The Baby and the Baath Water
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/the_baby_and_the...
(He was also the father of Stewart Copeland, the drummer for the Police, not that that matters.)
Look at how Korea, Vietnam, Libya, etc, have ended up after US intervention.
Such a horrendous track record should preclude repeat performances of a similar nature.
The only anti-intervention / melding candidate last time around was Ron Paul, but he was "crazy" right? Am I right?
Instead, we end up with a hopie-changie nobile-peace-prize wining drone/scan/spy neocon in disguise.
Of course, I saw this one coming. I hope the left and right have learned their lesson, but I highly doubt it.
Even a stopped clock ...
And Libya is far, far from perfect. But they don't have a Nero-copy as dictator, which would have murdered a lot of people if he had won the civil war...
Civil wars are always a horror.
Edit: Re Syria, arguably the world is a better place if a regime that use chemical weapons is bombed to Hell. To lower the risk that the next mass murdering junta also use them..
Why do YOU think it could ever be a good thing when a small minority steal a country and treat the population -- except (partly) his own tribe -- as slaves?
How, "in all seriousness", can you call those minorities for the Syrian/Libyan peoples?!
(And yes, some of the people fighting this tyrant are hardly much better. Welcome to civil wars and revolutions.)
Few tyrants (except the Saudis) still have a large leverage by playing two sides against each others, as during the cold war. That is a good thing, they can be thrown out. The only ones that don't like deposing evil tyrants are the other autocrats, since they know they are next... Who are YOU to want to let them continue stealing, murdering and torturing?
Edit: pipy, I think you bought your local Russian media hype? :-) Go check HRW's website about Syria and Libya for the last few decades, or something?
Syria is of significant geo-strategic importance. Gaining control over Syria through force or threat of force will substantially bolster US influence in the region and in Europe.
Second, ah, no... I have a bit of a life. Go defend the rapers, thieves, mass murderers etc etc to get a rise out of someone else.
(Are you part of the Syrian "50 cent army"?)
In other comments which you refer to I simply stated that there really isn't any evidence that has been presented as to what chemicals were used if any and by whom. Compelling evidence seems like one sensible precondition for starting a war.
Finally, my statement that the US doesn't care about Syrians is germane to your point: You can't expect their situation to improve if those who claim that they effect that change don't actually care.
Devil's advocates are needed, but you refuse to acknowledge that you defend the devil.
Again: Are you in a Syrian or Iranian 50 cent army? Or are you one of those leftwing extremists that never support a democracy against a dictator?
Like many others all over the internet now, you really avoid the point that the Syrian junta is a pack of mass murdering, raping, torturing assholes which the world would do better without.
Again: You argue there is a conspiracy with Israeli, US, French information lying. You know full well that information sources often can't be publicized when you disqualify everything. (Doctors without borders et al have talked about large scale gas attacks. The insurgents just don't have much artillery around Damascus. And that French and US intelligence would both lie is a conspiracy.)
Is it worse to torture and rape children -- or to defend such people dishonestly...?
1. Justification (legal and moral).
-a. Is there a conclusive proof that the Syrian government has used these weapons?
-b. Are the US officials words that 'there is a proof, but it's secret' to be taken at face value?
-c. Can the USA claim the moral high ground to be the World's policeman instead of UN?
2. Consequences (to the Syrian people and the Middle East at large).
-a. Is it possible that the Syrian people will suffer more as the result of the bombardments?
-b. Is it possible that the bombardment of Syria would trigger the wider regional war, with far more countries and casualties?
1. Justification
1.a. There is conclusive proof (at least, public). UN has not completed the investigation. And there is a number of facts that support the the theory that these were the rebels to use chemical weapons. The latter facts are completely ignored by US and european officials. They are not officially disproved.
1.b. USA has already invaded Iraq on a false pretext (of securing the WMD stockpiles), just ten years ago. This is official, there were no WMD stockpiles in Iraq whatsoever. Also, the CIA has a history of false flag operations. For example, the somewhat recently declassified CIA documents prove that the CIA has planned to commit a number of terrorist acts (including shooting down planes and sinking US ships) on US territory and blame them on Cuba, to start the invasion of Cuba. [1]
1.c. As declassified CIA documents show us, the USA has knowingly supported Saddam Hussein with military intelligence in one of the most brutal chemical attacks in the world's history (20,000 Iranian soldiers dead, many thousands permanently injured). It has supported Saddam Hussein when it was gassing Kurdish civilians in Halabja (3,200-5,000 dead; 7,000-10,000 permanently injured). [2] During the twentieth century US has supported the most brutal dictatorships in the world, including, but not limited to Augusto Pinochet (came to power with the help of USA), Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavī (came to power with the help of Britain and USA), Somozas. The USA has supported Suharto's occupation of East Timor, which led to at least 100,000 deaths, according to the UN.
Now USA is supporting the dictatorships of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait (Man, each and every one of them has already done some brutal stuff to their people, and continues to do this).
If the US is really serious about fighting the war crimes and use of chemical weapons(which would be great!), why doesn't it prosecute it's former senior US officials that are implicated? Why doesn't it appy the same rules to it's allied dictatorships? Without answering these questions, the statements by foobarqux that the US agenda in the region has nothing to do with protecting innocent Syrian civilians seems perfectly plausible. [3]
As to legality, according to international law, US cannot bomb Syria without UN resolution.
2. Consequences
2.a. As I have written in a number of previous posts, there is a great chance that the bombings will result in many more deaths than we can possibly attribute to actions of Assad regime. This issue is the biggest and it is not addressed, which is a great red flag.
Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that military strikes could help the opposition and put pressure on Assad, but — pointing to the last decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan — he added, "it is not enough to simply alter the balance of military power without careful consideration of what is necessary in order to preserve a functioning state."
And he warned that if the government collapses without a viable opposition to take its place, "we could inadvertently empower extremists or unleash the very chemical weapons we seek to control." [4]
2.b. Israel is currently preparing to defend itself from a possible strike from Syria or Iran as a consequence of US bombardment of Syria. Israel, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon are all preparing their armed forces for a possible conflict. What is this if not a sign that the US and French bombardment of Syria could potentially escalate to a more atrocious conflict?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#Use_of_c...
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6321933
[4] http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/27/us-plans-for-missile-st...
P.S.
There are not only bad answers, but bad questions, as Žižek put it in a lecture that I recently linked to. Most of the questions that you've raised in [5] are precisely the bad ones. In this post I have attempted to raise the questions that let us better understand the situation.
Some general notes:
A. You are [also] not going to acknowledge how straight out evil the mass murderers, rapists, torturers and thieves are in the junta?
B. You ignore that French and Israeli intelligence corroborates the chemical attack from Assad. France is seldom in lockstep with the USA...
>>As I have written in a number of previous posts, there is a great chance that the bombings will result in many more deaths than we can possibly attribute to actions of Assad regime.
Some trivial points:
1. How much atrocities will the Assad regime do, Mr Neville Chamberlain, if they win the civil war and then "clean up"? It is a small minority that oppress a large majority; they must be f-cking brutal.
2. To let use of chemical weapons against civilians pass will lower the threshold for using WMD. A very, very bad precedent.
3. No reaction because of civilian damage makes the Assad method work of moving artillery etc into civilian areas... Another bad precedent.
4. Your argument about the risk of a spreading conflict implies the world should let the Assad mass murdering torturers keep the whole Middle East as hostage with WMD. A ridiculously bad precedent.
I don't believe you are intellectually honest here. These obvious points slaughter your argument that it is better to let mass murdering torturers get away with it.
And about USA...
The foreign policy of democracies are about as much realpolitik as the foreign policy of dictators (and they also lie about it), except for two things:
1. When the home opinion cares. This is getting larger with time, especially after the Cold War.
2. When it doesn't cost money or influences badly on important interests.
But... the USA has argued/pressured for the democratization of the Middle East a long time. (See TFA, which has an old example.) It is just stupid to argue as if they are pure evil. ("Pure incompetent/stupid"? Maybe.)
(A note: If you think Pinochet was one of the worst dictators you're confused. A few thousand dead, a few tens of thousands tortured. Go check the really bad dictators... like the Assad clan. Supported only by non-democracies. And people like you. How does that feel?)
Also, too bad, US government doesn't seem to care about the possible humanitarian catastrophe in Syria that would ensure after strikes. At least, I haven't found any documents that support this. If you and US government are so sure that the bombing of Syria is for the better, I think that you should provide documented arguments in support of your position.
I do believe you never heard of e.g. HRW...
This took seconds with Google:
http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/05/16/syria-visit-reveals-tortu...
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2012/07/03/torture-archipelago
(Also note that the present dictator isn't the first one in the family to use artillery on cities...)
>>US government doesn't seem to care about the possible humanitarian catastrophe in Syria that would ensure after strikes
I gave multiple reasons why it was a very bad idea to let mass murdering and torturing dictators use civilian hostages to get away with using WMD on civilians.
You are just going to ignore that?
AGAIN: WHY WOULD THE RESULTS OF THE STRIKES BE WORSE THAN LETTING THE MASS MURDERERS GET AWAY WITH IT, SO THEY KEEP USING WMD??? (Not to mention keep using air/artillery on civilians.)
Again: I just don't think you're intellectually honest.
Edit: Now also Britain corroborates use of chemical weapons. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23975030
1. Lack of evidence.
>You know full well that information sources often can't be publicized when you disqualify everything.
The members of US Congress who have seen the classified evidence about Syria gas attacks and say that it fails to prove anything. [1]
The BBC article that you've linked to has also no proof whatsoever, just allegations from Mr Cameron, who, by the way, has just failed to convince the House of Commons. If you would take the time, as I did, and randomly scan through the discussion in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom [2], you would hear yourself that the same arguments that I have already made in this discussion were voiced by many of it's members. I guess, that now you've got to accuse the US Congressmen and the members of the UK House of Commons of being intellectually dishonest and pro-Putin shilling?
2. Lack of humanitarian project, disregard for consequences, lack of a clear humanitarian objective.
I already have provided the argument that the number of civilians killed during the three weeks of bombardments of Kosovo was higher than the number of Milosevic victims, that were supposed to be the cause for bombardments. And that doesn't even include the number of Serb civilians that were killed by various organized Albanian groups afterwards.
The bombing of Syria has no humanitarian goals whatsoever. There is no assessment of potential civilian casualties, no roadmap for resolution. [3]
3. You seem to claim that keeping Bashar-Al-Assad in power is somehow worse than allowing him to continue being in power, but there's no evidence that supports this.
The mere idea that you seem to infer that you should first take action(bomb a country, kill people), and weight the consequences of the action after you've already made it, defies logic.
The most authoritative document on Syrian death toll provided by UN suggests that there is total of 92,901 dead, predominantly males (as of June 2013). The number includes combatants and non-combatants. [4] The document also states that the current data makes it hard to make a distinction. There is no data on the number of victims of Bashar-Al-Assad that would support that he is worse than Pinochet. The document by HRW that you've provided states that the Assad regime has made about 25,000 documented detentions (as of June 22, 2012) [5].
As we also know, the US, Saudi Arabia, Quatar and Turkey all have been pouring weapons and foreign fighters into Syria for a number of time, which is to say that they must be held accountable for their fair share of a total death toll.
Let's suppose that the Bashar-Al-Assad is worse than Pinochet, just for the sake of the argument. How come would it justify bombing Syria into oblivion? There is no such thing as being partly pregnant. If you know anything about military, there is no such thing as `limited strikes`.
