We’re bombing Syria

[Homar]

There was no criticism of Israel in his post though was there.

What he instead suggested was that the “Israel Lobby runs the press”. If you can’t see that’s code for “Jews” then that’s on you.

That is a slippery slope to embark upon. You base your accusations on an assumption, unless you can refer back to previous posts in which he makes obvious anti-semitic comments. The political influence yielded by AIPAC in the US, for example, cannot be denied.

Also, that isn't exactly what he said. His exact words were: "The BBC was infiltrated many years ago by the Israeli Lobby". Perhaps the use of the word "infiltrated" could be questioned. A more suitable word might be "influenced", but I hardly think you can paint him as an anti-semite from that post alone.

 

[Homar]

Go on then, name one of these books.

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by John Mearsheimer is just one example.

 

[Banned Tosspot]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/great-british-bake-star-nadiya-12407657

Stick to baking cakes.

 

[west didsblue]

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by John Mearsheimer is just one example.

No, it's the only example that comes up when you do a web search on the subject.
The trouble is there's two problems with it. It's about the Israeli lobby in the US not the UK (which is what you were talking about) and secondly there's no shortage of criticism of it, including from people referenced in it saying they've been taken totally out of context.
On the other hand Osama Bin Laden liked it.
Do you want to try again?

 

[Scottyboi]

Where do people get their figures for these milllions of deaths since our intervention in Afghan and Iraq? I don't believe for one minute millions have died. But you see if everywhere constantly being quoted as fact. I've been responsible for doing it myself.

 

[west didsblue]

Where do people get their figures for these milllions of deaths since our intervention in Afghan and Iraq? I don't believe for one minute millions have died. But you see if everywhere constantly being quoted as fact. I've been responsible for doing it myself.

They make them up for their own arguments. You see similar ludicrous comments about the Israelis killing thousands of Palestinians every year. Total Iraq casualties since 2003 are between 150,000 and 450,000. Total in Afghanistan is between 100,000 and 150,000. It's far short of one million never mind multiple millions.
To put it into context many more were killed in the Iran/Iraq war in the 1980s and in the USSR/Afghanistan war in the same period.

 

[inbetween]

You do make some valid points, which are undeniable, and I will again state that I do not deny the fact that the Syrian and Russian governments are both culpable in the deaths of thousands of civilians. However, it is important to consider the context in which this occurs, which is a war for the existence of the Syrian state against savages supported by very powerful western countries along with Saudi Arabia and its various puppet states.

I have previously said that the UN is a failed organisation. The very idea that there exists permanent members of the UNSC that can veto any resolutions that displease them is farcical. You point to the fact that Russia has used its veto, but ignore the fact that the US has used its veto power more than any other state. You point to the fact that the Syrian and Russian governments have killed thousands, but ignore the fact that the US and UK have killed millions over the past decade. You also ignore the fact that the US virtually flattened Raqqa, paying no more care to avoid civilian casualties than the Russians or Syrians.

Every country in which we have intervened hasn't exactly been in the best of states before we got there. Take us out of Iraq and you still have Hussein bombing/gasing his own people and invading other countries. Take us out of Afghanistan and you still have Al Qaeda and the Taliban running the show.... Had we invaded a peaceful and democratic nation I would be completely against it but given the alternative I'm not even sure it matters.

I would hazard a guess as civilian deaths go it really wouldn't matter if we got involved. You have to remember that the Russians and Syrian air force are not even using guided weapons in this conflict. They have also certainly been using chemical weapons so indeed without us it is a far better state of affairs...

On the evidence above maybe your protest efforts would be better placed being put completely against Russia and the Syrian government considering they are responsible for slightly more in this conflict. What are the numbers of hard lefties protesting at the Russian embassy, that's right, zero.

Even if the west did make up the chemical weapons attack why would anyone be bothered? The end result has been the justified destruction of a chemical weapons factory which WOULD be used to kill innocent people so who seriously cares.

 

[Homar]

No, it's the only example that comes up when you do a web search on the subject.
The trouble is there's two problems with it. It's about the Israeli lobby in the US not the UK (which is what you were talking about) and secondly there's no shortage of criticism of it, including from people referenced in it saying they've been taken totally out of context.
On the other hand Osama Bin Laden liked it.
Do you want to try again?

I was talking in general about the Israel lobby and not specifically about UK-based Israel lobbies. People are free to criticise anything. Whether those criticisms are valid is another matter. And if you look back at what I wrote, I never claimed that these books were accepted by militarist Israel-apologists like Alan Dershowitz. There are also a number of books written by Norman Finkelstein, who faced immense pressure by those same Israel-apologists after publication.

