Syria, Aleppo and the truth

[Apech]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/aleppo-falls-to-syrian-regime-bashar-al-assad-rebels-uk-government-more-than-one-story-robert-fisk-a7471576.html

 

 

An article worth reading.

 

Western politicians, “experts” and journalists are going to have to reboot their stories over the next few days now that Bashar al-Assad’s army has retaken control of eastern Aleppo. We’re going to find out if the 250,000 civilians “trapped” in the city were indeed that numerous. We’re going to hear far more about why they were not able to leave when the Syrian government and Russian air force staged their ferocious bombardment of the eastern part of the city. 

 

And we’re going to learn a lot more about the “rebels” whom we in the West – the US, Britain and our head-chopping mates in the Gulf – have been supporting.

 

 

They did, after all, include al-Qaeda (alias Jabhat al-Nusra, alias Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), the “folk” – as George W Bush called them – who committed the crimes against humanity in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on 11 September 2001. Remember the War on Terror? Remember the “pure evil” of al-Qaeda. Remember all the warnings from our beloved security services in the UK about how al-Qaeda can still strike terror in London?

 

 

 

It is fascinating and very worrying how the narrative of news stories are changed in order to influence public opinion at home.  Who exactly are our friends and enemies in the Middle East?

[Brian]

Who are whose friends and enemies? Haven't figured out who "we" are yet so it's hard to identify "they." I suspect, though, that the "they" who are our enemies are the same "they" who tell us who our friends and enemies are, if we let them.

[doc benway]

Off topic perhaps, but... shrug

 

I am reading Introduction to Tantra by Lama Yeshe (great book). He describes a wonderful and simple meditation intended to cultivate equanimity:

- Visualize being together with one close friend, one serious enemy, and one stranger. Further imagine the four of you are arranged with your friend behind and the enemy and stranger in front of you. Surrounding this small group is a large group, perhaps all sentient beings.

- Look deeply into why you consider your friend favorably. Is it related to blood relation, neighbor, a kind action,...?

- Do the same for the enemy.

- If you look deeply enough at the why's as well as all other interactions you've had with these people over time, the lines between friend, enemy, and stranger will begin to blur. 

- As we begin to feel more equilibrium and less bias with respect to these close individuals, we then extend this feeling out towards the larger group. We then begin to become familiar with and continuously rest in this feeling of balance and equilibrium.

- If we practice this effectively, it will support the development of equanimity.

[Brian]

Off topic perhaps, but... shrug

 

I am reading Introduction to Tantra by Lama Yeshe (great book). He describes a wonderful and simple meditation intended to cultivate equanimity:

- Visualize being together with one close friend, one serious enemy, and one stranger. Further imagine the four of you are arranged with your friend behind and the enemy and stranger in front of you. Surrounding this small group is a large group, perhaps all sentient beings.

- Look deeply into why you consider your friend favorably. Is it related to blood relation, neighbor, a kind action,...?

- Do the same for the enemy.

- If you look deeply enough at the why's as well as all other interactions you've had with these people over time, the lines between friend, enemy, and stranger will begin to blur. 

- As we begin to feel more equilibrium and less bias with respect to these close individuals, we then extend this feeling out towards the larger group. We then begin to become familiar with and continuously rest in this feeling of balance and equilibrium.

- If we practice this effectively, it will support the development of equanimity.

Wonderful!

 

On the personal level, I find it is the other person who defines the relationship but I generally choose whether to accept it. My choice may not affect the other person's perception but it affects mine.

[Apech]

Who are whose friends and enemies? Haven't figured out who "we" are yet so it's hard to identify "they." I suspect, though, that the "they" who are our enemies are the same "they" who tell us who our friends and enemies are, if we let them.

 

 

Well, following the Arab Spring 'we' supported rebels who we thought were seeking democracy and so on.  But turns out most of the rebels are Al Nusra (Al Queida) and are as bad as ISIS.  Now we think Assad + Russians are bad because (?) they are not the outcome 'we' want.  And yet Assad is arguably (for all his faults) the only legit government in Syria.  Now UK politicians are debating all this - and saying we should have acted sooner blah, blah, blah, - as if somehow it is 'our' fault that there are murderous people in the Middle East.  When actually all our interventions have been either mixed or disasterous.  So maybe 'we' = the West should start to think that we don't run the world and we are not responsible for all that goes on in every part - and learn to leave well alone(?)