4. Why is US disregarding the peace talks and doesn't push for ceasefire?
We oppose any foreign military intervention in Syria under any pretext, because it does not serve the Syrian aspiration for freedom and justice. Instead it will exacerbate the crisis, and push the parties of the armed conflict to escalate their armed actions, and push them to use the worst of weapons. А statement made by part of the Syrian opposition. [6]
5. Your posts contain ad-hominem attacks and too much of hand-waving instead of informed arguments.
You have already accused me of 1) paid shilling, 2) having multiple accounts, 3) intellectual dishonesty. And your strongest argument for bombing Syria is that "OMG, Assad is a really, really bad guy and he uses WMD!" (I concur that Assad is a very bad guy, but bombing is really not enough for a plan to solve Syrian problems).
Please forgive me for the one ad-hominem attack in return to three of your's. Here's the difference between me an you: in 2003 I have participated in protests against the war in Chechnya, for a large number of years I have taken part in criticizing Russian regime. An you are engaged in blind warmongering on behalf of your ruling elites.
To quote the Bible: “Why do you look at the splinter in your brother’s eye but you don’t notice the log in your own eye? And how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me get that splinter out of your eye,’ with that log there in your own eye? You fake, first get the log out of your own eye, and then you can see about getting the splinter out of your brother’s eye.”
I wish you all the best and, first and foremost, to do your own research instead of blindly believing your very own government.
To quote Vladimir Lenin, "if you're not interested in politics, sooner or later, politics would be interested in you".
I hope this won't be the case for you and your loved ones, and that you're life won't be taken neither in any new imperialist war waged by your government in your name, nor in any of the terrorist fallouts that usually come afterwards.
[1] http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/09/classified-intelligen...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pcssm6sLUk#t=1h18m10s
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pcssm6sLUk#t=5h50m3s
[4] http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/SY/HRDAG-Updated-SY...
[5] http://www.hrw.org/print/reports/2012/07/03/torture-archipel...
[6] http://binaa-syria.com/B/en/content/press-statement-regardin...
This is hardly new for you. Almost the same argument is presented by the Obama administration whenever anyone there gives an interview.
(I'll post my original comment when/if you finally talk about my answer to your position.)
(Since you don't want to answer my point: See Wikipedia re Pinochet and Syria. Mainstream estimates is ~3200 dead for Pinochet's regime, Amnesty talks about 10K dead just in detentions (without e.g. bombing/shelling of cities) as probably low. E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Syria#Ba.27athi... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_violations_during_... )
Here is a link to my original statement, referenced below:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6328506
--------
I gave multiple reasons why it was a very bad idea to let mass murdering and torturing dictators use civilian hostages to get away with using WMD on civilians.
You are just going to ignore that?
AGAIN: WHY WOULD THE RESULTS OF THE STRIKES BE WORSE THAN LETTING THE MASS MURDERERS GET AWAY WITH IT, SO THEY KEEP USING WMD??? (Not to mention keep using air/artillery on civilians.)
So much text and you didn't answer my single argument (same as what the Obama administration use) for the FOURTH time.
You even repeated that which the argument answered, pretending never to have seen it...
(Note that I motivate why I think you're not intellectually honest -- you write many kb without touching the only counter argument. So it is not an ad hominem.)
Edit: HRW also points out the Syrian junta for the chemical attack: http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/10/syria-government-likely-c...
Either I have misunderstood you, or you have some severe problems with the basic logic itself. Let me explain again:
1. You propose the goal (e.g. reduce the number of civilian deaths in Syria, topple Assad, make a point for the World that it is bad to use WMD and that America is going to take action)
2. You state the actions that you're going to undertake to achieve it.
3. And you make the case for your own experts, lawmakers, the World an your citizens that the stated actions are the best to achieve your goals.
During the aftermath of WMD use US has sequentially stated multiple confronting goals (e.g. help people of Syria, but not topple Assad; topple Assad; that there is no threat to US, that there is threat to US; yesterday Hillary Clinton has said that the reason to go is to make a point to scare off worlds dictators not to use WMD). So, there is no clear goal.
There is only the first action stated: the bombing. So, there is no clear stated path for stopping conflict after the bombing. And, respectively, no reasoning behind undertaking it.
No clear 1., only the first step of 2, no 3. How do you suppose me to argue with the things that are not even being stated?
I can only support arguments that the _supposed_ goal(1.) is likely to be achieved with other actions than bombing the country. And that all the stated goals are different from the real goal.
I have contacts all over the World, and since no one has said to me that I'm in any way dishonest, for now I would go that it is you who is wrong in your assessment.
After the blatant lies about Iraq, it is hard for me to conceive how can you be so uncritical to the statements of your governments.
BTW, Tom Malinowski, the director of HRW’s Washington office, has been nominated by Obama to be Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. For a number of years HRW is known to be very selective in what human rights violations it was to report in the Latin America. Currently the HRW is calling for the bombing of Syria (and, obviously, doesn't make it's case too). I think it is understandable that I'm skeptical about it's reports and goals. I'll wait for the UN report, at least, UN is a truly international organization.
Here's my final message: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6362643
1. I write my single argument about bombing (similar to the Obama administration).
2. You write about everything else.
3. I ask for an answer time and again.
4. Then I only post short comments and ask for answers to my single argument.
5. You continue post large text comments, without any input from me!
6. Specifically, you post all over the comment tree to hide that you lack an answer.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6328506
----------------
Some trivial points:
1. How much atrocities will the Assad regime do, Mr Neville Chamberlain, if they win the civil war and then "clean up"? It is a small minority that oppress a large majority; they must be f-cking brutal.
2. To let use of chemical weapons against civilians pass will lower the threshold for using WMD. A very, very bad precedent.
3. No reaction because of civilian damage makes the Assad method work of moving artillery etc into civilian areas... Another bad precedent.
4. Your argument about the risk of a spreading conflict implies the world should let the Assad mass murdering torturers keep the whole Middle East as hostage with WMD. A ridiculously bad precedent.
----------------
And a final comment about one of your conspiracy theories:
>>For a number of years HRW is known to be very selective in what human rights violations it was to report in the Latin America
So HRW, multiple intelligence organisations and EU are in a conspiracy -- and the Truth comes from you, Putin and Assad.
(And I must question your claim on HRW; Wikipedia has a page with all the criticism of them. Some of it is probably correct (it is a big organisation), but NONE claimed they are in USA's pocket.)