 

[Homar]

Every country in which we have intervened hasn't exactly been in the best of states before we got there. Take us out of Iraq and you still have Hussein bombing/gasing his own people and invading other countries. Take us out of Afghanistan and you still have Al Qaeda and the Taliban running the show.... Had we invaded a peaceful and democratic nation I would be completely against it but given the alternative I'm not even sure it matters.

I would hazard a guess as civilian deaths go it really wouldn't matter if we got involved. You have to remember that the Russians and Syrian air force are not even using guided weapons in this conflict. They have also certainly been using chemical weapons so indeed without us it is a far better state of affairs...

On the evidence above maybe your protest efforts would be better placed being put completely against Russia and the Syrian government considering they are responsible for slightly more in this conflict. What are the numbers of hard lefties protesting at the Russian embassy, that's right, zero.

Even if the west did make up the chemical weapons attack why would anyone be bothered? The end result has been the justified destruction of a chemical weapons factory which WOULD be used to kill innocent people so who seriously cares.

Saddam Hussein was a monster. Of that there is no question. But it is impossible to justify the deaths of so many people because the end result was the removal of a criminal lunatic. You will find remarkably few Iraqis that consider the situation today worth the cost imposed upon the country. It is also pertinent to remember that the stated purpose of the UK's involvement in the Iraq war was not regime change, but for the removal of chemical weapons, of which none were found. Furthermore, you should recall that the US was allied with Iraq at the time of the Iran-Iraq war. You should also recall that the CIA attempted to blame the Halabja chemical attack on Iran. Two points that have profound implications on the trustworthiness of the US intelligence service.

And on your last point, firstly I should say that acts of military aggression are illegal under international law (though as I have previously said, few states abide by international law anyway). Secondly, and most importantly, the US has still failed to present any evidence of its claims. Thirdly, by your logic, it would be justified for other countries to launch unprovoked attacks on chemical weapons facilities in the US, UK or anywhere else.

The correct response would be to have waited for the OPCW to present their findings before launching an unprovoked act of military aggression. Then, and only then, could the US have made a valid argument for limited strikes against supposed chemical facilities. It still wouldn't lessen the brazen hypocrisy though.

 

[Homar]

Where do people get their figures for these milllions of deaths since our intervention in Afghan and Iraq? I don't believe for one minute millions have died. But you see if everywhere constantly being quoted as fact. I've been responsible for doing it myself.

The ORB put the figure in Iraq alone at 1.2 million. The British-based Lancet medical journal put the figure at 650,000. All figures are disputed, but the undeniable fact is that hundreds of thousands of people were killed. It's also funny that the Iran-Iraq war is mentioned, since the west backed Iraq in that war despite the war being purely one of attempted border expansion. So yes, the west is almost certainly directly or indirectly to blame for the deaths of over 1 million people in the Middle East. The idea that they have since that time become saints is as idiotic as it sounds.

Hundreds of thousands have been killed in Syria, but forget not that the west has an involvement in this war also, through its support for extremist groups. The argument made by some here that Syria and Russia are "monsters" whilst the US/UK have a clean conscience simply does not hold water.

 

[Damocles]

And now you have shown your true colours.

Yes my true colours are about things like facts, evidence and accuracy.

I can see why you feel this is in opposition to you

 

[Homar]

Yes my true colours are about things like facts, evidence and accuracy.

I can see why you feel this is in opposition to you

You denied the existence of a people. If somebody were to say the same about Jews they would rightly be called Anti-Semites. You are no better.

 

[Damocles]

You denied the existence of a people. If somebody were to say the same about Jews they would rightly be called Anti-Semites. You are no better.

I denied the existence of a historical nation that didn't exist, not a people.

See that accuracy thing is still troubling you.

 

[Homar]

I denied the existence of a historical nation that didn't exist, not a people.

See that accuracy thing is still troubling you.

Even if that were correct, it has no relevance. Those people lived on that land and that is all that matters. The forcible displacement of a people is ethnic cleansing, which you appear to be defending.

 

[inbetween]

Saddam Hussein was a monster. Of that there is no question. But it is impossible to justify the deaths of over 1 million people because the end result was the removal of a criminal lunatic. You will find remarkably few Iraqis that consider the situation today worth the cost imposed upon the country. It is also pertinent to remember that the stated purpose of the UK's involvement in the Iraq war was not regime change, but for the removal of chemical weapons, of which none were found. Furthermore, you should recall that the US was allied with Iraq at the time of the Iran-Iraq war. You should also recall that the CIA attempted to blame the Halabja chemical attack on Iran.

And on your last point, firstly I would point out that acts of military aggression are illegal under international law (though as I have previously said, few states abide by international law anyway). Secondly, and most importantly, the US has still failed to present any evidence of its claims. Thirdly, by your logic, it would be justified for other countries to launch unprovoked attacks on chemical weapons facilities in the US, UK or anywhere else.

