Syria conflict has reached new levels of brutality- UN

Originally posted by shells4u
[what if anything can we as people do to alter the events that take place in another country???

How about we mind our own business. I know it's an antiquated concept but nobody, and I mean nobody, likes it when someone else sticks their unwanted nose into someone else's affairs.

Originally posted by ManFromEurope
There was no proof that the groundsamples weren't tampered with, I don't care about the claim of chemical weapons being used (by whatever side, too).

But there is proof that the Rebels (terrorists) have used chemical weapons, that the terrorists have attempted to acquire more of them via Turkey and video evidence of them saying they would use it, among other things, like targeting commercial aircraft, cannibalism and so on??

Originally posted by shells4u
This so effects my soul to the morrow...what can be done to stop this...Can we protest, can we pray, can we raise money...what if anything can we as people do to alter the events that take place in another country???

edit on 5-6-2013 by Gemwolf because: Added ex tags

The best thing you can do is turn off the news.

I felt the same as you for many years and the only solution is to block it out. War, death, suffering has always happened, it might actually be less now than at any time in Human history, but it's still there.

We are not designed to take the troubles of the entire Human race, we cannot cope with this. We are designed to cope with the troubles of a family or a village, not a planet.

It's a feeling of hopelessness and futility that causes depression in many, and this is influenced by 24 hour news about things we can do nothing to fix. The only solution is to turn it off, get the sun on your face, listen to a child laugh, play with a puppy, walk in the park, visit a friend...

Originally posted by threewisemonkeys

Originally posted by shells4u
[what if anything can we as people do to alter the events that take place in another country???

How about we mind our own business. I know it's an antiquated concept but nobody, and I mean nobody, likes it when someone else sticks their unwanted nose into someone else's affairs.

Originally posted by ManFromEurope
There was no proof that the groundsamples weren't tampered with, I don't care about the claim of chemical weapons being used (by whatever side, too).

But there is proof that the Rebels (terrorists) have used chemical weapons, that the terrorists have attempted to acquire more of them via Turkey and video evidence of them saying they would use it, among other things, like targeting commercial aircraft, cannibalism and so on??

edit on 5-6-2013 by threewisemonkeys because: (no reason given)

(a) There is no proof for use of chemical weapons, as there is no proof that these samples were untouched/untampered. Every Agency I know of could produce such a sample.
I would trust the examiners of the UN, even if those are loathed by the US-Americans (whatever).
UN (Syria)

(b) You can't put things proven (like the infamous cannibalism-scene - have you actually seen it? He doesn't eat the heart, he bites in it and spits it out, so it is more of a "I have your power now, but this thing is *bleah*!!!") in the same context with unproven things, this is just one of the possible ways to establish "facts". It is a ritual used by the shadier types of media as "something will always stay clinged, even if the rest is refuted".

Originally posted by Britguy
reply to post by charles1952

 

The same questions that should be asked of Libya, another state that we totally destroyed for no other reason than to satisfy the bankers and corporations wanting to rape the country.

The people pushing, financing and controlling these wars do not care a jot about the loss of life and suffering they bring, as long as there is money to be made and control over the resources at some point down the road. Those people should be put against a wall and shot, for the benefit of all mankind.

The Libyans think they have it better than ever right now. And are very happy. Try asking them. As for the OP and Syria? War is brutal. Outside of the US and some in the West most people do not even try and make it less so. The way the US fights a war and they way the fight wars in many places is very different. Not much you can do in this case. The people of Syria will not accept Assad and unless you kill all the Syrians they are not going to give up.

reply to post by shells4u


I say we 'Nuke 'Em'.

We should nuke everybody who pisses us off. For example Russia, China, Canada.......screw them all the bastards!

(I joke guys...)

What needs to happen is that Russia, America, and China need to get together, decide how to divide up the Middle East, and simply take it over.

Instant peace.

classic case of double talk by the UN

Originally posted by Hopechest
What needs to happen is that Russia, America, and China need to get together, decide how to divide up the Middle East, and simply take it over.

Instant peace.

Good idea!

Then Nuke 'em!

Originally posted by Hopechest
What needs to happen is that Russia, America, and China need to get together, decide how to divide up the Middle East, and simply take it over.

Instant peace.

Peace for who? Certainly not for the people that live there. Here is a better solution. All foreign nations get the hell out of the ME and let them solve their own problems.

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by Hopechest
What needs to happen is that Russia, America, and China need to get together, decide how to divide up the Middle East, and simply take it over.

Instant peace.

Peace for who? Certainly not for the people that live there. Here is a better solution. All foreign nations get the hell out of the ME and let them solve their own problems.

Actually if the major powers were able to divide up the ME it would ensure peace.

Remember that when the Ottoman Empire was in control you did not have these regional conflicts.

Originally posted by Hopechest
What needs to happen is that Russia, America, and China need to get together, decide how to divide up the Middle East, and simply take it over.

Instant peace.

That seems to have created tons of peace in the Koreas, many African nations, and cold war East/West Germany.

They would be armed to the teeth ready to spark off a conflict at any given moment. Then have to quell rebellions daily.

Originally posted by majesticgent

Originally posted by Hopechest
What needs to happen is that Russia, America, and China need to get together, decide how to divide up the Middle East, and simply take it over.

Instant peace.

That seems to have created tons of peace in the Koreas, many African nations, and cold war East/West Germany.

They would be armed to the teeth ready to spark off a conflict at any given moment. Then have to quell rebellions daily.

Actually there has been peace in the Korea's since the world powers split them up. Germany also saw no more war after the 4 way split of Berlin.

North Africa is not the same situation since it is colonialism such as the French occupation of Algeria. They did not take it over they are simply staying there. The same with the British in India. Different scenarios.

reply to post by Hopechest


I would say that happened as a result of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) not so much as a result of splitting them up.

The Soviet Union collapse had a lot to do with the collapse of the Berlin Wall and peace from a unified Germany and the old cold war enemies not threatening each other to the brink.

North Korea knows if it attacks South Korea that would be the end of their regime, South Korea knows that if they attacked the North it would shelled and possibly nuked.

Africa is still war torn no matter how many ways it's been divided and split up after the massive amounts of conquest and exploitation of the continent in the 1800s. It's just that there isn't a capitalistic need in Africa as of yet to prop up crumbling fiat currencies. Once that happens again, you'll see more wars in the rest Africa too.

Originally posted by majesticgent
reply to post by Hopechest

 

I would say that happened as a result of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) not so much as a result of splitting them up.

The Soviet Union collapse had a lot to do with the collapse of the Berlin Wall and peace from a unified Germany and the old cold war enemies not threatening each other to the brink.

North Korea knows if it attacks South Korea that would be the end of their regime, South Korea knows that if they attacked the North it would shelled and possibly nuked.

Africa is still war torn no matter how many ways it's been divided and split up after the massive amounts of conquest and exploitation of the continent in the 1800s. It's just that there isn't a capitalistic need in Africa as of yet to prop up crumbling fiat currencies. Once that happens again, you'll see more wars in the rest Africa too.

edit on 5-6-2013 by majesticgent because: (no reason given)

But Africa has not been split up yet. As I stated, we see colonialization there, primarily for access to resources, but I will tell you that if America made the Congo the 51st state, you would see an end to the bloodshed in that nation.

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by Hopechest
What needs to happen is that Russia, America, and China need to get together, decide how to divide up the Middle East, and simply take it over.

Instant peace.

Peace for who? Certainly not for the people that live there. Here is a better solution. All foreign nations get the hell out of the ME and let them solve their own problems.

Actually if the major powers were able to divide up the ME it would ensure peace.

Remember that when the Ottoman Empire was in control you did not have these regional conflicts.

The Ottoman empire was one entity not several nations with different Ideologies. What you suggested would be no different than what is going on now. How do you think the citizens of these nations that is a Muslim majority now you are going to have nations that call themselves Christians are now going to rule you.

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by majesticgent
reply to post by Hopechest

 

I would say that happened as a result of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) not so much as a result of splitting them up.

The Soviet Union collapse had a lot to do with the collapse of the Berlin Wall and peace from a unified Germany and the old cold war enemies not threatening each other to the brink.

North Korea knows if it attacks South Korea that would be the end of their regime, South Korea knows that if they attacked the North it would shelled and possibly nuked.

Africa is still war torn no matter how many ways it's been divided and split up after the massive amounts of conquest and exploitation of the continent in the 1800s. It's just that there isn't a capitalistic need in Africa as of yet to prop up crumbling fiat currencies. Once that happens again, you'll see more wars in the rest Africa too.

edit on 5-6-2013 by majesticgent because: (no reason given)

But Africa has not been split up yet. As I stated, we see colonialization there, primarily for access to resources, but I will tell you that if America made the Congo the 51st state, you would see an end to the bloodshed in that nation.