It is logically impossible to argue against something that is so ill-defined. It is the same thing as to logically argue about the unstated intentions of a person or unstated wills of a person.
What we can do, and that is what I did, is to draw a framework in which the possible action is taking place, whatever forms it may take (and that is harder and requires much more effort than debunking something faulty, but concrete). And argue for or against alleged possible forms and alleged possible goals of the alleged action in the boundaries that are set by the framework in which the action is taking place.
My main point is, therefore, that in the current context the action can lead to a catastrophe, much more fierce than the consequences of Bashar-Al-Assad staying in power. Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit. It is up to you and to US to provide the proof that US actions would lead to the better outcome for the Syrian people. However obvious you and US would like to portray it, you would have hard time to make your case.
!!!There is nothing, I repeat, nothing self-evident about the statement that the bombings would eventually lead to less civilian suffering and deaths.!!!
As lot's of experts and officials see it, the bombings could lead to orders of magnitude more suffering and deaths that it is possible to attribute to actions of Bashar-Al-Assad, or theoretically possible to attribute to him in the future.
-------
I have not described any single conspiracy theory. I am really disappointed that you didn't follow the footnotes, because all of my significant statements are supported either by official documents or by statements made by officials, or articles by big media. PLEASE, PLEASE, stop attributing to me things that I have never said. All that I said is that I'm skeptical about assessment made by HRW in this particular case. If you would've followed my footnotes, there are direct sourced statements by US SENATORS THAT HAVE SEEN THE COMPLETE CLASSIFIED "PROOF" THAT STATE THAT THE PROOF IS FAULTY. THE STATEMENTS BY UK HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS THAT SAY THAT THE CHEMICAL ATTACK ATTRIBUTION TO ASSAD IS NOT PROVEN. STATEMENTS BY UK HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS THAT SAY THAT THE BOMBINGS COULD LEAD TO HUMANITARIAN DISASTER ON A GRAND SCALE.
As I've written five++ times, it is not only my motivation -- it is the Obama administration's motivation.
So your long argument why you don't need to quote and answer that goes also for the main US motivation... THE thing to argue against, you refuse to touch!
Which makes your well written text funny, in all its dishonesty. (That you call trivial game theory "illogical" makes it even better.)
>>All that I said is that I'm skeptical about assessment made by HRW in this particular case
You hint HRW is in the US pocket, without any support.
Another thing you refuse to touch is when I repeatedly write:
"So HRW, multiple intelligence organisations and EU are in a conspiracy -- and the Truth comes from you, Putin and Assad."
I try to write little to dishonest people, so they can't easily avoid subjects. But even without input from me, you just write really long without touching what I write!
For instance, my/Obama's motivation which you refuse to touch is relevant for the "catastrophe risk". And you also refuse to touch that the main humanitarian problem is the military. And... Enough.
(I stop now, after noting some cases where you're just dishonest, so you have less chance to avoid the subjects you try to bury.)
There are three possibilities when someone repeatedly refuse to answer the single, simple reason for my position (in this case, also the central point in the Obama motivation for bombing) -- and instead write lots of gigantic blocks of text.
a). You're a troll.
b). You're an idealist. They lack answers, but "know" they are correct so they ignore anything contradictory.
c). You're a politician or some other kind of paid propagandist, which don't care if you argue honestly (or if what you write has anything to do with reality).
I would be willing to bet money that you're a case of c).
So I've wasted time trying to talk to you, since you're probably paid for every anti-bombing comment you post on HN. No matter that anyone reads this deep.
(I just wonder about the souls of people who knowingly help the Assad juntas of this world with torturers, murderers and rapists. Most of you people are religious and believe in a judgement after death...)
What "counter argument" I refuse to touch, in your opinion? Just state it in _one single sentence_. Do you really think that "Obama's motivation" is some kind of proven fact that is on your side? Is this it?
Also, just for the sake of a joke, what if I was able to prove you wrong in your assumptions about me, in a skype call, let's say? :)
At first I was really disappointed to have spent so much time in explaining the whole context of Syrian situation. Now I'm really amused, since 1) I believe in your sincerity 2) I find it really incredible that you haven't grasped my position in all it's honesty and being grounded in facts.
I'm not a self-centered person (at least, I like to think so). And I'm really interested in understanding other people. To me your view of the situation is a big question mark that would be fun to resolve.
>> I sincerely don't understand what you're talking about.
>>What "counter argument" I refuse to touch, in your opinion?
pipy "sincerely" lie -- in his previous comment he was aware of the subject (and avoided it in another dishonest way):
>> Your so called counter-argument, the one that you repeatingly kept asking a reply for is not a counter-argument at all. It is illogical of you to think of it as such.
Here is what pipy refused to touch 6++ times (from "Some trivial points"): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6328506
(The other example I selected is pipy's refusal to acknowledge that the main humanitarian problem in Syria is certainly the Syrian army.)
I'll just quote my answer to his previous comment:
As I've written five++ times, it is not only my motivation -- it is the Obama administration's motivation.
So your long argument why you don't need to quote and answer [what I wrote] goes also for the main US motivation... THE thing to argue against, you refuse to touch!
Which makes your well written text funny, in all its dishonesty. (That you call trivial game theory "illogical" makes it even better.)
[And let me note -- shameless liars on the Internet that want to identify me makes me want to call the police.]
You keep calling me a liar, when all of my statements are supported by extensive footnotes with verifiable evidence. You keep calling me a Putin and Assad shill, when in fact none of the footnotes that I've provided point to pro-Russian, or pro-Assad sources.
At this point discussion with you becomes pointless, since it is the basic logic itself that you don't follow.
On the point of your note about calling the police: IMO, this is a hilarious, `fahrenheit-451-esque` statement. Or, I should say, it would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.
[1] On Difference between facts and assumptions: http://infotrac.thomsonlearning.com/infowrite/wr_facts.html
I've answered similar garbage repeatedly, so I'll just quote myself:
"As I've written five++ times, it is not only my motivation -- it is the Obama administration's motivation.
So your long argument why you don't need to quote and answer that goes also for the main US motivation... THE thing to argue against, you refuse to touch!"
>>basic logic itself that you don't follow
I answered that before too, another quote of myself: "That you call trivial game theory "illogical" makes it even better."
From Medialens.org: "As we have discussed, many of the alleged horrors said to justify Nato's assault - Gaddafi's use of vicious foreign mercenaries and Viagra-fuelled mass rape, his planned massacre in Benghazi - were sheer invention. The violent chaos that has befallen Libya since Nato's war, however, is very real."
Ahh, I forgot... all the large media with the best reputation (NY Times, Washington Post, BBC, etc) are in on the conspiracy!
The only countries supporting the horrible regimes of Libya and Syria are non-democratic (let's face it, Putin can't lose an election). Are you proud of the company?
2. It is really easy to go to a muslim tribe society with honour killings and ask people if they or their relatives were raped a year earlier.
But you knew all that.
And of course there is a conspiracy: These are allies acting for substantial mutual benefit just as Iran, Russia and China are conspiring. We saw similar concerted misinformation in Iraq and Libya, both of which are much worse off after their humanitarian-bombardment.
> Doctors without borders et al have talked about large scale gas attacks.
DWB do not have members in the area. They received second hand reports of fairly non-specific symptoms that they said would be consistent with a chemical attack. Moreover, they were adamant that they could not determine who launched the attack.
> The insurgents just don't have much artillery around Damascus
I know nothing about artillery positions but I as far as I know a method of delivery has not been established.
As I wrote in what you comment on:
"Devil's advocates are needed, but you refuse to acknowledge that you defend the devil. [...] you really avoid the point that the Syrian junta is a pack of mass murdering, raping, torturing assholes which the world would do better without."
I just note you missed a third(!) chance to condemn... A member in an Iranian/Syrian "50 cent army" would write just what you write. (Does that make you proud?)
I would like to touch your arguments too, but...
You are certain France, Israel and USA are in a conspiracy and lie (despite all the leaks). And that all the western media are in on the conspiracy and keep the truth away from the "sheeple".
Not much to say, since that isn't falsifiable; it explains every argument anyone can write, you can just stay with the media which write extremist conspiracy theories...
(As an additional note -- the method of delivery might be hard to establish with the large shelling from the Assad artillery after the gas attack. But that is probably just another lie? :-) )
I am not certain of anything. Allied forces have strong incentives to mislead, as does the media in those countries, and we have recent historical evidence showing that they have done so in other cases (Iraq, Libya). It is simply not a defensible position to assert that governments don't mislead, even in concert. Your argument seems to boil down to "the government wouldn't lie to me" when we have seen that they would.
And of course whether or not allied governments are lying and cooperating is falsifiable: They can present evidence to show that their claims are supported by compelling evidence.
To be clear the Syrian government may, at a later date, be proved to have used chemical weapons. But that still wouldn't make the fact that, right now, there is no compelling evidence to support such a claim. Unjustified belief is not knowledge.
You have no comment on that you are on the side of just the dictators, against democracies?
You have no comment on that if you don't believe three independent intelligence organizations, you won't believe any proof?
>>And of course whether or not allied governments are lying and cooperating is falsifiable: They can present evidence to show that their claims are supported by compelling evidence.
If some general left Syria and witnessed then you, Putin and Assad would only claim it is faked. Because proofs were faked by someone else, somewhere else, some other times...
I am certain of one thing -- you are either confused or you write simple propaganda from the viewpoint of some dictators.
[PART 1]
Just in case: I believe in your sincerity and want for the truth, and didn't mean to offend you in any way.
>Amnesty talks about 10K dead just in detentions (without e.g. bombing/shelling of cities) as probably low.
No, I've opened the actual article by Amnesty that is linked in Wikipedia near the figure, and on pages 10 and 11 it states this:
Since the outbreak of pro-reform protests in Fe bruary 2011 and of mass protests calling for the downfall of President Bashar al-Assad and his government, in particular after the security forces first shot dead several demonstrators in Dera’a on 18 March 2011, Amnesty International has received the names of more than 10,000 people – mainly men and boys -who have been killed during the unrest, although the actual figure may be considerably higher. The evidence collected in the Aleppo and Idlib governorates, including the Jebel al-Zawiyah and Jebel al-Wastani areas, shows that hundreds, possibly more, have been deliberately killed at close range. While some of the victims were active in the opposition, many of them were killed unlawfully after having been taken captive; others appear to have been targeted simply because they were living in opposition-held areas and as such may have been considered supporters of armed opposition groups, including those linked to the FSA. Others were reportedly killed simply because soldiers wanted to take revenge on people from the area and/or could not find those they were looking for. [2]
That is not to say that Assad is not to be held accountable for at least part of this deaths, but it is a civil war death toll, and not the number of deaths in detention/and deliberate killings.
I think that Assad is a horrible guy. His father was obviously a brutal dictator and Assad has mismanaged the country so badly that it fell into the civil war. I have personally seen videos of the shootings at demonstrators. One of the most touching and at the same time not explicitly graphic being this one [3]. I think that he's got to be held accountable for what he did. But not at the expense of tens of thousands dead innocent people.
>AGAIN: WHY WOULD THE RESULTS OF THE STRIKES BE WORSE THAN LETTING THE MASS MURDERERS GET AWAY WITH IT, SO THEY KEEP USING WMD??? (Not to mention keep using air/artillery on civilians.)
Here, I would abstain from commenting on the validity of claims that the chemical weapons were used by Assad regime, since I think that I've already made my point that the so called 'evidence' is not to be taken seriously. Even the members of the US House Intelligence Committee that have seen the full classified version of it don't seem to consider the evidence compelling. Even the White House chief of staff has stated that the "Administration lacks irrefutable beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence". Let's consider that the WMD was used by the explicit order of Assad, just for the sake of the argument.
