorous_n_3157604.html. How can we have the moral high ground if we do the exact same thing Assad does? It's like a murderer trying to stop a murderer from murdering. It doesn't work.  

     Instead, the Obama administration should do these steps. These steps would help the rebels out a lot more and quicken Assad's downfall:   

• Give the moderate secular rebels weapons and medical supplies. It really is that simple. Our intelligence gatherers can determine which brigades are moderate and which ones are religious extremists. Contrary to what some racist, bigoted Americans say, not all the rebels fighting against Assad are al-Qaida. They think if they repeat that lie enough times, it'll become true. Sadly, reality does not work that way. Our intelligence analysts, CIA, etc, are good enough that they can determine which brigades are in line with our American values, and who truly want a free and fair Syria.  
• Politically prop up these moderate rebels and their political counterparts, while politically isolating the extremist rebels. The fact that the government controls most of the big media corporations makes it all the more easier for them to get these facts out.   

These two steps is all we would need to do to ensure the moderate rebels would overthrow Assad. Really, that's all. The rebels are already a very effective guerrilla fighting force with the small amount of firepower they already have. If we multiply their firepower, that multiplication would result in more government soldiers' deaths and more territory claimed by the rebels.
If that's all we need to do to overthrow Assad, then why hasn't Obama done that yet? Because, contrary to what he says, Obama wants Assad in power. Why? Because Assad is a coward who talks a big talk but when it comes to walk, he doesn't. Obama wants Assad in power because he knows Assad is too much of a pussy to attack Israel, even in self-defense. When Israel bombed Syria's nuclear facility in 2007, Assad railed on and on how he was going to attack Israel and he was the great champion of the Arabs, etc, etc. What did he do?
Nothing.
Obama loves to support dictatorships and fascist oligarchies around the world, (see 8/30/12 article). Syria is no different. Obama wants Assad in power. If a democratically elected government came to power in Syria, and truly wanted what was best for their people, that would be a much harder government to deal with. They would stand up for themselves more often. Assad just bends over and lets anyone attack him and doesn't lift a finger. America can't have an Arab country who looks after it's peoples' rights, so they would rather deal with a dictatorship.

The world's really fucked up, isn't it?

Car and Suicide Bombs Are the Weapons of Oppressed People

           I follow the Syrian revolution pretty closely, through the news, videos, activist websites, etc. The Syrian rebels have used a wide variety of guerrilla attacks on government forces, (and to surprising effectiveness, I might add. Since March of 2011, the government has lost over 7,200 troops while the rebels have only lost around 1,100, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights: http://www.syriahr.com/. But again, I digress). These guerilla attacks range from ambushing convoys, to IED attacks, to hit and run attacks on checkpoints and bases. Another tactic they use fairly often is car bombs and suicide bombings. 

I separated those two out because those two are going to be the focus of this post. Just one example is the most recent high-profile attack as of the time I am writing this: 

          http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/26/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

          What I have a problem with is some of the comments on this article, and on other similar articles as well, that describe Syrian rebel attacks. Here are some of the insults I read often, that go generally along the lines of:

          1. Just like a Muslim, blowing each other up cowardly with car bombs. What dogs.

          2. Those FSA, (Free Syrian Army), terrorists cannot even fight decently, fucking       low-lives.

          3. At least our American boys fight better than this.

          Blah blah blah, etc, you get my point. All of the people who write ignorant comments like this are fucking idiots. There, that’s the summary of my post. But let’s dive deeper as to why they’re so blatantly bigoted.

          People, specifically Americans, are once again confusing terrorism and terrorist attacks with guerrilla warfare and guerrilla attacks. Here are the distinctions I would like to make:

          1. A group or organization can be a guerrilla group but not be a terrorist group. For example, the Filipino rebels, who fought against U.S. occupation from 1899-1902, overwhelmingly attacked U.S. soldiers and military buildings. By definition, they were not a terrorist group, because a terrorist group overwhelmingly attacks civilian targets. Guerrilla attacks on military targets are legal as per international law and conventions.

          2. A group or organization can be a guerrilla group as well as a terrorist group, but not necessarily. For example, Hamas, a Palestinian resistance group, launched attacks against Israeli civilian and military targets during the Second Intifada.