Africa has been split up. Africa is a continent not a nation.

reply to post by sonnny1

Saudi Arabia allows it also

I didn't hear western media take name of Saudi Arabia.

And , did they behead the police in UK ? or you pointed to some other event ?

reply to post by charles1952

You want the US to invade Syria. (I'm not sure who you want us to support in Syria.)

I think Syrian people should decide about the future of Syria. Not Russia or US.

This crisis has been going on in Syria for two years. Crisis , in other words

Children have been taken hostage, forced to watch torture and even participate in beheadings, it says; others have been killed while fighting.

has been going on for two years in Syria.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why are you and the UN concerned about the events now?

That means , now , Asad is driving terrorists out and that is why EU and US are beginning to express concern about crisis in Syria.

Hypothetically , the Crisis in Syria is like some Mexican and Canadians want to overthrow the US govt by claiming it is founded by freemasonry and illuminati.

Although it is likely that US govt is founded and supported by elites with certain system of belief , Mexico and Canada don't have the right to do this for American people.

American people should do that no matter what the price is , they will be grateful for what they will get and people will be sure that they are the ones who decide about the change and they won't be upset about losing their freedom of choice.

US govt does coup and invades countries and crushes the freedom of choice of nations and asks them to love it.

And no matter how they try to manipulate people , they don't like it inside their hearts.

reply to post by mideast

Dear mideast,

My experience with you is that we can learn from each other if we keep things relatively polite. I promise to do my best.

You don't want the US or Russia (or I suppose Iran or Hezbollah) involved in Syria. Ok, I can see that. But I get confused when you say:

SEnd your army and stop playing with words.

Obama doesn't need any one to allow him. HE is "yes we can" and he can start war anywhere he wants.

That sounds like you want us to get involved. See my confusion?

You mention several times that Russia is sending arms to Syria. Shouldn't we be criticizing Russia? At least as much as we criticize the US? But, at least on ATS, isn't American the go to guy when it comes to blaming someone?

Why are you and the UN concerned about the events now?

Your best bet is to ask Obama, but since we'll probably never get an answer from him, let me try a few possibilities. These are not my beliefs, I'm just trying to figure out what Washington might be thinking.

1) The sarin gas problem. When Obama said it was a red line, he boxed himself into a corner. He's destroyed pretty much all the respect in the world we had under Bush (By that I mean the world believed he would do as he said, and they took his warnings seriously.), and he'll lose it altogether if he ignores his own red line.

2) As much as it would be nice to have the issue decided by Syrians, the rebels seem to be fighting with the assistance of more and more non-Syrians. It no longer seems to be a Syrian issue, but a Mid-East war confined to one country.

Unlike your Mexican and Canadian example, countries in the Mid-East aren't killing people. I honestly believe the US doesn't care who founded what country, as long as they keep their religious squabbles to themselves and in their own living rooms.

Forgive me, if I'm being excessively frank here, and I know I may be misunderstood, but I don't care if the US is loved. That would be nice, of course. But I want the governements of every country in the world to say "We'd better not mess with the US."

With respect,
Charles1952

Perhaps if the US would stop supplying weapons to the Syrian rebels (AKA Al Qaeda, Taliban, Muslim Brotherhood) then we wouldn't see the conflict reaching new levels of brutality. The entire mess in Syria is Libya/Egypt 2.0 and for the life of me there are several things that I really do not get.

For one thing why our leaders and those in the clandestine alphabet agencies are not charged with treason and aiding the enemy is beyond me since we are supposedly engaged in a war on terror that is aimed primarily at the Taliban and Al Qaeda, yet we are at the same time arming those same factions in Syria just as we did in Libya and Egypt. Sure the POTUS is involved in this but that's no excuse to allow this to continue. That is why we have House oversight committees and congress should be investigating this.

Secondly just as in Libya and Egypt Syria has had a history of, while not being a full fledged ally, they have been a US friendly nation in the Mideast. Therefore why exactly are we actually supporting the rebels that seek to overthrow Assad's regime and institute an anti-American regime in it's place?

Third thing is that I would be willing to bet that with the recent reports of chemical weapons having been used in Syria, if the truth were known and the chemical tracers were analyzed we would find out that those chemical agents were probably acquired from the US. I say this because it would be all too easy for the CIA to give the weapons to the rebels knowing that once they are used Obama's "red line" would have been crossed and then the justification to steamroll our way through Syria would be present.

Never forget that "Truth is treason in the Empire of Lies" and everything we are told has been manipulated to fit the designs of the power hungry war mongers.