Poll: Should the international community intervene directly in Syria?
Yes.
No.
Unsure/undecided.
[Show Results]
 
Syria-What should be done?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-09-2013, 06:11 PM
RE: Syria-What should be done?
(10-09-2013 05:53 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Couldn't agree more. Canada isn't picking sides. Has that hurt the Canadians?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/20...syria.html

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2013, 06:32 PM
RE: Syria-What should be done?
@cjlr, my bad for making assumptions without fact-checking. Thanks for pointing that out. So I'll rephrase that it hasn't hurt the Swiss. They offer friendly humanitarian aid when it's asked for (the red cross, etc.), but they never get involved in other country's politics, but focus purely on self-defense. And they live peacefully and their citizens are warmly welcomed in every country around the world.

Of course there are extreme cases, like with the Nazis, and, frankly even with the Kuwaiti's after Iraq invaded, where a friendly, peaceful nation is begging for us to help defend them from an aggressive monster, and you could argue it's immoral to just to the side and do nothing. But, that's not the case here. Both sides are monsters, neither side is our friend, it's a bloody civil war. Even the victims of the conflict seem to be mostly asking us to please stay out and not make it worse. Only the Al Qaeda backed rebels want the US involved, but that's just to wipe out their enemy. If the we go in like cowboy's with guns ablaze and destroy the country then we WILL have a moral obligation to get involved and help them rebuild, like we did with Iraq.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
10-09-2013, 06:44 PM
RE: Syria-What should be done?
(10-09-2013 04:54 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(10-09-2013 04:31 PM)Julius Wrote:  I agree. There just isn't enough evidence to know. In this type of case, all I can ask is "Cui Bono?"...or, "Who Benefits?"

Obviously, this attack didn't benefit Assad since it put him under a lot of pressure he didn't need. It certainly didn't benefit the people who were killed. However, it does benefit the Islamists who are into the martyrdom thing and don't give a damn who they kill, and who would just love it if the US attacked Assad. Als, it benefits the rebels for they also would like to see the United States attack Assad.

So, the Islamists and the Rebels benefit from the attack.

Now...of the two, which is more likely to attack innocents? Well, that would be the Islamists who have proven in the past that they will attack anyone and don't give a shit about human life.

Finally, who would be capable of carrying out this attack? A few weeks ago, i would have thought the Islamists were incapable of launching such an attack, but recently, I've seen some video of Islamists testing chenical agents. Yet...the validity of these videos can't be determined.

So...who knows?

I am leaning towards the idea that Assad's forces used them it has been independently confirmed by a human rights organization.

(10-09-2013 10:15 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/10/syria...cal-attack


I am still against any military action in Syria but luckily at this time there looks to be a deal in the works where the Syrians are going to turn over their chemical weapons to Russia.

From another thread on this.

1. Human Rights Watch is far from non bias source, as any so called human rights organization looks far less on crimes committed by western nations, or western backed leaders.
2. Human Rights watch has reported on rebel groups killing and targeting civilians in the towns it is in. Their are numerous beheading videos, mass execution videos made by alqaeda......I mean rebels in Syria.

The article you linked to is wrong and at times blatantly likes then contradicts itself in the article. Towards the end of the article it states "The August 21 attacks on Ghouta are the first major use of chemical weapons since the Iraqi government used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurdish civilians in Halabja 25 years ago, Human Rights Watch said"

This is not true, there were two other chemical attacks in Syria that nobody seems to talk about, probably because evidence strongly points to alqaeda......rebels using chemical weapons very recently http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/05/20...i-40jAXWra

The article you posted also says: "While Human Rights Watch was unable to go to Ghouta to collect weapon remnants, environmental samples, and physiological samples to test for the chemical agent, it has sought technical advice from an expert on the detection and effects of chemical warfare agents. The expert reviewed accounts from local residents, the clinical signs and symptoms described by doctors, and many of the videos that were taken of the victims of the August 21 attacks."

This means that human rights watch made their assessment from shit that me and you could find online if we wanted to. Repeating a claim or finding others to repeat the claim is not a substitute for evidence.

In your article it states that the weapons found at the site point to weapons used by assays military. This is a total bullshit way to asses who carried out the attack because over the past 2 years rebels have been capturing abandoned military hardware of all kinds, tanks, planes, helicopters etc etc.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2013, 08:17 PM
RE: Syria-What should be done?
I and I, for once you are correct without equivocation. Human Rights Watch is notorious for not stepping on the toes of the US or Israel except when those nations violations are so egregious that they must be commented on.

Getting pissy over who did what to whom is without merit.

Assad is a violent, repressive and small minded dictator. He was, before he made some great blunders, adding some stability to the country, at human rights costs.

The so called rebels are increasingly controlled by islamic fundamentalists and are violent, repressive and small minded. If they were to come into control Syria would be plunged into chaos and what might come out the other end is at best questionable.

You seem to avoid the heart of matters and go to the periphery because it suits some psychological need.

Should the US or other western powers intervene militarily in Syria, no. That is a straight forward answer to the OP, not your useless ramblings about who is at fault. Many are at fault including as you might agree the US.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like JAH's post
10-09-2013, 09:02 PM
RE: Syria-What should be done?
(10-09-2013 08:17 PM)JAH Wrote:  I and I, for once you are correct without equivocation. Human Rights Watch is notorious for not stepping on the toes of the US or Israel except when those nations violations are so egregious that they must be commented on.