          3. A group, organization, or state can be a terrorist group but not a guerrilla group. For example, the U.S. military launched numerous attacks on civilian targets during their invasion and occupation of Iraq, on purpose, knowing that they were going to kill lots of civilians. The overwhelmingly majority of their causalities were civilians, so by definition, the U.S. military is a terrorist organization. Same thing with the Israeli military. During their 2008-2009 Cast Lead operation, the overwhelmingly majority of Palestinians that they killed were civilians. Israel repeatedly, literally thousands of times, has targeted Palestinian civilians on purpose throughout the many wars. So by definition, the IDF is a terrorist organization.

          Some thugs and gangs operating under the banner of the Free Syrian Army have killed civilians on purpose. This I freely admit because it is sad but true. But this is not coming from the FSA leadership; they are not out to kill Syrian civilians. The vast majority of the FSA’s targets have been military and government targets. This is their goal: to topple the Assad dictatorship. They have the right to attack the government under international law and laws of war, (as well as in all major religions such as Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc, and also in American law). This is a legitimate goal; these are legitimate targets. Therefore, the FSA is a guerilla group, not a terrorist group.

          Now that we’ve got that established, let’s move onto the fact that many Americans, Assad supporters, and other 1^st world people look down and criticize the way that guerilla groups, specifically the FSA in this case, fight an insurgency against a conventional state military. It is sickening that these pompous, arrogant, and often racist people insult the Syrian rebels, who are fighting against overwhelming odds. They have limited foreign support, and fight with mostly Kalashnikovs, RPG-s, and IED’s. And they’re up against: A conventional military with tanks, helicopters, and jet fighters. Not only that, but Iran and Hezbollah have freely admitted that they have sent troops to reinforce the Assad military. So that’s 2 countries and one guerrilla group that they’re up against.

          Against all that, and people have the nerve to slur the FSA, thumbing their nose at a people who are fighting the only way that they can. They don’t have foreign countries giving them billions of dollars in military aid, like Israel does. They don’t have the money or technology to have Predator drones or armored APC’s, like the U.S. They are fighting with what they can capture, smuggle or make.

          These insults are part of a broader scheme to delegitimize the people’s right to fight against their government. They want to make it out to look like fighting with car bombs and IED’s is somehow less legitimate, less honorable, and more barbaric than fighting with a tank or an airstrike. This is absolutely ridiculous. An attack on an army base is no more or less legitimate when it is attacked by a Predator drone or a suicide bombing. On the flip side, a terrorist attack on unarmed men and women in a marketplace is no more or less a terrorist attack when they are attacked by a Predator drone or a suicide bombing. The target is what makes an attack legitimate or not, not the manner of the attack.

          By making types of guerrilla attack seem illegitimate to people, these 1^st world bigots and dictator supporters want it to seem like that only their conventional, government military has the right to use deadly force. Therefore, the people, who cannot afford that, they can only afford cheap, simply guerrilla attacks, don’t have the right to use deadly force to protect their rights or protect themselves and their families. If people view violence as being always illegitimate, then they will not use it to defend their rights and families. Which is exactly what they want!!

          These guerrilla attacks work because they are cheap and simple, so it is completely rational and logical for people to use them against conventional militaries. It’s not because they’re bloodthirsty Muslims, no, they’re in a civil war, fighting for their lives, you ignorant fuckers. Yes, I know it’s an epiphany for some bigoted people, but Muslims are humans who have rights too you know, and that includes the right to life! It shows how pathetic we humans are if we actually have to have a human right dedicated just so people are allowed to live and not be slaughtered because of their race or religion.

          Okay, gotta stay on topic. Back to why using car bombs and suicide bombings makes logical and rational sense for the FSA to use against the Assad government. A car bomb is very simply to make, it’s small, it’s cheap, and can be produced rather quickly. And, when used correctly, it can produce devastating results, killing dozens of soldiers and wounding several dozen others. Why wouldn’t you use that??

          Suicide attacks have been used throughout human history, even before we invented explosives. In medieval battles, a lone warrior or two could stay behind and hold off dozens of soldiers, dying in the process, but allowing their comrades to regroup, get away, set up an ambush, etc. In cavalry charges, the first row of cavalry suffered the most causalities, sometimes serving only to slam into a wall of spears so that possibly the 2^nd or 3^rd guy behind them might have a chance of getting through the enemies’ defenses. In World War 2, the Japanese used to slam their planes into American aircraft carriers. Etc etc, these are just 3 examples I thought of, but you get my point.

