For everyone interested in some more analysis and insight beyond the standard analysis, I recommend this piece. It was published just before the UK decided to opt out, but the analysis remains excellent.
One problem with modern journalism is that historical context is excluded from most reporting.
Thus the US role in Saddam's use of chemical weapons, the US role in the Iran/Iraq war, US/Western Europe's role in the history of North Africa, Near East, Central Asia... is never reported.
So what we have is reporting on an isolated incident, an alleged gas attack in Syria.
To show this is morally wrong we need to drop a few cruise missiles which will undoubtedly kill some civilians, and in no way make the situation better.
It will continue a long history of the US meddling and killing civilians in the region.
After the next terrorist attack journalists will ask "why do they hate us?".
Former Iranian Pres. Rafsanjani made two comments that were reported in the Iranian press blaming the Syrian government for attacking its own people with chemical weapons.
I'm reading a variety of things that include numerous theories as to who used and/or reported who used these weapons.
I'm sticking with my original opinion of....mind our own business and stay out of Syria.
I struggle with this. Vacillating from neutrality to interventionism and back again. American isolationism ended with Pearl Harbor. The most significant event in modern human history, World War II, is still shaping political policy and ideological ambition. The aftershocks from that seismic event play out on the world stage in all avenues of human endeavor for the past seventy years. In its most base form, it is good vs evil, us vs them. And don't we all know from the cinema that good always conquers evil. This may be propaganda but it is rooted in a deeply felt and true human emotion, the collective primate empathy, or in more famous phrasing "crimes against humanity". There are acts so unspeakable and so deplorable that the broad human conscience lashes out and says enough. This will not be tolerated. A message must be sent.
The question now becomes who should do the punishing? Who should be the world police? Naturally the answer is or ought to be the civilization capable of that role. A superpower. But let's back up a bit. Should there be a world police? That's the core question. The thinking in the western world has been to oppose and destroy regimes antithetical to democracy because the fear is if they take hold, they will spread and eventually make their way towards us and could become so strong that a confrontation is unavoidable and could possibly end in defeat. Not a foolish fear at all. My own contempt for dictatorships and despots won't influence my logic here. But the reason I say that I struggle is because I see that doing nothing or intervening is really isolated from national interests. We don't gain anything really. We only stand to lose. In the Arab mind of course. The larger question is should we, the sole superpower, use our resources ideologically? That is are we forever the advocate for freedom and human rights pro bono on behalf of humanity? Though as romantic as that sounds in reality it seems to be a losing game.
So at the crossroads I think clearly there needs to be a new paradigm, one in which we recoil back to our own hemisphere. And we take a back seat to world affairs. At least for now. The real problem is religion. And the conflict between Islam and Judaism.
So after Cameron's exercise in olympic class back-paddling, Obama is showing determination to bomb things right all on his own peace nobel prize awarded self? What's there to gain other than saving face?
Preventing another chemical weapons attack?
189 countries have stood up and said using chemical weapons is beyond the pale.
Nobody even knows where those chemical weapons are stored so how would an attack prevent their usage. A military intervention would more likely result in more use of whatever weaponry Assad has at his disposal. There's also the risk of reprisal attacks against Turkey or Israel by Syria and by Iran.
And who and where are the good guys in Syria? The Jihadists? Those Rebels who are holding some 15 foreign journalists hostage and torturing them?
"There are some things which it is perhaps impossible to know. The fact that everyone seems to have an opinion on Syria tells us more about the ease with which opinions are formed than it does about what is actually happening in Syria or about the nature of knowledge."
lol um no.
"let's not jump to conclusions"/"maybe the intelligence services are full of shit" is actually just about the most uninteresting point one could make here. It's the easiest way I can think of out of this whole debate.
Is the author of that blog post prepared to talk about what is to be done if the intelligence services arent full of shit (which is the overwhelming likelihood)?
Unfortunately in many countries with capital punishment, suspected murderers are executed without 100% cast iron proof. That's bad and shouldn't happen. Reasonable doubt suffices for a life sentence with the possibility of appeal should new evidence come to light, but never for the "real life sentence" of death.