0. Why not call for peace talks, and/or immediate ceasefire? It is the US and Syrian opposition that has continuously abstained from them.
1. First and foremost, if the good of the Syrian people is to be taken as the priority, before any strike there should be a plan that takes potential civilian death toll into consideration. There is no such plan, not to my knowledge. And not to the knowledge of the members of the UK House of Commons and US State Senators (at least, the ones whose testimony I watched). How are you going to imply that the death toll would be magically minimal? Do you really think that it is the matter to be discussed without relying on documents, calculations, etc.? You somehow seem to imply that it is commonsensical that the death toll would be low, but that is not enough, as the past shows.
1.A. Kosovo (in this thread I have made a sourced point about the civilian death toll in Kosovo operation and the fact that it was well above the supposed number of Milosevic victims).
1.B. Iraq. Invation of Iraq has led to a horrendous civil war with tens of thousands (by conservative numbers) civilians killed, and that is not to mention couple of thousands of civilians that were killed during the invasion itself. Sorry, US has destroyed this country, it's infrastructure, etc. etc. The fact that Saddam was a horrible guy is not a validation for destroying the lives of millions of Iraqis. This is a crime against humanity, the same one for which people were hanged after Nuremberg Trials. Not to mention the horrible illnesses that were inflicted on Iraqis by depleted uranium contamination.
Actually, the list can go on, and on, and on.
As a large number of experts claim, and as I have written in previous comments, the situation could potentially deteriorate and go out of control. Israel is preparing for potential armed conflict with Iran as a result of this war. Turkey is preparing it's troops for potential ground invasion of Syria. Etc. etc. etc., I have written about it in this very thread. The civil war in Syria is not a war of Assad against all of it's people (or he would've already lost long time ago). It is a war between various factions in Syria and outside of Syria. It is a war of Alawites against members of other sects. It is a war between Sunni and Shia. It is a war of Syrian people against invasion of foreign jihadi militants from all over the world. It is a war of Quatar for the ability to sell natural gas on the European market (they finance foreign militants to be able to install the regime that will allow to build pipeline over Syrian territory). It is a war of Saudi Arabia, United States [4] [5] for the regional domination. It is a war of Iran for it's security. It could be a war of Israel to potentially gain more territories beyond Golan Heights. It is a war of Russia for the domination of the European natural gas market. It is a war of Russia with it's very own jihadists that have travelled to Syria from Chechnya, the list goes on, and on, and on. Oh, and also this is an opportunity for the Kurds to create their own nation state. And a war of different factions of Iraqis against each other.
Just to elaborate, according to a Qatari poll that was made in the end of 2011, 55% of Syrians were supportive of Assad at the time. [6]
1.C. As you probably know, today Syria and Russia have agreed to the proposal by Kerry that the only way to prevent attacks is to put the WMD's under international control. And the US reaction, at least immediate, was to instantly shift the goals of Syria bombings from helping the people of Syria to "Making a point for international community", and state that it welcomes the political solution but is still going to bomb Syria nevertheless.
2. In fact, the Obama administration has constantly shifted the goals of the bombings, to the point when it is really hard to take their arguments seriously. They were stating that they are not going to force Assad out of power, now they are stating that they are going to force Assad out of power, etc.
I hope that I have answered your question about why the bombings are a great potential threat to the people of Syria. I don't see the US trying to find a peaceful solution.
3. Obama is a mass murderer himself, he kills thousands of people by drones, not to mention the "double drone attack" tactic that targets first responders, which constitutes a war crime under international law. [7] And the list can be continued with mass tortures (for which large number of torturers have recently got official immunity [8]), extraordinary rendition, etc.
Man, suppose we have a large family in which one of the members is abusing others. You are suggesting feeding an entire family to a crocodile (US bombs and forein jihadis brought in by Quatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey) as a remedy. Or, potentially nuke them from orbit with a whole city as a worst-case scenario (ignite the whole region in conflict).
Shit has hit the fan on the March of 2011. And there is no silver bullet, no silver DU munitions, not even a silver nuke to clean it up.
You are suggesting to fight fire by pouring gasoline into it.
A number of countries and experts have called for ceasefire and peace talks, to which the Syrian government has agreed. There is no rational reason behind US putting this option off the table beyond it's strategic interests in the Middle East. Not that I know of. This, plus the lack of evidence that support the statement that it is Assad who used WMDs, is a giant red flag (don't forget the Iraq lies too).
Sadly, there is no good force to sort things out, probably, beyond the UN.
I'm probably as against Assad as you are. The point in which I differ is that the US bombardments would cripple the poor country even further.
Oh, I think I should've gone to sleep long time ago...
----------
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6355356
[2] http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE24/041/2012/en/30...
[4] General Wesley Clark Reveals US Plan To Invade Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Lybia, Somalia, Sudan, And Iran Made in 2001 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8YtF76s-yM
[5] To quote Zbigniew Brzezinski, renowned US strategist and Obama's mentor (sorry for pasting such large number of quotes, but it's definitely worth it).
"...To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together."
"Moreover, they [the Central Asian Republics] are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold." (p.124)
"The world's energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Department of energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125)
"In fact, an Islamic revival - already abetted from the outside not only by Iran but also by Saudi Arabia - is likely to become the mobilizing impulse for the increasingly pervasive new nationalisms, determined to oppose any reintegration under Russian - and hence infidel - control." (p. 133).
"It follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it." (p148)
"America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe's central arena. Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and to America's historical legacy." (p.194)
"With warning signs on the horizon across Europe and Asia, any successful American policy must focus on Eurasia as a whole and be guided by a Geostrategic design." (p.197)
"That puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent (preempt) the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America's primacy..." (p. 198)
Zbigniew Brzezinski, "The Grand Chessboard": http://www.takeoverworld.info/Grand_Chessboard.pdf Obama: I've learned an immense amount from Dr. Brzezinski: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASlETEx0T-I
[6] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/17/syrians...
In short: I still can't see that you answered my simple counter argument. The shorter I write, noting you pretend you don't see it, the more text you write.
I have put quite an effort to explain my position and the view on the situation. I've got some background in applied math and (I suppose) that my arguments are well in line with the requirements of elementary logic. Maybe I was too emotional in making my case, I don't know. I really feel helpless to somehow protect the Syrian people from unnecessary deaths and their country from complete destruction by US and it's allies. In a similar way I feel helpless in arguing with you.
I feel that I've been deluding myself in a sense that discussing the issue of Syrian bombardments with you was only a channel to funnel my complete helplessness to prevent US from bombing Syrian people.
I feel that for now it is better for me to channel my free time and efforts to the subjects that are in the realm of reach, such is the situation in my own country and in my own life.
Best wishes and good luck! Let's hope that our motives in this issue are much closer than we might feel.
Just five days after I posted it...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6328506
I will answer to your comments on my point.
>>the so called 'evidence' is not to be taken seriously. Even the members of the US House Intelligence Committee that have seen the full classified version of it don't seem to consider the evidence compelling.
You still didn't really touch the content of my argument, the trivial game theoretical points.
Intelligence organisations in multiple countries, the EU and now HRW has claimed there was a chemical attack. Almost certainly from the junta (from signal intelligence -- and the rebels lack heavy delivery mechanisms in Damaskus).
So you, Putin, Iran and Assad claim it is a conspiracy between those disparate organisations...
I don't believe you are honest here.
>>First and foremost, if the good of the Syrian people is to be taken as the priority, before any strike there should be a plan that takes potential civilian death toll into consideration.
I posted the wikipedia links, which you read, so you only pretend you don't know this:
From a humanitarian perspective, the chemical attack was a rounding error -- the junta has systematically used artillery, bombs, torture, rape and indiscriminate murder of civilians, to break the population's resistance.
It would help the Syrian population to remove the military capabilities which are used to mass murder them.
>>really feel helpless to somehow protect the Syrian people from unnecessary deaths and their country from complete destruction by US and it's allies
Thanks for a good laugh! See above, you don't believe yourself that bombings of Syrian military units would "destroy Syria".
Enough. I have better things to do than to read dishonest propaganda. (You wouldn't write this much crazy and carefully written text if you just were a troll.)
Edit: I'll append my simple argument (see link above):
----------------
Some trivial points:
1. How much atrocities will the Assad regime do, Mr Neville Chamberlain, if they win the civil war and then "clean up"? It is a small minority that oppress a large majority; they must be f-cking brutal.
2. To let use of chemical weapons against civilians pass will lower the threshold for using WMD. A very, very bad precedent.
3. No reaction because of civilian damage makes the Assad method work of moving artillery etc into civilian areas... Another bad precedent.
4. Your argument about the risk of a spreading conflict implies the world should let the Assad mass murdering torturers keep the whole Middle East as hostage with WMD. A ridiculously bad precedent.
You just wrote longer, still without touching the main counter argument!!
(I thought the Amnesty reference was to the previous paragraph. Never mind, the point is shown: The Pinochet revolution was like a children's party, compared to the previous and present Assad dictator.)
If I touch your points you get a chance to write without answering that for a FIFTH time, so I'll keep my fingers in check.
>>the situation could potentially deteriorate and go out of control.
I already answered that, as a sub point to my argument. And so on.
"The evidence and proof that Bashar was the one that ordered chemical weapons use is so obvious and unquestionable that you don't really need to see or ask for it... Because doing so would be irrational!"
Start worrying.
In a few weeks or months when it comes out that the chemical attack was really done by one of the 57 or so US and Al-Qaeda backed + funded insurgent groups operating in Syria, I really hope that Obama keeps his word on punishing those responsible (for crossing the red line).
Though the best info I could get is saying right now that the rebel group that launched the attack didn't know what they had, and thought they were launching conventional rockets. So I'm not sure you can blame them the same way you could blame Bashar.
The funny thing about all this is that if the US just came out and said we are doing this to secure the next 50-100 years of US energy needs and geo-political strategy - I'd be all for these middle-eastern wars because I understand the need for it. But I'm not sure the general public could shed its moral supremacy desires, nor understand complicated issues or how the world really turns.
Syria sits right in between the oilfields in the Middle East and the oil consumers in Europe, so when a pipeline is built connecting the two, Syria has a vote for or against its completion. Since oil pipelines are both necessary and quite profitable, this can lead to very large disputes. Al Jazeera covered this last year here [2] where it was suggested that the West would be inclined to usurp Assad for someone more favorable to the West's long term energy interests. It seems their prediction was correct as the US (along with Britain and Turkey) is escalating relations with Syria, using chemical attacks and civil rights violations as justification.
The Guardian also has a great summary of the issue here. [3]
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6313628
[2] http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/08/20128513344....
[3] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/au....
Moreover there is no convincing evidence to date that the Syrian government has deployed chemical weapons. In fact there is little corroborating evidence that typical chemical weapons were used at all.
On the other hand we do know that the conditions were such that the use of chemical weapons by Assad would have been completely irrational, providing little benefit while breaching well publicized conditions for the intervention of powerful adversaries in a war that he was winning.
As Galloway put it: "First, that there is no compelling evidence, to use the leader of the opposition's words, that the Assad regime is responsible for this crime yet. Not that they are not bad enough to do it. Everybody knows they are bad enough to do it. The question is, are they mad enough to do it?
To launch a chemical weapons attack in Damascus on the very day that a United Nations chemical weapons inspection team arrives in Damascus must be a new definition of madness. "
No, this is genocide, pure and simple. If it takes a poison gas attack to elicit a punishment, so be it. The main reason for the planned intervention is not regime change or bringing about democracy. It's about showing limits to what dictators (at least in the smaller countries) can do to their people.
Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.
“From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families… many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” writes Dale Gavlak. [4]
Dale Gavlak has been a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press for two decades and has also worked for National Public Radio (NPR) and written articles for BBC News.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pdvbinNLH8
[2] http://www.opendemocracy.net/rozh-ahmad/mass-slaughter-of-ci...