          Suicide bombings are logical to use for two primary reasons: 1. Guerrilla groups, on the whole, lack sophisticated training for their fighters. It is very hard to get in a situation where they can train 1 of their members well enough, give him enough weaponry, etc, etc, to be able to kill 15 or 20 enemy soldiers by himself in a firefight. That’s hard for any soldier to do, from any country. But, it is very easy to give an untrained man a suicide vest, and tell him to walk up to an enemy patrol, disguised as a civilian, and blow himself up, killing 15 or 20 enemy soldiers.

          2. It’s a simple numbers game. The guerrilla group’s losses versus the government’s losses makes suicide bombings a great tactic. You lose 1 guy, but you kill 15, 20, maybe even 50 or 100 if you’re really lucky. Why wouldn’t you do that?

          In conclusion, just because car bombings and suicide bombings are sometimes used by terrorist groups, does not mean that every time they are used, it is automatically and without question terrorism. It is no more or less a potential terrorist act than a helicopter airstrike or a battleship firing. We should not look down on people for fighting tyranny the only way they possibly can. Believe me, if the FSA had tanks and jet fighters, they’d use them. It’s a lot fucking easier to kill soldiers in a tank than with small arms. But they don’t have them. So they do ambushes, assassinations, etc. The British did the same thing to us during the Revolutionary War. Documents reveal how the British officers viewed us as savages, uncivilized, wild brutes for ambushing them and not fighting face to face in an open field, as was the custom in Europe. They scorned our guerrilla tactics while they walked towards us all in nice, little neat rows. Do we want to act towards other countries the way how the British acted towards us? Uh, fuck no. The British were imperial pricks back then. I for one, do not want to be an imperial prick to anyone.          

          Useful links:

          Syrian American Council:   http://www.sacouncil.com/

          Their FB page:  http://www.facebook.com/sacouncil

          Syrian Observatory for Human Rights:  http://www.syriahr.com/

          Their FB page, (which is in English, the page above is in Arabic): http://www.facebook.com/syriaohr

          Their FB page in Spanish: http://www.facebook.com/siriaosdh

          Islamic Relief’s Syria Page: http://www.irusa.org/emergencies/syrian-humanitarian-relief/

         

          Useful books:

          Guerilla Warfare by Che Guevara

          War in the Shadows: The Guerilla in History by Robert Asprey

           Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism by Robert Pape

          (photo is from usatoday.com) 

Defending the Brave

Current Events

Monday July 16^th, 2012

I came across this article a few days, dated from Thursday July 12^th:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/12/taking-up-rebel-cause-woman-trades-toronto-apartment-for-battle-zone/

It explains how a Canadian woman of Syrian origin, Thwaiba Kanafani, left Canada to go fight with the Syrian rebels against the dictator Bashar al-Assad, (the Syrian rebels rally under the banner of the Free Syrian Army, or FSA). She is an engineer and a mother of two. 

Now, it is common knowledge that there are several brave and selfless foreigners that are fighting with the Syrian rebels, but most of them are men from other Arab countries. I’ve never heard of a Western woman joining them yet; Kanafani is the first. After I was done reading the article, I thought “Wow this woman is really flippin’ cool. She leaves the comfort of a peaceful, 1^st world country to go and help people halfway across the world achieve freedom and democracy. She is not required to do this at all; she goes there on her own free will to help in a fight where she has no stake in whatsoever. She is the very definition of selfless because she has absolutely nothing materially to gain from this.”

What really disturbed me was when I read some of the comments on the article. Here is a few of them: 

“Good to know that Canada is NOT your homeland, now you stay where you are you've shown your true colours. You earn your living here  you raise your kids here & still doesn't feel this country to be your homeland -how ungrateful you could be. We don't need people with deranged mentallity to be Canadians. Our immigration system is broken it needs to fixed.”

“Don't come back ! I do not want my tax money ( Canadian Medicare ) to pay for your Syrian injuries. Syria.....your homeland......give me a break ! Why did you leave ? Go home.”