We do have cast iron proof that Assad has killed and maimed thousands (unless you're part of the always engaging conspiracy brigade) but not that he has used chemical weapons to do so (although I would argue that we're well beyond the point of "reasonable doubt")
Not acting in this context is akin to saying to all the other crack pots around the world that until you use nukes whose effects are kinda hard to "hide", anything else goes, just clear up well before you let the inspections cavalry ride in a week too late. Nice message. Put it on a postcard to Kim Jong Un.
Doesn't mean the right thing to do is fire cruise missiles.
But it does mean that the wrong thing to do is nothing
1st the US is not doing nothing. The US has taken limited action. Which is about all it can do.
As for poison gas:
What to do?
If Assad/Syria broke international law, then they should be punished under international law.
US has no inspectors in Syria. All the US "evidence" is 2nd hand (at best) supplied by Assad's enemies.
The UN has inspectors in Syria.
The UN has been to the site.
The UN has conducted eyewitness interviews.
Last I heard the UN has not made a conclusion about who launched the attack, how it was launched, what the source of chemicals were and on and on.
When they have finished their research the nations of the world, through the UN, should decide what to do.
Only John Kerry, his friend John McCain, and their sycophant supports believe the "evidence" and are ready to attack.
So after Cameron's exercise in olympic class back-paddling, Obama is showing determination to bomb things right all on his own peace nobel prize awarded self? What's there to gain other than saving face?
Preventing another chemical weapons attack?
189 countries have stood up and said using chemical weapons is beyond the pale.
Nobody even knows where those chemical weapons are stored so how would an attack prevent their usage. A military intervention would more likely result in more use of whatever weaponry Assad has at his disposal. There's also the risk of reprisal attacks against Turkey or Israel by Syria and by Iran.
And who and where are the good guys in Syria? The Jihadists? Those Rebels who are holding some 15 foreign journalists hostage and torturing them?
These are fair points, even if I disagree with some of them, particularly the point that it's likely that more chems will be used in respose to action taken against the regime. That remains to be seen.
I'm not advocating rushing into anything. Your points about reprisal are valid, but let's not forget Israel attacked Syrian weapons convoys in February, and the respose from Syria was nil. No reprisals.
I also am not sure that US intelligence is completely in the dark about the location of these weapons.
Having said all this, I'm in favor of waiting for the UN report, and the President consulting Congress. Military actions may not be the best way. It may also be the only way. No need to rush. However, if we wait too long to respond, either internationally or nationally, it could send a signal of acquiescence.
This is not a simple situation, IMO, for a lot of the reasons that you lay out.
As to who are the good guys, that's another good point. I don't know. I do know who the bad guys are, though. They're the ones who gassed their own people, killing almost 1500 of them.
You're not advocating rushing anything? Who cares about 120000+ deaths, there's still 20 million Syrians left right?
The double standards here on SS are outrageous and disgusting. All you on here wanted NATO to immediately intervene in Libya back in 2011 to stop the slaughter of innocents but now you think intervention in Syria can WAIT?
Assad has killed 1000 times more civilians than Gaddafi, he has even used chemical weapons yet every fucker in the Western hemisphere who just heard about Syria still thinks we should let Assad continue his slaughter a little longer? But Libya had oil, and Assad has a better propaganda machine (championing himself as the saviour of Christians in Syria) so he gets off scott free.
SCREW THAT! This is not like Iraq, which was relatively peaceful before the invasion, this is not even like Libya. This is like World War II, hundreds of thousands have already died at the hands of a psychopath dictator, and Syrians are BEGGING for us to intervene. If we do nothing Iran is going to take over the entire Middle East and all the rebels that were moderates (the biggest rebel factions, FSA and SILF are not yet anti Western) will start to hate our guts and turn to the radical jihadists like Nusra or ISIS.
No bullshit or stupid conspiracies on here, just some well-grounded and well-researched impartial analysis by a guy named Eliot Higgins, who's been researching this since at least early spring.
You're not advocating rushing anything? Who cares about 120000+ deaths, there's still 20 million Syrians left right?
The double standards here on SS are outrageous and disgusting. All you on here wanted NATO to immediately intervene in Libya back in 2011 to stop the slaughter of innocents but now you think intervention in Syria can WAIT?
Assad has killed 1000 times more civilians than Gaddafi, he has even used chemical weapons yet every fucker in the Western hemisphere who just heard about Syria still thinks we should let Assad continue his slaughter a little longer? But Libya had oil, and Assad has a better propaganda machine (championing himself as the saviour of Christians in Syria) so he gets off scott free.
SCREW THAT! This is not like Iraq, which was relatively peaceful before the invasion, this is not even like Libya. This is like World War II, hundreds of thousands have already died at the hands of a psychopath dictator, and Syrians are BEGGING for us to intervene. If we do nothing Iran is going to take over the entire Middle East and all the rebels that were moderates (the biggest rebel factions, FSA and SILF are not yet anti Western) will start to hate our guts and turn to the radical jihadists like Nusra or ISIS.
The Syrian people don't control our military. Sorry. They can beg all the want, it doesn't change that fact.
And, as far as Libya goes, there was UN authority to act. The US executive, as of today, has dubious authority to act unilaterally, IMO.
I agree that we shoudn't do nothing for the reasons you state, but we need to get some consensus, vis a vis Congressional authorization (likely, IMO) or UN authorization (unlikely).
No bullshit or stupid conspiracies on here, just some well-grounded and well-researched impartial analysis by a guy named Eliot Higgins, who's been researching this since at least early spring.
I read your link and this is what I came away with.
The writer claims that his info comes from "activists". (noun 1. an especially active, vigorous advocate of a cause, especially a political cause.)
b/w
His own words....
How do we know these are chemical weapons?
That's the thing, we don't. As I've said all along these are munitions linked to alleged chemical attacks, not chemical munitions used in chemical attacks. It's ultimately up to the UN to confirm if chemical weapons were used.
No bullshit or stupid conspiracies on here, just some well-grounded and well-researched impartial analysis by a guy named Eliot Higgins, who's been researching this since at least early spring.
I read your link and this is what I came away with.
The writer claims that his info comes from "activists". (noun 1. an especially active, vigorous advocate of a cause, especially a political cause.)
b/w
His own words....
How do we know these are chemical weapons?
That's the thing, we don't. As I've said all along these are munitions linked to alleged chemical attacks, not chemical munitions used in chemical attacks. It's ultimately up to the UN to confirm if chemical weapons were used.
Why wouldn't confirmation by our government be enough? Other governments? Also, why isn't the testimony of the doctors that treated the injured and observed the dead enough, too?
I'm OK with waiting for the report, but I don't think the UN is the only standard of proof that is sufficient.
I guess what's up for debate is who deployed chemical weapons, not whether chemical weapons were deployed, which seems about as certain as can be.
If those people weren't killed by chemical weapons, what were they killed by?
Angry hornets? Vampires? Bad sushi?
Which would seem to another reason to not rely on the UN as sole determinator. UN intelligence is not up to the standards of many other countries. I wouldn't be suprised at an inconclusive finding on the Who question.
No bullshit or stupid conspiracies on here, just some well-grounded and well-researched impartial analysis by a guy named Eliot Higgins, who's been researching this since at least early spring.
I read your link and this is what I came away with.
The writer claims that his info comes from "activists". (noun 1. an especially active, vigorous advocate of a cause, especially a political cause.)
b/w
His own words....
How do we know these are chemical weapons?
That's the thing, we don't. As I've said all along these are munitions linked to alleged chemical attacks, not chemical munitions used in chemical attacks. It's ultimately up to the UN to confirm if chemical weapons were used.
Why wouldn't confirmation by our government be enough? Other governments? Also, why isn't the testimony of the doctors that treated the injured and observed the dead enough, too?
I'm OK with waiting for the report, but I don't think the UN is the only standard of proof that is sufficient.
I guess what's up for debate is who deployed chemical weapons, not whether chemical weapons were deployed, which seems about as certain as can be.
If those people weren't killed by chemical weapons, what were they killed by?
Angry hornets? Vampires? Bad sushi?
That blog links the chemical attacks to certain munitions (found in the affected areas) that could only have been used by the Syrian regime. The UN took samples of those munitions so if the presence of chemical weapons in them is confirmed by the UN report, it's almost certain Assad behind the chemical attack.
As far as I know the U.N. inspectors are not supposed to determine who launched the chemical attack. Their mandate is simply to confirm whether or not chemical weapons were used.
