Another massacre in Syria.

Originally posted by learnatic
Again; plenty of accusation but no evidence.

I agree.

reply to post by SyphonX
So you find nothing wrong with a ruler killing people.

Do I have that right?

Sure, it's none of our business, but that desn't absolve one of the disgust and moral responsibility to do something, anything to stop the slaughter.

Originally posted by SyphonX
So, against your initial charge calling me a hypocrite, I told you what my response was to your "deafening silence" claim. Yet you haven't followed up on it, giving me the impression you don't want to discuss anything at all.

Context

I didn't call you a "Hypocrite" I posted my impression on your lack of compassion while discussing the people being killed after you accused me of not caring about the people as being hypocritical.


con·text [kon-tekst]

noun

1. the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.
2. the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by SyphonX

 

So you find nothing wrong with a ruler killing people.

Do I have that right?

Sure, it's none of our business, but that desn't absolve one of the disgust and moral responsibility to do something, anything to stop the slaughter.

No, you don't have that right, and it's pretty absurd to suggest that to be honest.

My opinion is that intervention could make a bad situation worse, as has been something of a record in the past decade, involving Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan and Egypt. You run the risk of leaving a power vacuum depending on how much damage is done. In Libya's case, a large instance of the "Muslim Brotherhood" cropped up, among other problems. I don't need to go into Iraq or Afghanistan, even though they were far more overt and oppressive than the other examples.

I really don't understand why it should be any military superpower's business to get involved with internal conflicts within other countries. You cannot tell me with a straight face that e.g. the US (since they seem to have such a keen interest in the matter), actually cares about the welfare of Syrian citizens? I could go off on a red herring about all the atrocities in Africa that world powers don't bat an eyelash to, but I won't bother.

It stands to reason there is more at play than an apparent plea for humanity.

If you're petitioning me for a solution, I wouldn't really know what to say, as I do not follow it that deeply. I could tell you how not to make it worse, though.

reply to post by SLAYER69


I have a difficult time taking anyone seriously when they claim to care about people in a conflict, enough so that they want intervention or allude to it, but once the fireworks are over the sympathy is dropped. It has become something of a sick joke to me, likely to many others as well, who have to follow in the wake of such nonsense for the past decade. This involving many conflicts, that none of us forget about.

So you'll have to excuse me when I get heated over this topic, when I can still smell the burning rubble from the last charade.

reply to post by SyphonX
Well pardon me (I'm just a miserable bastard) but the aternatives aren't plenty.

Russia is backing Assad so sanctions aren't going to work.

Apparently there is the fear of the Brotherhood over-riding any concern for involvement.

So we can let fear govern our actions.

Or we can allow morality to do so.

miserable -beez-bastard

reply to post by beezzer


Well, frankly that's your opinion that intervention in this case is moral.

A decade ago I would have agreed with you. But people are still suffering, some far worse off than where they were to begin with, from the last "moral obligations".

Originally posted by SyphonX
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

I have a difficult time taking anyone seriously when they claim to care about people in a conflict, enough so that they want intervention or allude to it,

STOP right there.

I've stated many, many times here at ATS that I feel the US should stay the hell out of Syria and also Libya for that matter.

Simply discussing the atrocities doesn't mean I'm advocating an attack or invasion, and you are being deceitfully dishonest [So as to give the false impression of you having the moral high ground] to try to give that impression of my stance without first asking me point blank what I believe and what my stance is.

The rest of your reply is as always assumptive opinionated rhetoric...

Have at it

Originally posted by SyphonX


No, you don't have that right, and it's pretty absurd to suggest that to be honest.

My opinion is that intervention could make a bad situation worse, as has been something of a record in the past decade, involving Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan and Egypt. You run the risk of leaving a power vacuum depending on how much damage is done. In Libya's case, a large instance of the "Muslim Brotherhood" cropped up, among other problems. I don't need to go into Iraq or Afghanistan, even though they were far more overt and oppressive than the other examples.

I really don't understand why it should be any military superpower's business to get involved with internal conflicts within other countries. You cannot tell me with a straight face that e.g. the US (since they seem to have such a keen interest in the matter), actually cares about the welfare of Syrian citizens? I could go off on a red herring about all the atrocities in Africa that world powers don't bat an eyelash to, but I won't bother.