[3] Search the Web for "Lattakia Massacre" (caution, very explicit content!)
[4] http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-sau...
First posted in another HN thread. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6313967
I can't help but feel that the fact that a lot of the victims are muslim is playing a big role in making this genocide "Ok".
This is not the point. The point is who will suffer as the result of the American and French bombings. And the ones to suffer the most are Syrian people. This is Kosovo all over again.
"The casualties among Serb civilians in the first three weeks of the war are higher than all of the casualties on both sides in Kosovo in the three months that led up to this war, and yet those three months were supposed to be a humanitarian catastrophe." [1]
>Even if the opposition consisted only of extreme islamic jihadists (which they obviously don't).
Even CNN now admits that FSA is completely overwhelmed by jihadists. [2] Even if you were right, dropping more bombs won't solve the issues in Syria.
It's about holding people accountable for genocide.
I also have to ask: Why exactly is it that the FSA is "completely overwhelmed"? At the start that was clearly not the case. Hm, now is there some authority in Syria that wanted to frame the conflict from the start as a democratically elected leader against foreign jihadists? Could it be that said authority targeted primarily the non-jihadists over the last two years?
It's about holding people accountable for genocide.
I have raised my concerns about this position here. [1]
I also have to ask: Why exactly is it that the FSA is "completely overwhelmed"? At the start that was clearly not the case. Hm, now is there some authority in Syria that wanted to frame the conflict from the start as a democratically elected leader against foreign jihadists? Could it be that said authority targeted primarily the non-jihadists over the last two years?
I think that the most plausible explanation is that the jihadi movement had more external support. War is expensive: all sides of the conflict are in need of arms, food, medical and other supplies, training and expertize. And the FSA has got least.
I think that Assad is generally not a good guy. And that FSA has had legitimacy at the start of the war. Probably, Assad would've liked to frame the conflict as "Assad" vs "Jihadists/Foreign-sponsored freedom fighters" from the very beginning. But the conflict has indeed became a proxy war with many sides, and the FSA has got caught in the middle of them. [2] [3]
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6327563
[2] http://www.policymic.com/articles/28414/syria-civil-war-u-s-...
[3] http://www.juancole.com/2013/09/government-rejects-strike.ht...
You think that because the US (and every other country) has acted immorally in the past, no such punishment must be carried out, and Assad should be given a free hand in dealing with his civilian population...
Be careful what you wish for. For certain people, "clean up" means "remove rights of citizenry". Looked at it from that angle, the USA has slowly been "cleaning up" for some time, and is getting better and better at it.
How convenient that the author focuses on one American intervention, as if they were the first. Nothing of the Turks, the French? They conquered and ruled the area for (combined) centuries, but no - it's the Evil American Capitalists and their one short intervention to blame.
And who's to say that Za'im wouldn't have launched a coup in absence of American suggestion?
/s
Which has nothing to do with the GP comment to which you are replying:
I am yet to see a US intervention that did not.resulted in disaster...
It didn't say anything about winning.
He has a considerable gift for digging up and presenting historical material. For example, the stuff about Bernays and Freud at the beginning of Century of the Self is riveting. But some of the narratives into which he frames that material seem questionable.
The one time I knew something independently about what he was presenting, I was surprised at how distorted it was. That was in his documentary about the Rand Corporation and game theory, when he included the radical Scottish psychiatrist R.D. Laing as an example of psychologists who worked to expand state control. To anyone who knows anything about Laing—a fascinating figure in his own right—that doesn't pass the laugh test.
Laing's work was about giving support to non-conformist experience and building a conceptual model in which it could exist on its own terms, speak in its own voice and so on, instead of immediately being reduced to mental illness, a brain disorder, delinquency, or what have you. This was a popular view in the late 1960s. The idea that at the same time he would have been consulting for the Rand Corporation on how to apply psychological principles to reinforce a docile consumerist society doesn't pass the laugh test. It would have been far out of character for him.
If I recall correctly, Curtis brought up Laing in the context of game theory and how it was being (mis-)applied psychologically. There had been a massive bestseller called "Games People Play" in the mid 60s that applied some of these ideas to ordinary life. Many people became interested in the power dynamics of everyday relationships. This tied in to some of Laing's earlier work (especially about the power dynamics of family systems), so it was natural for him to use this language in his later work. My memory is that Curtis picked up on that and linked it to the mathematical game theorists of the Rand Corporation--and some of their more Strangelovian politics--in an entirely specious way. He simply juxtaposed them and said they were working on the same thing, with scary background music. No doubt it was very convincing, except to anyone who ever read Laing. He might as well have put J. Edgar Hoover together with the Beatles.
I hope it's clear that my point isn't about R.D. Laing. It's rather that I randomly happened to have read him and so could instantly see that Curtis wasn't just a little off there, he was totally full of shit. So I can't help but wonder where else he might be.
A separate strand in the documentary is the work of R.D. Laing, whose work in psychiatry led him to model familial interactions using game theory. His conclusion was that humans are inherently selfish, shrewd, and spontaneously generate stratagems during everyday interactions. Laing's theories became more developed when he concluded that some forms of mental illness were merely artificial labels, used by the state to suppress individual suffering. This belief became a staple tenet of counterculture during the 1960s. [1]
I don't remember Laing being particularly lambasted in the documentary as you do, and I don't recall Curtis simplifying things so much. If so, the above summary is being really charitable.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trap_%28television_document...
Quote from the doc: He was about to use his growing power to attack one of the most powerful professions in America: The Medical and Psychiatric establishment. The result would be dramatic, but the outcome would be very different from what Laing intended. His ideas would undermine the old controlling medical elite, but far from liberating people, what would actually emerge would be a revolutionary new system of order and control, driven by the objective power of numbers.
He doesn't portray Laing as in cahoots with some evil plutocrats, although he does talk about the Rosenheim (sp?) experiment separately.
Mostly this. I think it's because he's essentially making entertainment out of history, which is pretty much impossible to do without missing part of the picture. Otherwise it would be too boring (like real history).