As for more evidence German intelligence believes Assad ordered the chemical attack:
1) Oil doesn't explain everything and is not the end all of motivators for the West. Syria has oil too, although it's a relatively small exporter.
2) I don't buy "Iran is going to take over the Middle East" argument because of Syria. Syria and Iran have been allied since the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. If Assad wins it will simply be maintaining the status quo, not some big advance for Tehran.
3) What kind of intervention do you want the U.S. to carry out in Syria? The Free Syrian Army is not a real organization, but rather a loose collection of different militia leaders. Recently they have been eclipsed by the Islamist forces like the Islamic State State of Iraq and the Levant and others in the fighting. If Assad were to fall you'd have former regime elements, Islamist jihadis, militia leaders, and the Kurds. That's a recipe for disaster without a large peace keeping force as soon as the government was overthrown to try to contain the Islamists and mediate between the others. Given the make-up of the U.N. with Russia having veto power over the Security Council that would not happen and you'd have a continued civil war after Assad was gone. What's happening in Syria is a mess. I don't think the U.S. has the means, the understanding, nor the desire to get that much more involved. Just my two cents.
As far as I know the U.N. inspectors are not supposed to determine who launched the chemical attack. Their mandate is simply to confirm whether or not chemical weapons were used.
Thank you I did not know that.
I am doing some quick google research now.
"Fully assessing the evidence collected by UN weapons inspectors investigating last week's alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria could take up to three weeks, the organisation in charge of the investigation said.
The team, which included nine experts from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and three from the World Health Organisation, arrived at the OPCW's Hague headquarters on Saturday evening after leaving Syria early in the morning.
"The evidence collected by the team will now undergo laboratory analysis and technical evaluation according to the established and recognised procedures and standards," the OPCW said in a statement. "These procedures may take up to three weeks."
The inspectors are seeking to determine what exactly happened in an alleged chemical weapons strike that killed hundreds in Damascus suburbs on August 21."
Emphasis is mine.
I have read a bit now on the OPCW site.
It does not make clear if they are trying to determine who launched the attack.
If they are not, I am unclear on what they are trying to determine.
"The team continued its investigations in the suburbs of Damascus through the week of 26 August visiting allegedly affected areas. They collected both environmental and biological samples.
The evidence collected by the team will now undergo laboratory analysis and technical evaluation according to the established and recognised procedures and standards. Every effort will be made to expedite this process. Their report will be submitted to the United Nations Secretary General by Dr Sellstr??m.
The Chemical Weapons Convention adhered to by 189 countries of the world represents today a global norm with zero tolerance for chemical weapons. For States that are not Parties, procedures are provided under the UN Secretary-General???s Mechanism to investigate allegations of use of chemical weapons. The present investigation in Syria is proceeding under this mechanism."
BTW, Syria has not signed the Chemical Weapons Treaty. But is allowing and facilitating the work of the inspectors.
Comments
I'm reading a variety of things that include numerous theories as to who used and/or reported who used these weapons.
I'm sticking with my original opinion of....mind our own business and stay out of Syria.
One problem with modern journalism is that historical context is excluded from most reporting.
Thus the US role in Saddam's use of chemical weapons, the US role in the Iran/Iraq war, US/Western Europe's role in the history of North Africa, Near East, Central Asia... is never reported.
So what we have is reporting on an isolated incident, an alleged gas attack in Syria.
To show this is morally wrong we need to drop a few cruise missiles which will undoubtedly kill some civilians, and in no way make the situation better.
It will continue a long history of the US meddling and killing civilians in the region.
After the next terrorist attack journalists will ask "why do they hate us?".
The other surprise is how much John Kerry and his "evidence" sound like Colin Powell et al.
http://iranpulse.al-monitor.com/index.php/2013/09/2718/two-separate-rafsanjani-comments-on-syria-denied-deleted/
I struggle with this. Vacillating from neutrality to interventionism and back again. American isolationism ended with Pearl Harbor. The most significant event in modern human history, World War II, is still shaping political policy and ideological ambition. The aftershocks from that seismic event play out on the world stage in all avenues of human endeavor for the past seventy years. In its most base form, it is good vs evil, us vs them. And don't we all know from the cinema that good always conquers evil. This may be propaganda but it is rooted in a deeply felt and true human emotion, the collective primate empathy, or in more famous phrasing "crimes against humanity". There are acts so unspeakable and so deplorable that the broad human conscience lashes out and says enough. This will not be tolerated. A message must be sent.