On your last point obviously that is not my logic - the difference with the US/UK approach is we are not killing thousands of our own citizens. The UK chemical laboratories exist primarily to protect people from chemical attacks. The reason we have attacked the Syrian chemical weapon capability is because they are definitely using it and they will do so again period.

I'm not going to say whether it is against international law just you will struggle to find a bleeding heart. It is funny how 'law' is brought up instead of solid reasoning showing why we shouldn't of done it. I think I and many can live with the fact that bombing this factory was this time morally right but maybe legally wrong.

On international law you have to remember that annexing countries, killing citizens with nerve agents, using unguided bombs on civilians and shooting down airliners in European airspace is also illegal... All of those so far have gone unpunished so I think we might be okay.

 

[west didsblue]

I was talking in general about the Israel lobby and not specifically about UK-based Israel lobbies. People are free to criticise anything. Whether those criticisms are valid is another matter. And if you look back at what I wrote, I never claimed that these books were accepted by militarist Israel-apologists like Alan Dershowitz. There are also a number of books written by Norman Finkelstein, who faced immense pressure by those same Israel-apologists after publication.

You were talking about the Israel lobby being discussed by our parliament which happens to be in the UK then mentioned the only book that comes up in a google search; a book that can hardly be defined as a peer reviewed academic study (which you said it was) about the Israel lobby in the UK. Now you're trying to broaden the discussion to cover books that are generally anti-Israel but aren't specifically about the Israel lobby.

The ORB put the figure in Iraq alone at 1.2 million. The British-based Lancet medical journal put the figure at 650,000. All figures are disputed, but the undeniable fact is that hundreds of thousands of people were killed. It's also funny that the Iran-Iraq war is mentioned, since the west backed Iraq in that war despite the war being purely one of attempted border expansion. So yes, the west is almost certainly directly or indirectly to blame for the deaths of over 1 million people in the Middle East. The idea that they have since that time become saints is as idiotic as it sounds.

Hundreds of thousands have been killed in Syria, but forget not that the west has an involvement in this war also, through its support for extremist groups. The argument made by some here that Syria and Russia are "monsters" whilst the US/UK have a clean conscience simply does not hold water.

This is what a few people think of the ORB study. See the highlighted section:
"The ORB poll estimate has come under criticism in a peer reviewed paper entitled "Conflict Deaths in Iraq: A Methodological Critique of the ORB Survey Estimate", published in the journal Survey Research Methods. This paper "describes in detail how the ORB poll is riddled with critical inconsistencies and methodological shortcomings", and concludes that the ORB poll is "too flawed, exaggerated and ill-founded to contribute to discussion of the human costs of the Iraq war".[9][10]

Epidemiologist Francisco Checci echoed these conclusions in a BBC interview, stating that he thinks the ORB estimate was "too high" and "implausible". Checci, like the paper above, says that a “major weakness” of the poll was a failure to adequately distinguish between households and extended family.[11]

The Iraq Body Count project also rejected what they called the "hugely exaggerated death toll figures" of ORB, citing the Survey Research Methods paper,which Josh Dougherty of IBC co-wrote.[9] IBC concluded that, "The pressing need is for more truth rooted in real experience, not the manipulation of numbers disconnected from reality."[12]

John Rentoul, a columnist for The Independent newspaper, has asserted that the ORB estimate "exaggerate the toll by a factor of as much as 10" and that "the ORB estimate has rarely been treated as credible by responsible media organisations, but it is still widely repeated by cranks and the ignorant."[13]"

The Lancet survey has also been widely discredited, however both these surveys fit your anti-west narrative.

 

[Homar]

On your last point obviously that is not my logic - the difference with the US/UK approach is we are not killing thousands of our own citizens. The UK chemical laboratories exist primarily to protect people from chemical attacks. The reason we have attacked the Syrian chemical weapon capability is because they are definitely using it and they will do so again period.

I'm not going to say whether it is against international law just you will struggle to find a bleeding heart. It is funny how 'law' is brought up instead of solid reasoning showing why we shouldn't of done it. I think I and many can live with the fact that bombing this factory was this time morally right but maybe legally wrong.

On international law you have to remember that annexing countries, killing citizens with nerve agents, using unguided bombs on civilians and shooting down airliners in European airspace is also illegal... All of those so far have gone unpunished so I think we might be okay.

The US has used chemical weapons, specifically in Vietnam. And I tend to agree with your point on international law, as alluded to in the parenthesis of my response. Although at least one person here ignores the moral argument, focusing his argument entirely on the date which the prohibition of chemical weapons was enacted. However, if you look at this from a moral perspective, then you must consider the use of weapons that have not been banned, such as the use of depleted Uranium shells, which have resulted in many birth deformities in Iraq.

