The rationale for Assad in using chemical weapons is a group punishment of sorts for aiding the rebels. The conflict has been locked in back and forth territorial plays between Assad and the rebels. Dumping chemical weapons in a contested zone is a powerful psychological disincentive to the local civilian population in aiding the rebels.

Comparing this to Iraq '03 is misguided. Obama has shown no evidence of being a neoconservative, politically any serious involvement would be hugely damaging. There's good evidence to suggest that once Assad goes, there would be a civil war between the rebels for control. From there the rebels who come to power will likely be Islamic fundamentalists.

Besides, with fracking and CSG, the US is in a vastly different situation visa vi oil and gas, and either way Syria is hardly an oil slick. There's really little reason to get involved besides humanitarian reasons to act as disincentive to future dictators, at this point and I think it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

@Buck

The opposition to Assad is ragtag of mostly the local Sunni majority as the local Christians, Druze and Alawites have generally aligned themselves with Assad. They have little to nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood.

The reporting I have read is saying the strongest insurgents who are doing the weight of the fighting are generally fundamentalist Islamists, they also seem to be receiving the bulk of the funding from Saudi Arabia and Qatar unofficial groups who are sponsoring them.

The US is giving arms to purportedly moderate groups through the Supreme Military Council and Syrian Opposition Coalition political organisations, however it is not clear how extensive this program is.

I know very little about Syria beyond what is part of the major consensus narrative aka "history". But it's an interesting discussion to have, so my vote goes to "horrible idea", and here's why.

It's a civil war between bad guys on one side and bad guys on the other side, with civilians, as always, caught right in the middle of this meatgrinder. Foreign supporters of both sides keep adding fuel in the form of cash, weapons, training and personnel, all for their own geopolitical gains, of course. Nobody truly gives a fuck about the population, never has.

If any action is supposed to to be carried out for the benefit of the local population, the refugees and regional stability, I'd say two basic questions need to be answered first:

1) What's the situation?
2) What actions by exterior forces can improve this situation?

Judging by most articles these days, the modus operandi instead seems to be based on two entirely different questions: what actions would benefit our geopolitical/economical situation and what should this conflict's narrative look like to support our intentions.

If you look at all the major players involved, it seems clear to me to be a "stay-the-fuck-outta-this" situation.

US, Israel, Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia + Emirates vs Syria, Russia and Iran. Egypt and Lebanon are "involved" on both sides -- Muslim Brotherhood and Lebanese Sunnis against Assad, General Sisi (neutral?) and Lebanese Shia pro Assad. Not to mention Al Qaeda against Assad and Hezbollah pro Assad.

Anytime the US finds itself on the same team as Al Qaeda, the situation needs to be reevaluated. And don't even get me started on those barbarians that cut off people's heads and eat their hearts in front of cameras.

And what's the primary geopolitical angle here? To cut the connection between Iran and the Lebanese Shia (Hezbollah)? I figure if they get isolated, they might lash out - violently. And those guys are much more capable than the rabble that makes up significant parts of the Syrian insurrection.

Once the Alawites and Shia in Syria get chopped up by those "rebels" after Assad was removed, things will get ugly real fast.

My suggestion: stop treating Iran like a pariah and start talking. Their regime might be a disaster, but the Persian people are well educated and much closer to our Western way of life than anyone else in that region. Get them, the Russians and the Chinese involved.

Then again, that's the White Man trying to solve the Brown Man's problems from the outside -- has that ever worked? Besides, it would reduce the threat of terrorism and war -- that's bad for business.

The 20th?? Oliver Stone says Rumsfeld ordered the invasion plan of Iraq drawn up on 9/11 while Dubya was still reading about little goats.
He is supposed to have told them to "Sweep it all up".

By the time Bush got on the megaphone at ground zero and told a cheering crowd he was going to get even he'd already told his Daddy's business partners the Bin Ladens they were letting Saudi Arabia off.

@alien_concept

Thanks! I was struggling to come up with a username, and then I just decided to accept my true nature.

And this is a timeless issue that I think we've all run into at times. A woman comes to a man to talk about her emotions. The man sees that she has a problem, and tries to help her solve it. This frustrates the woman - she only wanted to share her troubles with him, and she feels insulted that he would assume she is incapable of solving her own problems. This, in turn, frustrates the man; after all, why would she come to him if she won't accept his help? He's sincerely doing his best, and he feels that she is being unfair and overly emotional.

