Syria, and betrayal

Robert "make it up, they'll never notice" Fisk has a splendid piece in the Independent on Syria and "the West". It's barely coherent even by his standards. At a certain point I thought I was hallucinating when he started going on about Churchill and Potsdam, which obviously has everything to do with the war in Syria. Part of it is below, and it deserves - well, perhaps here it should be called an Eponymous-ing.

I sniff treachery. Because – let’s be frank about it – something is going very wrong with the narrative of the Syrian war. Whose narrative? Our Western lords and masters we live in democracies in these countries and elect our leaders – as untrustworthy today as they were when they sold Poland to Stalin at Yalta what's Poland and Churchill got to do with Syria today? – have started to talk much less about their visceral desire to destroy Bashar al-Assad they never talked about that in the first place and much more about their fear of the corrosive presence of al-Qa’ida within the rebel forces fighting to remove the Syrian president. well, der, if you don't intervene you get the medieval barbarians As the Syrian tragedy deepens, so our moral Western policy you what? meaningless towards the damned of this ghastly war has turned into a betrayal of its people. not intervening was the betrayal

... While claiming that Britain had not lost faith in the Arab revolutions – Churchill said as much about his fidelity to Poland after handing the country to Stalin Churchill again - he's been dead for well over 40 years, and the world, and the Middle East, have changed a bit since– William Hague said that Syria was the most serious case of a revolt being “hijacked” by militants. The country, he claimed, was “the No 1 destination for jihadists anywhere in the world today”. And your problem with that is?

Incredible. This might almost have been a speech by Bashar al-Assad himself Ah, we see who has been repeating this for almost two years about “al-Qa’ida terrorists” in Syria. Even putting aside the fact that Mali was supposed by whom? to have assumed the mantle of “terror centre” less than two months ago, that's not why France intervened this was an extraordinary statement for the pitiful Hague to make. except it's true

He babbled on about UK and other European extremists in Syria, then added: “They may not pose a threat to us when they first go to Syria, but if they survive, some may return ideologically hardened and with experience of weapons and explosives. The longer the conflict continues (in Syria), the greater this danger will become.”

Ergo, I suspect, let’s bring this war to a close. except that that's not being done. Fisk just made that bit up. Why else are Hague and Lavrov now talking about “dialogue” between rebels and regime? 

Did you know that in Fisk's book on Lebanon he wrote that Jesus was born in Jerusalem? Yes, he really did.

is she getting it?

fnarr fnarr etc etc.  @pennyred, who is a posh girl called Laura I believe, is to be congratulated for trying to get it right on Assange.  Unlike the middle-aged and elderly males of the "international left" (and George Galloway), who have come out in their droves to say that Assange is a hero and that he should therefore not stand to account for the rape he has been accused of, she has tried to say that no-one should have to choose between freedom of speech and respect for women.  Good for her.  It's only shocking that so many appear to believe, without evidence or due process, that Assange must not stand trial in Sweden.  What message does that send, especially to men on the left?  Laura quotes teenage boys in her piece who say that they do not think what Assange is reported to have done was rape.  What is going to happen in teenage bedrooms, cars and the car parks of night clubs as a result of this?  Does anyone care?  Well, Laura seems to, and I am pleased about that.  Read on in her piece in the Independent (link higher up) and you will see that she says "I believe women".  Well, I don't.  We tell lies.  We shouldn't, but we do.  All humans do from time to time, although we try not to.  Always believing women who accuse men of rape ruins the lives of innocent men, and those of their families and people who love them.  Never  believing them, which is what the elderly male left are telling us to do, creates a world in which women become pieces of property.  Which is obscene.  Laura is tying herself in knots here, but she doesn't need to.  Believing in freedom of speech, and believing that women have the right to the integrity of their own bodies, are not mutually contradictory beliefs.  And Laura is straying on to territory in which that is how they are seen.  And then she spoils herself by saying this:

