NEWS: Syria & Russia Accuse U.S. Coalition, ‘White Helmets’, of Preparing Chemical Weapons Attacks in Idlib

“Regarding Assad. OffG has never offered unqualified endorsement. What we do insist on, however, is that claims of his brutality are properly sourced.”

Two paragraphs, attesting to the brutality and repressive nature of the Syrian government, properly sourced:

Quote begins:

The regime’s initial response to the revolt was to mix massive repression with traditional attempts at appeasement and cooptation: giving pay increases to public employees, ceasing to enforce regulations, granting privileges to tribal, religious or communal notables. Promises of limited political reform remained largely on paper: for example, the regime ended the emergency law but allowed the security forces to continue to use violence with impunity.27 Concessions to the Kurds over citizenship and identity, together with links to Iraqi Kurdish leaders and Turkey’s opposition to Asad, kept the Kurds ambivalent. But the regime refused to concede democratization as a legitimate way out of the crisis or to accept the opposition as a legitimate partner; instead, it continued with its unilateral top-down constitutional changes, which won it little credit.

Although at first the regime did restrain the amount of violence it used against protesters, the uprising empowered hard-liners such as Maher al-Asad and many of the retired security barons, such as Ali Duba, who returned to power. Their belief that any tolerance of dissent would encourage more, and that sufficient repression could defeat it, as it had in the 1980s, was reflected in an increasing over-reaction. Operations against small towns and suburbs were intended to deter the spread of the uprising to the main cities and to prevent a Libya-like scenario where parts of the country fell into opposition hands, providing an opening for foreign intervention. However, killings only inflamed the opposition, as relatives and friends were alienated and funerals became the occasion for further protests. In contrast to the 1980s, the availability of mobile phones with cameras, the internet and satellite TV rapidly made known the use of violence against unarmed protesters, costing the regime its legitimacy and escalating demands for its overthrow.

Quote ends.

Source: Syria: from ‘authoritarian upgrading’ to revolution? — Raymond Hinnebusch (11/01/2012) | International Affairs

How do we know anything at all to be “true” when what we have to rely on are “claims” or “counter-claims” being made (in print or other media) by anyone, eh? How can we believe our own first hand perceptions when we know that they often lead us astray?

You can always doubt whatever it is you find is”troubling” to you, no matter how vague or specific the claims may be.

That’s just the nature of “things alleged” by others, let alone the difficulty of sorting out for yourself “events” or “circumstances” to which you yourself are a firsthand witness.

You say that these claims are “reminiscent of the claims made about the Maidan and alleged police brutality, which have been “shown to be in many cases reversals of reality.”

Okay, according to you, the claims about the Maidan massacre and alleged police brutality were “shown to be in many cases reversals of reality.”

That’s a pretty vague claim, right there, isn’t it: “shown to be in many cases reversals of reality.”

Can you be more specific? Why weren’t you more specific in the first place? Why the utterly vague and non-specific “shown to be in many cases?”

And even when doctors, who claim to have had a firsthand look at the wounds of those who were shot on the Maidan, and attest that all of the wounds examined suggest a single caliber, possibly even the same weapon, and, therefore, by implication that “. . . the Maidan massacre of the protesters was a false flag operation . . .”, why should I believe them?

I haven’t been able to “see” the original pathology reports.

And even if I had had access to those original reports, how do I know that those reports are faithful to the facts, to what the medical examiners actually saw and found?

I mean, it’s not as if the conclusions of medical examiners, of pathologists, haven’t ” been shown to be in many cases reversals of reality.”

So why would anyone accept that the many “cases” to which you only vaguely refer have in fact shown anything at all to be reversals of reality?

Hinnebusch is a scholar. He has a track record. His specialty is the Middle East. If you read the piece to which I have linked, you will find references. Even Prof. Tim Hayward, who defends the purported legitimacy of the Assad government, quotes Hinnebusch on behalf of his own position, raising absolutely no concerns whatever about either Hinnebusch’s integrity or the substance of the piece to which I have provided a link and from which Hayward approvingly quotes.

But Hinnebusch’s claims are “troubling.” So lets dismiss them out of hand. Despite another scholar like Amin, whose specialty is also the Middle East, making the same sorts of vague claims about a Syrian government that has a well-established track record of brutality and oppression.