“Hopefully she bought a one way ticket and took her kids with her.  She was obviously welcomed in Canada, but has no loyalty to the country.”

“Hope she stays there forever.”

When I read these I literally had a WTF moment. How the hell can these people sit there and say such horrible things about this woman, who did something so dangerous that I bet NONE of them would ever have the courage to do so. They are the biggest internet trolls I have ever seen. They sound like they have something lacking in their lives, so they just get on the internet and take out their frustration on someone like Kanafani who did something so brave and self-sacrificing. I also suspect that there might be some racist reasons involved in this as well. It’s not for certain, because I cannot read their minds, but it certainly sounds like it. They’re calling her “not a real Canadian, a Canadian by convenience.” This echoes of the mindset decades ago of the British deciding that only white people could be British citizens. 

My three points about what they said are:

1.      Just because she goes and fights in a war that Canada is not involved in, that has nothing to do with her loyalty to Canada. The two things have no rational/logical connection to each other. That’s like saying “Oh, since the sky is blue, that’s the reason why this safe is steel plated.” She is going overseas to help people who very desperately need anyone’s help who is willing to give it. Even if she is not a front line combat soldier, she is an engineer, which is very valuable for a rebel army to have. Also, since she is a woman, she will be better able to understand and work with women civilians who have been caught up in the conflict. Good men will try their best of course but sometimes a situation needs a woman-to-woman approach to fix it, (like if a woman got raped by a Syrian soldier, she’d much rather talk to a woman about that than to a man). 

          In the past, when someone has helped somebody else fight against a tyrannical or oppressive government, that person is looked upon as a hero, a caring person. An example would be like the French soldiers who helped fight alongside the Americans against the tyrannical British government. Or the American soldiers who helped Europe fight back against the Nazis. Their service, their sacrifice in battle, was never, ever looked upon as being disrespectful or insulting to the country that they lived in. This concept is also portrayed in countless movies, video games, and books. Were the Americans doing disservice to America by helping to liberate France and Belgium? Of course not!!!

          She is not a mercenary; she is not getting paid to fight in this war. All of this is on her. She is a volunteer. Why is it that when a person volunteers to join the military of his/her county, he/she is “patriotic, brave, noble,” etc, but when another person wants to help people in another country, then suddenly that is dumb, ungrateful, or fanatical? Canada’s military is not in Syria, so she had no way of helping the Syrians if she joined the Canadian military. 

2.      I also read, on another article on the same story, that many posters called her a slut or a whore for joining the Syrian rebels. This is disgraceful to all women who have ever served in any military. Their libelous comments are only reinforcing the hateful stereotypes that women who join the military are just looking for men to sleep with. Maybe some of them are, no one knows because you can’t read all of their minds. But certainly not all of them are, that is an insult to the women who want to join the military to protect their country, make a better life for themselves, etc etc.

3.      One last point is this: In many of those comments they call Kanafani a “Wahabi/Salafi militant,” or a “Islamofascist.” These insults are within a larger problem, which is a lot bigger than this one post can cover. The problem is that many Westerners have this the paranoid xenophobic fear that all Muslims who take up arms to defend themselves and other civilians are without doubt Islamic terrorists. To them, Muslims are sub-human, and therefore, do not deserve the God given right that all humans have: to defend themselves and others who cannot defend themselves. These insults are only used to try and delegitimize the Syrian rebels. Are there radical Islamists fighting in Syria? Of course there is some. But does that have anything to do with the legitimacy of regular, ordinary Syrians who are fighting for their families, liberty and freedom? Uh, no.

             Radicals are always drawn to conflicts because in the chaos they can try and establish a foothold. You better damn well better believe that, for instance, if the U.S. descended into chaos, that there would be some white-supremacists who would take advantage of the situation and start to go around to kill African Americans, Hispanics, Muslims etc. There would be racists from all races, taking advantage of the situation.  

          These internet trolls are just stupid, spiteful people. Plain and simple. There’s no way around it. It is sad that some people have lost the ageless concepts such as honor, sacrifice, selflessness, and bravery in the face of tyranny. I guess those concepts are too higher levels for their pea brains. They see something they don’t understand, and then automatically call it deranged, idiotic, or morally wrong. They couldn’t be farther from the truth.

(Picture is from Thwaiba Kanafani's profile on Facebook).