A fight ensues, and neither party understands how it even happened, or how to find a way out of it.

And as I have a VERY emotional mother and VERY rational father, I've been on both sides, as well as in the middle, of this conflict many times.

As for Assange, he once said that Sweden is the "Saudi Arabia of feminism," and having grown up here, I can vouch for the veracity of that statement.

It has gotten to the point here that most guys are just too afraid to stand up to even the most obvious acts of bigotry because the one-way sexism has become so widely accepted. We're only left with three choices; we either accept the abuse and join in it ourselves, or we simply give up and take it with a sort of hopeless resignation.

Since I can't stand to be victimized, I favour the third option; pointing out the bullshit and then riposting with facts, logic and righteous anger.

But I've had some utterly INSANE examples of sexism happen in the classroom, including a teacher derailing a lecture right at the beginning of it and instead spending her entire hour to essentially claim that all men are either rapists or potential rapists, and as a guy, it's just difficult to know what to do in that situation.

It's also very hurtful, as I find rape to be one of the most despicable acts imaginable.

And... that's why my reaction to this guy's poem was so strong. It's like he's been abused for so long that he's begun to think that it's actually true.

You gave your son a very good answer! Men and women are different from one another (though this isn't entirely set in stone), and I think that anybody who claims otherwise simply prefers ideology or fantasy (same thing, really) over reality.

And for what it's worth, I think those differences are pretty freaking valuable. I love women, and part of the reason for that is the fact that they aren't men.

its not a country, a country cant do anything. there are people, persons doing this.

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are our allies, yet are the sources of the terrorism moreso than Afghanistan.

The FSA are civilians responding to their countrymen being MASSACRED, women, children, old people, by the GOVERNMENT, the SAA.

Really clueless people who think the FSA are terrorists and SAA is legitimate. Disinformation is winning despite the clear video evidence that Assad is massacring civilians of opposing religious factions. I see this clearly, but then again I watch the actual videos from places that dont put commentary on them. Its disgusting what they, the leaders of Syria, have done to the children of Syria using the army as a tool. You do not attack civilians or give militia leeway to do so.

Support the FSA.

@lantern53 Where were Bush's apologies? Didn't he say that history would be the judge hence no need to apologise? Also, the government is not some mythical separate entity from 'the people". America is the bastion of democracy, don't you agree? How are we to separate the actions of its people from its government? Democracy, especially one as purportedly strong as your own, implies consent if not endorsement.

@bcglorf The first point just restates what I said which I think we both agree on.

The second point about Pakistan has been over simplified to the point of misdirection. There are 3 domains of power in Pakistan; the ISI (Intelligence), the military and the government. The ISI largely controls the madrassahs and although there is a huge amount of violence in Pakistan at the moment (something you won't hear about in Western news broadcasts) the main area of contention there is about Kashmir. It has little if nothing to do with the USA. In fact the USA aids the Pakistan cause by their alliance with Pakistan in an attempt to oppose Chinese backed India. Further, charities does not automatically mean state-based endorsement. Its quite a stretch.

Plus, I can name many muslim nations that did not have spontaneous celebrations. Afghanistan for one. Sure maybe a few in Kabul got wind of it but as a nation they are still pretty much in the dark about the whole thing. Some more, Turkey (secular yes but muslim by demos), Azer Baijan, Sudan, Bosnia-Herzogoznia, Burkina Faso, Chad, Comoros, Gambia, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Mauritania, Somalia.... I'm sure there were lots of other countries that had spontaneous displays of celebration after 9/11... France, Cuba, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Venuzuela, Russia, Guatemala, Vietnam, Philippines, Laos, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Mexico, Serbia.

To paint any display of celebration with the brush of enemy eliminates any nuance or desire for understanding complex issues for the sake of post hoc raltionalisation of ones own immediate intuitions. Does the Westboro Baptist Church mean that America is no better than any of the Muslim nations you list? Of course not. To say as much as absurd. To see brown people doing the same is merely convenient.

The third point you seem to provide your own refutation. Drones etc do indeed fuel Al Queda. You admit as much. If the AL Qaeda aim is indeed about Pakistan and India (which I think you may be very confused about Al-Qaeda and its Pakistani brethren, two very separate entities with almost no commonality bar what we grant them). Al Qaeda in the Bin Laden days cared nothing for Pakistan. It was almost entirely focused on Saudi Arabia and only went to Afghanistan as a sort of Boys Own adventure club. They were the laughing stock of the Mujahaddin.

"Can anyone honestly say that the US has objectively done nothing to be ashamed of? At best more to be proud of than ashamed of but that does on abrogate responsibility for the latter."
Well said, just remember to cut both ways on that. The fact America has plenty to be ashamed of and apologize for doesn't mean it's fair game to ignore both the good that America has done, and more importantly, it doesn't abrogate the responsibility of all other nations and dicatators for their own crimes.

"You have to point out that Al Qaeda has very little support and would have WAY less if they weren't recruited by the Wars and actions of the United States. When 9/11 happened there was a ridiculous outpouring of support from the Muslim world even after we've terrorized them for decades."

Name a muslim nation that did NOT have spontaneous displays of celebration after 9/11. Yes, very few governments praised or failed to condemn the attacks, but even in states deemed American 'friendly' like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan there were people dancing in the streets and handing out candies for the kids. don't underestimate the support there is for groups with Al Qaida's ideals. Saudi Arabian 'charities' have been funnelling billions of dollars every year into northern Pakistan ever since the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. That money is used almost exclusively for the construction of male only madrassahs. Not the good kind that teach reading and arthimetic on the side either. They are the bad ones that are there for brainwashing and training up jihadists for a war they are currently waging against the moderate muslims in Pakistan.

"Drones, Wars, Sanctions, and General Terrorism is what fuels Al Qaeda."
You are wrong. You need to understand that America is NOT their real target or goal. The jihad is within middle eastern nations and is currently an entirely domestic war. The only care for America is that it either not get involved, or only be involved in ways that benefit them. The war in Afghanistan and drone attacks may have helped gain them some recruits, it may continue to help for years even. It also lost them their years of support and connections with senior Pakistani leadership. They have come from a place where they had close friends and strong relationships with Pakistan's ISI and military, to a place today where they are nominally speaking public enemy number one. We aren't out of the woods yet there, but I think you miss the reason all of this has been centering near and within Pakistan's borders. Everyone always talks about the uneasy nuclear stand off between Pakistan and India. From the jihadists stance though, they had a devotedly Islamic nation with nuclear weapons, paranoid about it's nemesis, and were the leadership was heavily connected, infiltrated and indebted to jihadists or jihad friendly people. The jihadists desperately wanted to push the Pakistan-India conflict over the edge and those designs have been set back decades now.

Really? So if Iran had a military base in the US would it just be about the threat to the US governments power or would there be a principle of non-interference, autonomy and, I hate to say it, national pride at stake?

Besides, it is now impossible to differentiate Al Queda from the exclusive entity it was pre-911 to the inclusive, against-the-West-and-you're-in animal it has become. Until 2003-4 it had no stance on Israel until it needed to recruit more people and used it as propaganda to get more people on board. With Saudi Arabia it had very achievable and pragmatic demands pre-911- get US forces out. In 2007 all but 20-40 troops exited. I feel that even with the complete withdrawal AQ would still find something else to protest in order to warrant their actions.

While "they hate us for a freedoms" is obviously ludicrous, I think you can't just blankly repeat Al Qaeda's statements without putting them in context.

Yes, US actions whether through military action, sanctions or otherwise have resulted in numerous deaths, however you can't state that without highlighting the overwhelming hypocrisy of Al Qaeda, who's terrorism overwhelmingly murders Muslims over the US or anyone else in the West for purported crimes such as a heresy and collaboration with the West.

Interference in Saudi Arabia, again in the context of Al Qaeda's intent, what they're really opposed to is military might that threatens their own insurgency or better equips the authoritarian government in Saudi Arabia to fight them with modern arms.

Saudi Arabia is a crazy place, this is what people do when they can't get drunk.

What is making the lamp posts warp like they do near the end of the video??

*related=http://videosift.com/asia/video/Ostrich-Runs-Loose-in-Saudi-Arabia

The specified related post, Ostrich Runs Loose in Saudi Arabia, is already associated with this post - bypassing related request by kulpims.