But what about the personal testimony of Yassin al-Haj Saleh? Would that, too, be too troubling on account of its vagueness and non-specificity? Google “Revolution, counterrevolution, and imperialism in Syria: Interview with Yassin al-Haj Saleh — Ashley Smith (October 2017)|International Socialist Review” for his vague and non-specific allegations.

Am I hysterical? Am I defensive about the impossibility of ultimate proof?

Or am I not, rather, holding up a mirror for you to observe your own rhetorical strategy in action?

You had no trouble adducing a vaguely stated claim as ‘evidence’ that the Maidan massacres were the result of a false flag operation. Why? Because you knew that I was more or less already familiar with the file, so to speak, and between us, no more was needed as a statement of “fact.” A word to the wise, eh, that being all that is required for people who already know.

In a like manner, Hinnebusch’s piece provides more than sufficient details to anyone who doesn’t live under a rock to prove the historical and presently repressive nature of the government of Syria, and at precisely the same level of generality that you are more than happy to embrace when he ‘itemizes’ the Syrain government’s efforts at conciliation. In those instances, you grant him high marks, and Hinnebusch becomes a credible witness. But why? Is it really that his piece is uneven in the specificity and evidentiary ground of its claims? Or is it rather not a matter of what you like and don’t like about the implications of purported statements of fact? Probably it’s the latter, eh? The statements you like are specific and incontrovertible and sufficiently accounted for; the statements you don’t like, however, fail to meet a more rigorous if vaguely stated standard of proof.

You write:

“If this brutality is real there will be more than Person X’s ‘testimony’. There will be names of the dead or missing, dates, video footage, blood in the streets. “

Right. So the names of the dead or missing, specifically those who are murdered and disappeared by criminal regimes are always provided by – whom? – the very regimes who murder and disappear the victims? But what if, like Tommy Frank put it, they “don’t do body counts?” What if testimony of the crimes is provided only by the victims, but the victims are labelled members of the “opposition,” or even worse, supporters of Al Qaeda and/or ISIS? Does their testimony then count? If you want videos that claim abuses, you can find plenty on the internet. But are they “staged?” Is the content really what the posters of the videos allege they are? Maybe they are propaganda videos? And maybe they are! However shall we sort our way through it all, eh? For every “fact” adduced, there is a “counter-fact.”

For some reason, but probably because it’s fresh in my mind, I’m reminded of this exchange related by Harold Pinter:

Quote begins

I was a member of a delegation speaking on behalf of Nicaragua but the most important member of this delegation was a Father John Metcalf. The leader of the US body was Raymond Seitz (then number two to the ambassador, later ambassador himself). Father Metcalf said: ‘Sir, I am in charge of a parish in the north of Nicaragua. My parishioners built a school, a health centre, a cultural centre. We have lived in peace. A few months ago a Contra force attacked the parish. They destroyed everything: the school, the health centre, the cultural centre. They raped nurses and teachers, slaughtered doctors, in the most brutal manner. They behaved like savages. Please demand that the US government withdraw its support from this shocking terrorist activity.’

Raymond Seitz had a very good reputation as a rational, responsible and highly sophisticated man. He was greatly respected in diplomatic circles. He listened, paused and then spoke with some gravity. ‘Father,’ he said, ‘let me tell you something. In war, innocent people always suffer.’ There was a frozen silence. We stared at him. He did not flinch.

Innocent people, indeed, always suffer.

Finally somebody said: ‘But in this case “innocent people” were the victims of a gruesome atrocity subsidised by your government, one among many. If Congress allows the Contras more money further atrocities of this kind will take place. Is this not the case? Is your government not therefore guilty of supporting acts of murder and destruction upon the citizens of a sovereign state?’

Seitz was imperturbable. ‘I don’t agree that the facts as presented support your assertions,’ he said.

Quote ends.

“I don’t agree that the facts as presented support your assertions.”

And that, in a nutshell, is the crux of the problem, isn’t it?

Everything to follow is being pilfered from Joseph Daher’s website (the two links per post limit will be respected):

Item:

Repression, reforms and resistance

Item:

A Statement by the LCC Regarding the Massacre that Happened in Teremsah

“There’s no solid data there.”

Why am I not surprised at your ‘reaction.’

As I wrote to you last night, pertaining to your reaction to Hinnebusch’s piece:

Quote begins:

You write: “Please stop the confrontational attitude”

In what possible sense am I being “confrontational?”

You dismissed a reference I made as providing insufficient grounds for establishing the repressive nature of the Syrian government.

I disagreed with your assessment, and “explained” my disagreement.

Apparently, my “explanation” was a full-on display of hysteria. Your reading, not mine.

So I also disagreed with that assessment and stated my disagreement, and then concluded my reply by expressing the sentiment that I believe you are strongly committed to a point of view, regardless of what the actual facts of the matter may be.

On the latter score, I may be wrong, and, therefore, retract that judgement.

Nevertheless, it simply remains beyond me how anyone can read Hinnebusch and not come to the forceful realization that the Syrian government is seriously misrepresented by the claims that it is socialist, anti-imperialist, popular, and anything but repressive.

But you want evidence of repression.

Of course, that evidence cannot but be sourced from among the purported victims of the Syrian government, which ipso facto situates them among the ‘opposition,’ and thus at a geopolitical level of analysis, as being, by default, proxies of the Imperializing West, and, therefore, on account of that presumed alignment — a guilt by association, really — unreliable witnesses.

Nevertheless, in spite of that inescapable and prejudicial prejudgment, if a list of purported specifics is what you want, a perusal of only Joseph Daher’s website provides an abundance of evidence of the repressive — nay, the murderous — overreaction of the Syrian government in the face of popular explosions of dissent.

A handful of items, then, to which you can add your own by further perusing Daher’s site, and by possibly even getting in touch with him:

Quote ends.

I then referenced you to a list of items posted in articles written by Daher.

Apparently, “Joseph Daher completed a PhD in Development Studies at SOAS, University of London (2015), and a PhD in Political Science at Lausanne University (2018), Switzerland. He currently teaches at Lausanne University. ” May I propose, then, that you get directly in touch with him about the apparent fact that his claims appear to be unsubstantiated. Presumably, he will either blush with shame and promise never again to make such unsubstantiated claims about the goings on in Syria or he will address your concerns. Do let me know how he responds to your concerns and queries (you have me email address). From what I can tell, the man is very approachable and will not “go off on you” in the manner that I have.

“Look, Norman, I have no idea if this man can substantiate his claims or not, all I know is YOU haven’t produced any such substantiation.”

Oh, but I have, see. I’ve provided plenty of substantiation. You just keep pushing it away and dismissing it out of hand.

You raise pertinent question. But they are YOUR questions, NOT mine. I’ve already done my homework and have established to my satisfaction that Daher is a solid source of information.

YOU claim his work is without substance. Prove to us that Daher is not to be trusted. Show us a pattern of errors or lies in his claims and analyses, that is to say, to substantiate YOUR claim that “there’s no solid data” in his work.

I say his work is solid. And I provided you with corroborating statements by two other Middle East scholars.

Is Amin solid? Yes. Is Hinnebusch solid. Yes.

On Syria, in both geopolitical and national terms, both of those scholars offer what is a substantially identical assessment. Furthermore, their geopolitical analysis is identical to your own. But there is this difference: they claim the Syrian regime to be odiously repressive, and that ordinary Syrians did rise up all on their own, in reaction to both intolerable living conditions and the odious repression.

What about Daher’s assessment? It’s substantially the same. So if these three independent researchers, all of whom are scholars, are saying essentially the same thing about Syria, why would I distrust Daher while trusting the other two?

All of their claims and analylses overlap and are substantive corroborations of one another.

You doubt their claims. Why? Because ALL claims can be doubted? Or because you have found errors or outright elements of deceit in their claims? So which is it? You haven’t yet demonstrated the latter. So it must be the former, rigtht? Or am I being hysterical once again?

“You acknowledge I raise pertinent questions, acknowledge you don’t know the answers – but for some reason you don’t want to find out. ”

Your doubts about Daher, Amin and Hinnebusch are not my doubts.

They are YOUR doubts.

I can’t resolve YOUR doubts for you.

That’s something for YOU to do.