It stands to reason there is more at play than an apparent plea for humanity.

You make some good points Syphon.......

But,humanity SHOULD care more about atrocities EVERYWHERE. Don't blindfold yourself, and put fingers in your ears,when you hear of an atrocity committed,and chalk it up to "conquest", its wrong,and if you have a heart ,you know it. You keep saying "No one has the right". I think thats the reason,people dont stand up for their rights,when they are being trampled on. Its ALWAYS too late,when you realize,your now a victim. No one is going to bring back the victims,in this fight,but we can air our voices,as to not see more victims,get killed.MHO

It's easy to not get involved.

It's easy to turn a blind eye.

It's easy to say, "Leave it to them."

It's easy to say, "It's none of my business."

It's hard to do the right thing sometimes.

How about someone quote where anyone said "we should get involved in Syria".

Go on quote it now.

Some people sure do like to make mountains out of sinkholes.

reply to post by sonnny1


I'm not just hung up on the "conquest" aspect, as you put it. Essentially people more concerned with the "crusade" element, than they are the actual people or problem.

Not just that, but also the fact that intervention, as I've already said.. be it NATO or foreign military, could make the situation worse. So I'd ask you, would the short-term be worth it, if in the long-term more people die and more destruction is wrought than what would have been if there was no intervention?

What happens if a fire is started that no one can put out, and it just spreads everywhere, across all borders. For instance, the Muslim Brotherhood and the regional power vacuum they are part of, as beezzer brought up as well. What happens if the entire region erupts into unimaginable suffering ten-fold worse because of all the puppet regimes put in place due to the "short term" interventionist solutions?

At some point, someone is going to have to take responsibility for this BS mess all over the place. These little conflicts are not isolated, they are going to chain, and they have.

Originally posted by neo96
How about someone quote where anyone said "we should get involved in Syria".

Go on quote it now.

Some people sure do like to make mountains out of sinkholes.

Well it's everywhere, and just a given. It really doesn't need to be stated.. the question "We should do something?" is floating in the air everywhere. I believe someone mentioned NATO earlier in this thread, too. Russia is involved already.

reply to post by neo96


That just it..

Apparently, simply discussing which side is responsible for this weeks atrocities means by default you are advocating intervention or some other such nonsensical BS. When all that is happening is the discussion of the details, in this case


Assad isn't getting his usual free pass based on popularity among members...

reply to post by SLAYER69


Your opinion.

Assad clearly isn't getting a free pass of any kind, so I don't know where you got this idea.

To be fair, this thread didn't have a proper topic other than a suggestion a full Civil War may break out, by the OP. Everyone is interjecting their opinions and assumptions on one another.

Originally posted by SyphonX

Originally posted by neo96
How about someone quote where anyone said "we should get involved in Syria".

Go on quote it now.

Some people sure do like to make mountains out of sinkholes.

Well it's everywhere, and just a given. It really doesn't need to be stated.. the question "We should do something?" is floating in the air everywhere. I believe someone mentioned NATO earlier in this thread, too. Russia is involved already.

Quote it so it's " not a given"

Because a few are being critical of a dictator does not mean they want a war

reply to post by neo96


Neo why you choose to ignore this post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Seems you guys always come together at once...As predicted lol..

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by neo96

 

Neo why you choose to ignore this post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Seems you guys always come together at once...As predicted lol..

The only thing in this thread are opinions about Assad

reply to post by SLAYER69


Slayer you seem to be supporting the intervention side by supporting the Syrian rebel terrorists; the same folks who have been going around suicide bombing. Are you saying they are going to be better than Assad? Who made you in charge of what the Syrians want? It is their fight and we should stay out.

Originally posted by SyphonX
Your opinion.

Assad clearly isn't getting a free pass of any kind, so I don't know where you got this idea.

I'm sorry but both sides are killing people. Many of us have been trying to discuss it openly while some have been in complete denial, so you tell me?

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Who is doing the killing? The rebel terrorists are killing the people. Not assad.

Getting that impression doesn't require a PHd, just simple reading comprehension..

To be fair, this thread didn't have a proper topic other than a suggestion a full Civil War may break out

Seriously..
May break out?

Denial of the ongoing situation?