xxyx #fundie

xxyx #fundie independent.co.uk

[On Aleppo]

"to air-drop life-saving aid."

Dropping food into a seige situation is taking sides and prolonging a war. Why do this when all the signs are that those who manage to leave the city are given aid anyway - unless there is a political component to the calls for airdrops?

The official narrative is so one sided it is transparently so. Would someone consider those dropping aid in Mosul to be pro-peace, a humanitarian air-drop or supplying IS?

16 comments

old comment by Psycho Tits

Yes, I think dropping aid packages into Mosul (and Raqqa, etc.) is a good idea. We are not at war with their civilian populations. The civilians on the ground are not stupid: They know the difference between a mud poultice and sterile bandages; between pain and morphine -- and they would know full well where the latter is coming from.

We cannot end this war without civilians on the other side to help us. If they hate us, this war could go on for generations and that is no joke considering the technology we have now.

Give in to terrorists? No. I'm all for killing as many active DAESH members as US and allied forces can get.

Sometimes yes, DAESH assholes will find and steal caches. I suspect people organising the drops are doing so with ground-support from Western sympathisers, however, which means people will be gone with the supplies before the enemy knows it even happened. (Basically, they could air drop to the right parties using the same methods as outside drug dealers use to organise drug drops in prisons.)

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

This poster is a supporter of the far-left "peace organization" the Stop The War Coalition. The principal actors in the STWC supported this kind of ghoulery in Sarajevo, Kosovo, and Eastern Ukraine, and now Syria. This quote is just a smidgen away from the quote people like xxyx love to repeat about Ben Tre that shows how evil the West is: "It became necessary to destroy the town in order to save it." At least the US admitted its part in Ben Tre. As for Aleppo, xxyx and the STWC will do just what they've done with Srebrenica, Recak, Rwanda and all those other occasions when they've backed bloody tyrants because their victims have had the misfortune to receive Western sympathy: they'll simply deny it ever happened.

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

@ Psycho Tits

I think they'd rather you supported Assad and see the butchery in Aleppo as "liberation." To quote xxyx further down the thread, It's pretty much like Holland opening the dykes at Leiden. It's what has to be done to save the country from IS. That is, as I said, another way of saying "It became necessary to destroy the town in order to save it."

As to what STWC would like you to do, it holds regular demonstrations against the US-led coalition (responsible for about 0.3% of deaths according to I AM SYRIA), but have nothing to say about the Assad/Putin coalition (responsible for 93.3% of deaths). But, as xxyx says in another post about Assad:

He is clearly the lesser of two evils because he is not supporting genocide, slavery, mass executions, the murder of gays, the degradation of women and the extinction of a liberal education and many cultures and the other side is.

old comment by Insult to Rocks

@Hasan
It's painfully predictable that this kind of support fot Assad exists. When there is war in the Middle East, we actually hear about the problems on the peninsula, which means we inevitably get involved in long, tough conflicts. Many people on the political spectrum look to tyrants to "stabilize" the situation. Of course, they do no such thing. But when a tyrant with full control of the media and the mosques murders whole villages in peacetime, people across the sea can sit self-righteous and satisfied, because the tyrant will always make his actions secret, or at least denyable. For people like xxyx, the devil you don't know is actually better than the one you do, because with the former you can shut your eyes and pretend that nothing is wrong. That way, they feel good about themselves without actually doing good, and the Arabs, Kurds, and others that would make trouble and open their eyes are "pacified". To xxyx, peace is worth any cost, even that of truth and integrity.

old comment by JeanP

Yes, some might be diverted by ISIS but, if made with coordination with inside elements, could mainly be found and kept by civilians.

And I have the nagging impression they would strongly protest if it was America or any "Western" poser sieging a city.

@Hasan Prishtina

This poster is a supporter of the far-left "peace organization" the Stop The War Coalition. The principal actors in the STWC supported this kind of ghoulery in Sarajevo, Kosovo, and Eastern Ukraine, and now Syria. This quote is just a smidgen away from the quote people like xxyx love to repeat about Ben Tre that shows how evil the West is: "It became necessary to destroy the town in order to save it." At least the US admitted its part in Ben Tre. As for Aleppo, xxyx and the STWC will do just what they've done with Srebrenica, Recak, Rwanda and all those other occasions when they've backed bloody tyrants because their victims have had the misfortune to receive Western sympathy: they'll simply deny it ever happened.

The point about Stop the War Coalition is made, in a larger form, by Ian Birrell in [i]Why will Stop the War not condemn Russia?[/i].

In short, like Pink Code in America, which protests against attacks against ISIS, or the folks who protested against the Euromissiles, they're more anti-"West" than anti-war.

The worrying point is that the leader of one of the main political parties of a major country is the founder of the outfit.

@Psycho Tits

If that's their position, it's lazy, weighed down with moral cowardice, and combined with a studied indifference to the suffering of others.
The outcome isn't peace at all, but simple, fragile stasis maintained through a government's willingness to control its civilian population with terror.

And this isn't like such status quo might last forever: the amount of repression materially useable is limited, and the day where no repression could be used against resistence is usually the downfall of the regime.

This is why the Fragile States Index has worse notations for states with dictatorships, one-party states and any states where brutal force is used to quell opposition: one day, like with Siad Barre, Kadhafi and Mobutu, the while rotten structure might collapse.

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

@ Stormfront Boy

Last time I looked, there were more than two sides fighting in Syria and Assad came comparatively late to the game when it came to fighting ISIL; for most of the time, he's been content for his opponents and the Kurds to do the heavy work. Even by Syria's dismal standards, there are better alternatives to both Assad and ISIL.

@ Insult to Rocks

When dealing with the Middle East, in Stop The War-World, you need to understand that the butchery in Darfur is a situation that's too complicated to make judgements about genocide while (at least according to an article STWC has now removed from its website) it's time to go to war with Israel as the only path to peace in the Middle East.

@ Psycho Tits

You've hit the nail on the head. It's not for nothing that some call STWC "Stop the War - no, not that one."

@ JeanP

The Burrell article is good at providing the detail that I haven't and it shouldn't be forgotten that Jeremy Corbyn is a founder member and former chairman and Ann Clwyd exposed STWC's indifference towards Iraqis unless they were statistics of the dead. You're right that STWC and Code Pink have a lot in common, not least their talent at being douchebags who make Trump look sane.

xxyx #fundie independent.co.uk

16 comments

Confused?