You raise pertinent questions, but from my perspective, if I take on YOUR questions as my OWN questions, they are adequately resolved, see.

When you say that I acknowledge that I don’t know the answers to your questions, you are projecting your own lack of answers onto me. I acknowledge no such thing. That should be clear from everything that I’ve written.

Establishing Daher’s credibility in your own mind is your problem. That isn’t anything that I can do for you. He’s already credible in mine.

And as you yourself have acknowledge, maybe Daher is a reliable witness.

You have questions about his claims, and that is as it should be. You can address your questions directly to him, no? Or alternatively, you can familiarize yourself with his work, familiarize yourself with Amin’s and Hinnebusch’s work, also, and compare and contrast their works against each other as well as against other corpuses with which you are already familiar.

Only then, I’d say, would you be in a position to “judge” whether or not “there is any evidentiary data” in Daher’s, Amin’s, or Hinnebusch’s work.

Oh, I know, a lot of work and a lot of time.

But there it is: either you get off your ass and make the effort, or you can take the easy and lazy way out, recognize that in any case, there isn’t a claim under the sun that anyone can make that isn’t in some respect doubtful, and just let, as you put it, the discussion stall right here.

By the way, did you ever get a chance to read this?

Revolution and Counter Revolution in Syria

I highly recommend it. You really ought to make an effort and have a go of it.

Did you even read the article?

Daher clearly states HIS reasons as to why HE believes ‘regime change’ is not what the U.S. was after:

At the beginning of the uprising in March 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton characterized Assad as a “reformer” and added that many members of Congress who have gone to Syria in recent months also believed that he’s a reformer.

The absence of any kind of organized and decisive military assistance from the US or Western states to the democratic components of the Free Syrian Army are further proof of this lack of will for any radical change in Syria. In addition, the United States has also opposed the supply of anti-aircraft missiles to various FSA forces.

In 2014, Barack Obama’s $500 million plan (which was approved by Congress) to arm and equip 5,000-10,000 Syrian rebels, was never implemented and not aimed at overthrowing the Assad regime. The text of the resolution makes that clear.

In October 2015, even Senator Lindsey Graham challenged Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair General Joseph Dunford on the US strategy in Syria. He asked about the possibility of overthrowing Assad, saying, “this is a half-assed strategy at best”. On December 15, 2015, Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters in the Russian capital after meeting President Vladimir Putin: “The United States and our partners are not seeking so-called regime change.”

If Daher is lying, then none or most of the reasons, that is to say, the data points, he adduces for his belief are “fabrications” or “distortions.”

Now you go through the four paragraphs adducing his “evidence” as the grounds for believing what he does, and SHOW me where there IS either FABRICATION or DISTORTION, that some or none of what he claims to have been the case was never the case, and, therefore, that he has no grounds to INTERPRET those “facts” as he does.

I must say that I’m more than just a bit disillusioned with the quality of the intellectual acumen — or rather, the almost complete absence of it — that you are bringing to bear on this conversation.

How sad that you apparently can’t distinguish between a series of adduced “facts” and the need for “interpreting” them theoretically, that you apparently don’t understand that a series or array of adduced “facts” must be “interpreted” so as to be invested with “meaning.”

So according to you, now, when someone holds to a different “interpretation” of the significance of uncontroversial data points, the person is “lying” or “pushing an agenda.”

Okay, let’s go with that. Do tell: what “agenda” is Daher pushing?

Yep.

For people who only understand English, Raymond Hinnebusch’s short presentation in the featured and first video begins at the 3 minute mark and ends at the 24 minute and 20 second mark. The second related video is in English only. Also highly pertinent to all of this content, you might actually want to read what to my mind is a highly informative piece of analysis by Hinnebusch, titled, “Syria: from ‘authoritarian upgrading’ to revolution?,” and to which I’ve already provided a link (multiple times, I think).

“Just so other readers can go and judge for themselves, while keeping in mind that Joseph Daher, PhD, is a Syrian expat and thus presumably sources his information through a network of contacts in Syria …”

So Norman, you admit you haven’t asked Joseph Daher where he’s sourcing his information from in Syria before pasting a deluge of posts he’s written on the protests in Dar’aa in 2011?

A case I think of putting the cart before the horse.