1) On killing people, the US is an expert on that.
2) On using chemical weapons, the US can count itself a member of that club.
3) On using unguided bombs, Syria does not have the luxury of modern precision guided bombs.
4) On shooting down civilian airliners, the US can also count itself a member of that club.

Specifically on (3), which is commonly presented in western media as proof of the Syrian government's targeting of civilians, it reminds me of the criticism of Algeria in their war of independence (anther incredibly barbaric war for the sole purpose of preserving French colonialist control). The then commander Ahmed Ben Bella was asked why he was hiding bombs in pushchairs to target the French, he responded that (and I am paraphrasing): If they will give us some of their helicopters and aeroplanes, then we will give them some of our pushchairs.

 

[west didsblue]

This anti-Russia that Americans have been warped with is now creeping into English brains ^^

What are you talking about? The American president is Russia's biggest fan.

 

[Homar]

You were talking about the Israel lobby being discussed by our parliament which happens to be in the UK then mentioned the only book that comes up in a google search; a book that can hardly be defined as a peer reviewed academic study (which you said it was) about the Israel lobby in the UK. Now you're trying to broaden the discussion to cover books that are generally anti-Israel but aren't specifically about the Israel lobby.

No, you are quite mistaken. I was referring to the debate in the House of Commons on antisemitism. I do not recall any debate on the influence of the Israel lobby.

That book is written by a professor of political science at Harvard University. And since you have dismissed the book outright, perhaps you will take the word of Israel's own Benjamin Netanyahu. Here is a quote directly attributable to him:

"I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won't get in the way."

This is what a few people think of the ORB study. See the highlighted section:
"The ORB poll estimate has come under criticism in a peer reviewed paper entitled "Conflict Deaths in Iraq: A Methodological Critique of the ORB Survey Estimate", published in the journal Survey Research Methods. This paper "describes in detail how the ORB poll is riddled with critical inconsistencies and methodological shortcomings", and concludes that the ORB poll is "too flawed, exaggerated and ill-founded to contribute to discussion of the human costs of the Iraq war".[9][10]

Epidemiologist Francisco Checci echoed these conclusions in a BBC interview, stating that he thinks the ORB estimate was "too high" and "implausible". Checci, like the paper above, says that a “major weakness” of the poll was a failure to adequately distinguish between households and extended family.[11]

The Iraq Body Count project also rejected what they called the "hugely exaggerated death toll figures" of ORB, citing the Survey Research Methods paper,which Josh Dougherty of IBC co-wrote.[9] IBC concluded that, "The pressing need is for more truth rooted in real experience, not the manipulation of numbers disconnected from reality."[12]

John Rentoul, a columnist for The Independent newspaper, has asserted that the ORB estimate "exaggerate the toll by a factor of as much as 10" and that "the ORB estimate has rarely been treated as credible by responsible media organisations, but it is still widely repeated by cranks and the ignorant."[13]"

The Lancet survey has also been widely discredited, however both these surveys fit your anti-west narrative.

I have already said that ALL figures are disputed. The fact that the two figures provided are disputed means little when there is no accepted figure. Despite this, the vast majority of surveys put the figure in the hundreds of thousands for the Iraq war alone. Regardless of whether it were 200,000 or 500,000 or 1,000,000, these are enormous numbers of people that are dead in the ground because the US and UK convinced themselves that Iraq had chemical weapons (spoiler: it did not). These figures also don't account for the far larger numbers of people displaced, disfigured and made destitute. Not that you care, except for when it is not at the hands of the west.

 

[west didsblue]

No, you are quite mistaken. I was referring to the debate in the House of Commons on antisemitism. I do not recall any debate on the influence of the Israel lobby.

That book is written by a professor of political science at Harvard University. And since you have dismissed the book outright, perhaps you will take the word of Israel's own Benjamin Netanyahu. Here is a quote directly attributable to him:

"I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won't get in the way."

I know who wrote it, however it is not a peer reviewed academic work which you said it was. It is the authors' opinion based on their interpretation of facts which some people agreed with (e.g. Osama Bin Laden) and some people disagreed with.

I have already said that ALL figures are disputed. The fact that the two figures provided are disputed means little when there is no accepted figure. Despite this, the vast majority of surveys put the figure in the hundreds of thousands for the Iraq war alone. Regardless of whether it were 200,000 or 500,000 or 1,000,000, these are enormous numbers of people that are dead in the ground because the US and UK convinced themselves that Iraq had chemical weapons (spoiler: it did not). These figures also don't account for the far larger numbers of people displaced and made destitute.

You chose the two highest estimates to suit your argument, the two that have the least credibility.