U.N.: Syria death toll 'well over' 7,500? CNN Playing The Same Number Game As In Bosnia?

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by freethis

 

At least they would be able to defend themselves, which is more than can be said at the moment while we stand idly by watching them get killed in the dozens...

Basically, the West is damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we intervene in any way, we're "imperialists" (Libya, for example), if we sit by and do nothing, we are chastised for allowing a humanitarian distater to unfold (Bosnia, for example)

dont start debating on about Bosnia because you weren't there i was, Serbs didn't start the killings.
It was more of a prefect trap for them.

I dont want to start debating about the Bosnian war yet i may later on.

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

More innocents died at the hands of Gaddafi then died at the hands of allied bombing to remove him.

Thousands, in fact. That's why they went there to stop him and eventually did.

edit on 28-2-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

Sadly you are incorrect

More innocents died at the hands of Gaddafi then died at the hands of allied bombing to remove him

More innocents died at the NATO hands and the bombings, NATO rebels purging villages threatening villagers, burring there homes because they suspected the families were pro Gaddafi.

Yeah that's some fine work there.

More innocents died at the hands of Gaddafi

Hmm I bet you heard that from the mainstream news media.
Let me guess CNN and other news networks told you that?

CNN is skilled in trickery, making the general public think the situation is worse than it is will be their goal in overestimation.

Syria could be our next Nam or www.nato.int... in any case we will be black eyed once again, let it be a Syria thing, we are heartless go in we are blood thirsty, a no win for the US in this one, Is ay let it be a Syria thing, they want freedom let them fight or die for it

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


As per, you tell people they are wrong or tell them they don't know what they're talking about without any kind of verifiable, corroborating evidence to back up your own claims, or even a simple statement of why you think they are wrong.

With that, I bow out, unless there are people who want a proper debate, not a race to the bottom.

reply to post by stumason


Western media absolutely does over exaggerate the news when it's a regime we don't like. For instance we jumped on the bandwagon and demonized Libya, whom western leaders were shaking hands and dining with just a few short months prior..

But we never covered the revolt in Bahrain because we aided the Government for fear of losing a US Navy base..

And we will never, ever, ever dare touch the issue of Saudi Arabia.. one of the most oppressive regimes in the Middle East.

I don't think the MSM necessarily makes up things.. more like a selective decision on what to and what not to report. If Turkey, Israel, Jordan and Lebanon were not all hot and bothered about the who Syrian crisis I doubt we'd be getting much news at all.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Western government want Assad gone.. if they can do it with the revels being the bait, great, if they eventually have to move in under the guise of a UN mandated "humanitarian" mission so be it. But Assad WILL be removed and replaced with a "democracy." I'm certain US and or British special forces / intel agencies are already aiding the rebellion in every way they can.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Totally agree with everything you said matey, that's pretty much the sum of it really.

The Western media or UN for that matter are not in any position to provide the number of dead. How many of the dead are killed by the rebels or caught in the cross fire? No one even knows what is truly going on outside of Damascus, and those that do are likely to be very biased sources.

Regardless of how many dead are there - 5,000 or 100,000, it is not an excuse for West to intervene and try and police the situations. Civil wars are often very bloody, and also very complicated. It is not a matter for outside powers to decide who is right and who is wrong. The only allowable intervention would be in a case of a true genocide, and there is certainly no genocide in Syria. A case for a genocide is very hard to make, and Bosnia/Kosovo did teach us (most of us at least) that it can be very deceptive. In Bosnia/Kosovo US's intentions and interests went far beyond just stopping the conflict and the so called "genocide". Same would go for Syria.



These conflicts should be alowed to play out naturally - meaning internally. Let them (Middle East, Africa) slaughter each other in their own little wars - they did continuously for thousands of years after all. Interventions ultimately haven't helped out all that much, and in many cases have made things worse for the locals. What are you hoping to create there? A civilized democracy? You know what will happen? Another authoritarian corrupt regime will come to power, and in 10 or 15 years will engage in a fight against its opposition same as now. If any true change is to take place, it is to be done on a social and cultural level internally without outside influenced that are always in some way detrimental.

US is also highly hypocritical in its selections of where it wants to intervene. Hundreds of thousands being slaughtered in a resource deprived desert? Let it play out. A few thousand dead in the Middle East "outcast" nation that doesn't want to play along with US's agenda? We are ready for action.

It seems that the more US and Europe play out this whole Syria and Iran drama, the more people around the world don't buy it - especially given the history of past interventions. CNN can throw whatever numbers they want, they don't mean anything.