The question now becomes who should do the punishing? Who should be the world police? Naturally the answer is or ought to be the civilization capable of that role. A superpower. But let's back up a bit. Should there be a world police? That's the core question. The thinking in the western world has been to oppose and destroy regimes antithetical to democracy because the fear is if they take hold, they will spread and eventually make their way towards us and could become so strong that a confrontation is unavoidable and could possibly end in defeat. Not a foolish fear at all. My own contempt for dictatorships and despots won't influence my logic here. But the reason I say that I struggle is because I see that doing nothing or intervening is really isolated from national interests. We don't gain anything really. We only stand to lose. In the Arab mind of course. The larger question is should we, the sole superpower, use our resources ideologically? That is are we forever the advocate for freedom and human rights pro bono on behalf of humanity? Though as romantic as that sounds in reality it seems to be a losing game.
So at the crossroads I think clearly there needs to be a new paradigm, one in which we recoil back to our own hemisphere. And we take a back seat to world affairs. At least for now. The real problem is religion. And the conflict between Islam and Judaism.
So what do you propose is to be done?
lol um no.
"let's not jump to conclusions"/"maybe the intelligence services are full of shit" is actually just about the most uninteresting point one could make here. It's the easiest way I can think of out of this whole debate.
Is the author of that blog post prepared to talk about what is to be done if the intelligence services arent full of shit (which is the overwhelming likelihood)?
I didn't think so.
We do have cast iron proof that Assad has killed and maimed thousands (unless you're part of the always engaging conspiracy brigade) but not that he has used chemical weapons to do so (although I would argue that we're well beyond the point of "reasonable doubt")
Not acting in this context is akin to saying to all the other crack pots around the world that until you use nukes whose effects are kinda hard to "hide", anything else goes, just clear up well before you let the inspections cavalry ride in a week too late. Nice message. Put it on a postcard to Kim Jong Un.
Doesn't mean the right thing to do is fire cruise missiles.
But it does mean that the wrong thing to do is nothing
1st the US is not doing nothing. The US has taken limited action. Which is about all it can do.
As for poison gas:
What to do?
If Assad/Syria broke international law, then they should be punished under international law.
US has no inspectors in Syria. All the US "evidence" is 2nd hand (at best) supplied by Assad's enemies.
The UN has inspectors in Syria.
The UN has been to the site.
The UN has conducted eyewitness interviews.
Last I heard the UN has not made a conclusion about who launched the attack, how it was launched, what the source of chemicals were and on and on.
When they have finished their research the nations of the world, through the UN, should decide what to do.
Only John Kerry, his friend John McCain, and their sycophant supports believe the "evidence" and are ready to attack.
You're not advocating rushing anything? Who cares about 120000+ deaths, there's still 20 million Syrians left right?
The double standards here on SS are outrageous and disgusting. All you on here wanted NATO to immediately intervene in Libya back in 2011 to stop the slaughter of innocents but now you think intervention in Syria can WAIT?
Assad has killed 1000 times more civilians than Gaddafi, he has even used chemical weapons yet every fucker in the Western hemisphere who just heard about Syria still thinks we should let Assad continue his slaughter a little longer? But Libya had oil, and Assad has a better propaganda machine (championing himself as the saviour of Christians in Syria) so he gets off scott free.
SCREW THAT! This is not like Iraq, which was relatively peaceful before the invasion, this is not even like Libya. This is like World War II, hundreds of thousands have already died at the hands of a psychopath dictator, and Syrians are BEGGING for us to intervene. If we do nothing Iran is going to take over the entire Middle East and all the rebels that were moderates (the biggest rebel factions, FSA and SILF are not yet anti Western) will start to hate our guts and turn to the radical jihadists like Nusra or ISIS.
http://brown-moses.blogspot.co.uk/
No bullshit or stupid conspiracies on here, just some well-grounded and well-researched impartial analysis by a guy named Eliot Higgins, who's been researching this since at least early spring.
The Syrian people don't control our military. Sorry. They can beg all the want, it doesn't change that fact.
And, as far as Libya goes, there was UN authority to act. The US executive, as of today, has dubious authority to act unilaterally, IMO.