Getting pissy over who did what to whom is without merit.

Assad is a violent, repressive and small minded dictator. He was, before he made some great blunders, adding some stability to the country, at human rights costs.

The so called rebels are increasingly controlled by islamic fundamentalists and are violent, repressive and small minded. If they were to come into control Syria would be plunged into chaos and what might come out the other end is at best questionable.

You seem to avoid the heart of matters and go to the periphery because it suits some psychological need.

Should the US or other western powers intervene militarily in Syria, no. That is a straight forward answer to the OP, not your useless ramblings about who is at fault. Many are at fault including as you might agree the US.

The US should stop intervening militarily. Your question assumes that the US isn't arming and funding and sending fighters to Syria from other countries. The US should stop doing what they have been doing, trying to overthrow Assad.

Alqaeda fighters from Arab countries supported by the west and Saudi Arabia invaded Syria.

Have you heard of the Contras? Imagine a Latin American Alqaeda without the Islam. Yes the US does this often. Find lowlife criminals pay them and arm them to rape, torture and do whatever it takes to destabilize a country and then if need be the US can come in and have an easy victory against a weakened expended military.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2013, 03:56 AM
RE: Syria-What should be done?
My question assumed nothing. A close reading would prove that. I have no illusions about whether or not we are supporting the "rebels". I am almost certain we are.

I know about the Contras, I am offended you would suggest otherwise. I would point out that the US did not invade nor make military strikes against Nicaragua in the 80's. We did in 1912. You should read "War is a Racket" by Smedley Butler who participated. My version has a wonderful picture of a soldier who had his face blown off and lived

I have heard about a lot of things, You presume so much about others on this forum that you should be ashamed of yourself.

I will heartily agree that military intervention in Syria is a mistake. Which is the question in this thread. Not who gassed whom.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes JAH's post
11-09-2013, 04:07 AM
RE: Syria-What should be done?
(11-09-2013 03:56 AM)JAH Wrote:  My question assumed nothing. A close reading would prove that. I have no illusions about whether or not we are supporting the "rebels". I am almost certain we are.

I know about the Contras, I am offended you would suggest otherwise. I would point out that the US did not invade nor make military strikes against Nicaragua in the 80's. We did in 1912. You should read "War is a Racket" by Smedley Butler who participated. My version has a wonderful picture of a soldier who had his face blown off and lived

I have heard about a lot of things, You presume so much about others on this forum that you should be ashamed of yourself.

I will heartily agree that military intervention in Syria is a mistake. Which is the question in this thread. Not who gassed whom.

The invasion of Syria by NATO/US backed arab mercenaries should stop. Agree?

Let alone the fact that alqaeda is getting its ass kicked severely by Assads forces and are losing in their war of aggression against Syria. The whole "alqaeda" fad is dying out among arabs, most people don't want them in their country and they know who backs them, this is why they aren't EVER EVER EVER able to hold on to any territory they claim to capture. In an Ironic way the US empire and other NATO countries are going broke while at the same time pouring money down the alqaeda (rebels wink wink) sink hole. Alqaeda is managing to destroy america in an ironic way.

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2013, 10:28 AM
RE: Syria-What should be done?
I don't understand why people feel the need to be redundant only when talking about certain rulers--I know hypocrisy will be immediately denounced, because that is always those others. If you have someone who is in control of or the head of a dominate institution, it is only the cases in which coercion is not used to retain that power, and propaganda not used to legitimize it, where one should feel obliged to bring in more information.

In America, when there were slaves objecting, workers organizing, anarchist and socialist movements, civil rights movements, democratic movements, or any other groups and individuals with ideas that challenged any type of institutionalized authority and power, they were meet with coercive repression, either in the from of violence and force or intense, dishonest propaganda and indoctrination.

It's a "no fucking shit" moment, when you have a ruler, especially of a state, facing opposition, and labeling those people in opposition as "terrorists", who are threatening stability and creating disorder and crisis and must be met with the necessary force. In America, the Soviet Union, Israel, Germany, Great Britain, South Africa, Syria, Egypt, Iran etc., at whatever time and place, throughout history, republic or autocracy.

With regard to not getting involved, I would have to say at a point in the past, I had and idea of where Christopher Hitchens was coming from with Iraq, and definitely always respected his position, but as of right now, I can say that, with empathy, I know exactly where he was coming from with his position. It is extremely disheartening to see so many people with an complete lack of moral character or concern take the most reprehensible and blatantly hypocritically and complacent views on issues; and at that point, there really is absolutely no need to wonder why the world is in the position that it is in today; no need at all.

If you ever wonder who deserves the blame for Syria, chemical weapons, or in general, any other problem in the world, don't look to CNN, look in the mirror.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TrulyX's post
11-09-2013, 11:41 AM
RE: Syria-What should be done?
Great 1 hour interview with Gnome Chomsky on the subject, from Democracy Now:

http://www.democracynow.org/shows/2013/9/11

He's a dissonant and skeptic but he doesn't go making shit up....He knows far to much to have to resort to such things.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ridethespiral's post
11-09-2013, 11:45 AM
RE: Syria-What should be done?
Democracy now is a typical conservative liberal show, during the US overthrow of gaddafi and so far in Syria they have been cheerleaders for the west and the terrorists trying to overthrow Assad.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: