The lack of independent verification didn't stop for a minute the tsunami of double-standard reporting on the "sieges" of Aleppo and Mosul, where, as Gareth Porter writes: "In the case of Mosul" the defenders are to blame for endangering civilians by using them as human shields and preventing them leaving. In East Aleppo, fortunately, there are no human shields -- though the UN says that half the civilian population wants to depart -- but simply innocent victims of Russian savagery."
I make no claim to know who has caused more civilian casualties in Syria, and I doubt we'll have reliable data for some time. I do think it's naive to trust what's been said so far on this by Western media, repeating sources within the jihadi-controlled areas where independent journalists dare not enter. As with everything else in this situation, one has to consider a variety of sources before deciding what's trustworthy.
Unfortunately, in situations of all-out, fight-to-the-finish war like this, the choice of which side one wants to win determines one's attitude to all consequent considerations. Partisans of each side will always frame civilian casualties as unfortunate but unavoidable collateral damage and as the ultimate responsibility of the other side. When has any side in any war stopped fighting because of civilian casualties?
I'd be happy to see Bashar al-Assad stand trial for any crimes against humanity he may have committed--alongside Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the leaders of al-Nusra and other jihadi groups (including the CIA-supported " moderate" group that beheaded a twelve-year-old boy), and right after the trials of George Bush, Barack Obama, Tony Blair, Benjamin Netanyahu, and other perpetrators of aggressive war--in a globally-recognized juridical venue. Too bad such a venue doesn't exist. Too bad the venue that's supposed to perform that function, the ICC, is completely discredited by the fact that it will never see any Western-favored criminals brought before it. Speaking metaphorically (as I don't think Saleh was): Hang 'em high. But all of them, in order.
And whoever has the right to judge them, it's not the USG/United States Government, or CNN, or MSNBC.
No Exit
Unfortunately, nobody's getting out of this with clean hands. No matter which position you take, or which side you prefer to win, there is no choice that will preserve your innocence. And it's hard not to make a choice. That's what war does. Politics is not the art of washing one's hands.
So I prefer that the Syrian Arab Army and its allies defeat the jihadi imperialist-proxy armies rather than vice-versa. I oppose any American military intervention in the conflict, including that which is already in place. And this, despite my really unfortunate sense that the American imperialist regime is going to keep this bloody war--the same one they started 38 years ago in Afghanistan--going for a very long time.
That's my position, and I'm sticking to it. Call me what you will.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
2
1