The answer is, of course, that Julian Assange should be held to account, of course he should, and he should be held to account in a system where due process means something and women are respected, and currently that system does not exist. Come back to me when the 19,000 annual sex attacks committed by members of the US Army and private contractors against their fellow soldiers are prosecuted. Come back to me when Private Bradley Manning is free.

he should be held to account in a system where due process means something and women are respected, and currently that system does not exist  Er, yes it does, Laura, in quite a number of places in the world, and one of them is Sweden.
Come back to me when the 19,000 annual sex attacks committed by members of the US Army and private contractors against their fellow soldiers are prosecuted. Why?  Rape and sexual assault happen all over the world, all the time.  They're not worse when committed by the US military.  I would argue that they are worse when committed, say, against girls in Afghanistan who then have the "choice" of marrying their rapist or being killed by their family.
Come back to me when Private Bradley Manning is free. Why?  He shouldn't be released, not now.  He is to be charged with very serious offences against national security.  What he should have is due process, and the US government, and President Obama, should hang their heads in shame that he has not had it.  They have other things to hang their heads in shame about too, not least failing to intervene in Syria, but that is for another post.

So, Laura, a good try, and your heart seems to be in the right place, but don't spoil it with meaningless anti-Americanism.  Intellectual honesty is not that hard to achieve, if you only try.

a few corrections

Adrian Windisch (nice bloke, shame about the politics) has had this to say, fisking mine as usual:

Now theres a phrase ("one of us") that can have dfferent meanings. If you are a Tory, LD (or Jane Griffiths) it has racist overtones.  I did not say the phrase itself was racist.  I said that used in the context it was it was a dog-whistle to racists - and also that the stated view of Mr Howarth of Public Impact Limited the Church ward electorate is indeed racist.  I have heard him and Mr Salter say so.

Reading Labour are defining it as "a resident, a family, someone being effected by the harsh cuts brought about by national government, a worker, a parent, a Labour member." That's what they say now, when challenged on their racist dog-whistle.
When I see someone being attacked I like to look at the facts for myself. Who has been attacked? In the last few years I even defended my General Election rival LD Daisy Benson .
I said at the time. 'In the past Reading Labour have said the Greens were linked with terrorists or another year they said we had links with the bnp. Again these attacks were so ridiculous that they did more damage to Labour, calling into question everything they said.' And following this Jane tries to link me to the Latvian Green Party, she seems a bit focused on WW2. "In Latvia they were overtly racist in government, promoting the expulsion of all Jews from Latvia." They were, and this was earlier this century, not at the time of WW2 - the rest of the Green movement did not disown them. If true this would make them the opposite of every Green Party I have heard of, and they should be removed from any link to the rest of us.
So yesterday I pointed out how the phrase 'born and bred' is not uncommon. Jane Griffiths says that two of my examples are 'black', which she thinks makes me wrong. I didn't say the examples were "black", that would have been meaningless.  I said the phrase was used, in two of the four examples given, as code for race.Actually that makes my case, it isn't a white supremecist code word if its in common usage by non white candidates.
Tory Cllr Isobell says Labour's behaviour was 'arrogant' and 'unjust'. Jane claims that Isobel says 'She also directly criticises Green Party chairperson Adrian Windisch for attempting to defend Labour, saying he has been taken for a fool.' Jane says 'She's right.' Actually Isobel says 'Unlike Adrian, they are not fooled.' Yes.  Read it again.  "Unlike...not fooled" means "was fooled".  English, dontcha know. So much for accuracy then. And this sort of 'untruth' gets repeated.
LD Orangepan says 'She is supported by Green Party stalwart (and former Battle ward resident)' Adrian Windisch. But when repeating this Jane says '(and Battle ward resident)'. I moved to Earley a couple of years ago. Perhaps Orangepan updated this when he realised his error and just didnt say he had done this That I think is what happened.  Actually Adrian I don't care where you live. Poor journalism in either case.