[Mig]

The other day, I watched some live videos from that conflict and I always wonder, where do they get the bullets, how come they shoot so many rounds without target, it is just like they have so much ammunition. Who's paying for it? who's supplying?

[Brian]

Well, following the Arab Spring 'we' supported rebels who we thought were seeking democracy and so on. But turns out most of the rebels are Al Nusra (Al Queida) and are as bad as ISIS. Now we think Assad + Russians are bad because (?) they are not the outcome 'we' want. And yet Assad is arguably (for all his faults) the only legit government in Syria. Now UK politicians are debating all this - and saying we should have acted sooner blah, blah, blah, - as if somehow it is 'our' fault that there are murderous people in the Middle East. When actually all our interventions have been either mixed or disasterous. So maybe 'we' = the West should start to think that we don't run the world and we are not responsible for all that goes on in every part - and learn to leave well alone(?)

On one hand, it's the hubris of a neo-feudaliatic elite who believe they not only know what's best for "the masses" but somehow will be able to control a complex dynamic system they don't understand. On the other hand, we have these same self-appointed rulers and their sycophants recognizing that the masses need to be manipulated with misinformation and propaganda or they will not accept the bit but will bite it and start bucking.

 

Pointing out that someone is attempting to fit you with a saddle or yoke -- or that "we" doesn't include "I" -- is a sure way to become "an enemy."

[Astral Monk]

This is important. Key in fact. Bullets arent cheap. They have crates and crates. Who sold them? 'Rebels' dont have gun and ammo factories, generally...

 

8)

 

The other day, I watched some live videos from that conflict and I always wonder, where do they get the bullets, how come they shoot so many rounds without target, it is just like they have so much ammunition. Who's paying for it? who's supplying?

[Mig]

This is important. Key in fact. Bullets arent cheap. They have crates and crates. Who sold them? 'Rebels' dont have gun and ammo factories, generally...

 

8)

 

It boils down to economics. In the meantime, someone has to feed all these rebels or soldiers? It is all about the oil they produce, the laundry monies from illicit drugs and corruption? It seems that it is beyond our comprehension or there is more that we don't know

[Brian]

It boils down to economics. In the meantime, someone has to feed all these rebels or soldiers? It is all about the oil they produce, the laundry monies from illicit drugs and corruption? It seems that it is beyond our comprehension or there is more that we don't know

It is theater.

 

Who gains from the charade being believed?

[Aetherous]

The other day, I watched some live videos from that conflict and I always wonder, where do they get the bullets, how come they shoot so many rounds without target, it is just like they have so much ammunition. Who's paying for it? who's supplying?

 

From what I grasp...on side A is Saudi Arabia and somewhat the US (although maybe not anymore), and on side B is Iran and Russia. Side A is basically the new al-Qaeda, and Side B is Assad.

[Miffymog]

It's all a battle between Shia and Sunni Muslims. Assad and his government is Shia, but much of the population is Sunny. So it is a rebellious Sunni majority who were trying to take down a Shia minority government.

 

The Shia ruling class in Iran backs Assad and so funds him.

 

The Sunni ruling class in Saudi Arabia back and fund, very lucratively, the rebels.

 

The sides that the USA and Russia take are predominately determined by what their relationships are to each of these groups.

 

The failure to successfully manage these two factions is one of the main reasons for the collapse of Iraq and rise of ISIS after the Americans left (although another one was the disbandment of 60,000 Iraqi soldiers who just waited for the withdrawal before they went back to doing what they knew how to).

 

Saddam's solution to keep these two groups in check was simply to gas vast numbers of the population...

[Jetsun]

The Western policy makers celebrate when every new Sunni v Shia war kicks off, as it means their dominance and position in the world is guaranteed for another generation.

 

But all this stuff about Aleppo in the news now is 5 years too late

[Miffymog]

The Western policy makers celebrate when every new Sunni v Shia war kicks off, as it means their dominance and position in the world is guaranteed for another generation.

 

But all this stuff about Aleppo in the news now is 5 years too late

 

Yep - oil rich Islamic countries go and spend their money on Western produced weapons in order to kill each other. And you're also right to imply just how long term this issue is

[Nungali]

Who are whose friends and enemies? Haven't figured out who "we" are yet so it's hard to identify "they." I suspect, though, that the "they" who are our enemies are the same "they" who tell us who our friends and enemies are, if we let them.

 

I think I remember this happening to me at my first year in High School .  

 

Instead of untangling the spaghetti,  It might just be easier to consider it an 'all in brawl'