I agree that we shoudn't do nothing for the reasons you state, but we need to get some consensus, vis a vis Congressional authorization (likely, IMO) or UN authorization (unlikely).
I read your link and this is what I came away with.
The writer claims that his info comes from "activists". (noun 1. an especially active, vigorous advocate of a cause, especially a political cause.)
b/w
His own words....
How do we know these are chemical weapons?
That's the thing, we don't. As I've said all along these are munitions linked to alleged chemical attacks, not chemical munitions used in chemical attacks. It's ultimately up to the UN to confirm if chemical weapons were used.
Why wouldn't confirmation by our government be enough? Other governments? Also, why isn't the testimony of the doctors that treated the injured and observed the dead enough, too?
I'm OK with waiting for the report, but I don't think the UN is the only standard of proof that is sufficient.
Which would seem to another reason to not rely on the UN as sole determinator. UN intelligence is not up to the standards of many other countries. I wouldn't be suprised at an inconclusive finding on the Who question.
That blog links the chemical attacks to certain munitions (found in the affected areas) that could only have been used by the Syrian regime. The UN took samples of those munitions so if the presence of chemical weapons in them is confirmed by the UN report, it's almost certain Assad behind the chemical attack.
As far as I know the U.N. inspectors are not supposed to determine who launched the chemical attack. Their mandate is simply to confirm whether or not chemical weapons were used.
As for more evidence German intelligence believes Assad ordered the chemical attack:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/german-intelligence-contributes-to-fact-finding-on-syria-gas-attack-a-920123.html
1) Oil doesn't explain everything and is not the end all of motivators for the West. Syria has oil too, although it's a relatively small exporter.
2) I don't buy "Iran is going to take over the Middle East" argument because of Syria. Syria and Iran have been allied since the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. If Assad wins it will simply be maintaining the status quo, not some big advance for Tehran.
3) What kind of intervention do you want the U.S. to carry out in Syria? The Free Syrian Army is not a real organization, but rather a loose collection of different militia leaders. Recently they have been eclipsed by the Islamist forces like the Islamic State State of Iraq and the Levant and others in the fighting. If Assad were to fall you'd have former regime elements, Islamist jihadis, militia leaders, and the Kurds. That's a recipe for disaster without a large peace keeping force as soon as the government was overthrown to try to contain the Islamists and mediate between the others. Given the make-up of the U.N. with Russia having veto power over the Security Council that would not happen and you'd have a continued civil war after Assad was gone. What's happening in Syria is a mess. I don't think the U.S. has the means, the understanding, nor the desire to get that much more involved. Just my two cents.
Thank you I did not know that.
I am doing some quick google research now.
"Fully assessing the evidence collected by UN weapons inspectors investigating last week's alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria could take up to three weeks, the organisation in charge of the investigation said.
The team, which included nine experts from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and three from the World Health Organisation, arrived at the OPCW's Hague headquarters on Saturday evening after leaving Syria early in the morning.
"The evidence collected by the team will now undergo laboratory analysis and technical evaluation according to the established and recognised procedures and standards," the OPCW said in a statement. "These procedures may take up to three weeks."
The inspectors are seeking to determine what exactly happened in an alleged chemical weapons strike that killed hundreds in Damascus suburbs on August 21."
Emphasis is mine.
I have read a bit now on the OPCW site.
It does not make clear if they are trying to determine who launched the attack.
If they are not, I am unclear on what they are trying to determine.
"The team continued its investigations in the suburbs of Damascus through the week of 26 August visiting allegedly affected areas. They collected both environmental and biological samples.
The evidence collected by the team will now undergo laboratory analysis and technical evaluation according to the established and recognised procedures and standards. Every effort will be made to expedite this process. Their report will be submitted to the United Nations Secretary General by Dr Sellstr??m.
The Chemical Weapons Convention adhered to by 189 countries of the world represents today a global norm with zero tolerance for chemical weapons. For States that are not Parties, procedures are provided under the UN Secretary-General???s Mechanism to investigate allegations of use of chemical weapons. The present investigation in Syria is proceeding under this mechanism."
BTW, Syria has not signed the Chemical Weapons Treaty. But is allowing and facilitating the work of the inspectors.
What kind of sick government would gas it's own people?
Dude.