I love how such a narrow clip provokes such wide-ranging discussion here on the Sift. I think the clip itself raises two central questions:
1) Is Islam - in this point in history - more dangerous a religious ideology than the others, and
2) Is such a question/comparison even relevant? Or perhaps "promotes Islamic hatred" as the douchebag facing Maher seems to think?

To 1), I've argued above that yes, it is. as for 2), raised mostly by the commenters here, I would have to say "no, but" to both. Religious (and non-religious) ideologies should be strongly and non-violently denounced whenever/wherever they do harm. In the US, for example, Christianity does way more harm (to women's/gay's/atheist's rights, to education, etc.) than Islam does, but neither excuses/diminishes the evil done by the other. The "but" would be for when people get accused of discrimination and "islamophobia" when calling out the evils of Islam.
The necessity of the second "but" is illustrated by @shinyblurry's comment: there is always the danger of right-wing and/or Christian fundamentalists taking criticism of Islam to be a defense/validation of their own strain of wrong/dangerous BS and/or racisms (to be fair, sb only exhibits the former). This is inevitable, and should not stop people from criticising/denouncing unethical ideologies, nor should it prompt amalgamation of "criticising Islam" with "hating the for'ners/ragheads/Muslims".

Beyond the subject of the video itself, the correlation between poor socio-politico-economico-etc. status and the adherence to extremes, a point well-made by @Babymech, @Yogi and others is an important factor in the higher numbers of "Islamist evil" worldwide, one that I am well aware of. There is no better way of turning whole populations to fundamentalist extremes (or at least worse ones than they had before; let's not fall into the "noble savage" fallacy) than by meddling with their politics and then bombing the hell out of them. The danger is to go to the extreme of excluding the very nature of those fundamentals from the picture, which is just as simplistic and false as is blaming them exclusively.

Moreover, I always shudder at the left-wing strain of argumentation which puts ALL the blame on the Western invaders, (edit: 19-20th c.) colonisation and co. This view relies heavily on the "noble savage" form of racism, which assumes that only "White people/Westerners/Judeo-Christians" can wreak political/social havoc in the lands of those poor, innocent "Brown people/Muslims" (those two often being conflated). Having lived in Africa for 5 years I have a knee-jerk reaction to this kind of self-centered guilt-tripping, which deprives the "Brown/Black people" of one aspect of human nature: the ability to be evil, to fuck themselves up without any help from the "West". They can, and they do.

This tangent may seem irrelevant here, but the reason I bring it up is because that it is this sentiment that is behind much of this "Islamophobe" name-calling in the US and Europe, and behind the difficulty many "Westerners" have in bare-facedly criticising Islam, when they often have no such difficulty with their "home"-religion, Christianity.

@aaronfr raises the problem of how to go about denouncing an unethical set of beliefs, and gives several good examples of how not to (it is noteworthy that the only example of violent action is one taken by other religious people; I have yet to hear of atheists using anything other than words and pictures to make their point). Hitchens’ endorsement of the Iraq war lowered my esteem for him greatly (somewhat saved by the fact that his stance on this was of no influence to anyone, contrary to his huge effort against the evils of religion), but it is noteworthy that he and Harris are the most criticised (and the least influential) when they hold such positions.
On the side of the religious, however, it is often the crazy fundies who are the loudest and, in certain areas (with the aid of socio-etc factors of course) the most influential. And they have, especially in the Quran and the life of M., a reliable and divine source of hate/violence-mongering.

As you say, peace and prosperity are some of the best deterrents to religious extremism and unethical behaviour (but not solely; cf: the US, Saudi Arabia and co.) This does not render unnecessary denouncing the unethical nature of Islam, Christianity, etc. As noted above, the negative effects of religion are still felt in relatively peaceful and prosperous nations today (in France, for example, homophobes of Christian, Muslim and possibly Jewish faiths are causing a significant rise in homophobic violence ever since the gay-marriage hearings).

So long as the distinction between "Islam(/religious ideology)" and "Muslim(/person)" remains clear, we should be free to criticise and denounce the former to our hearts content. (Note how "Islamophobia" shits all over that distinction; one of the many reasons that term should never be uttered unironically).

_{My apologies for the dissertation-length comment}

Since we can't do dupe of this kind of videos anymore,
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Ostrich-Runs-Loose-in-Saudi-Arabia

Saudi Arabia has some weird traffic problems! has been added as a related post - related requested by mxxcon on that post.