• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Turkey fires artillery at Syria

i know you would try to invade china .))

but we dont claim to be world power..

but syria isnt trying to take smhting from us for many years.turkish government forced them to fire ....

also ı hate all kind of imperialisms and ottomans were one of them too.

but tehy were not as clever as the westerners.....

So, don't you subscribe to the idea that the Ottoman Empire was a regional stabilization force, until the trio UK+FR+US broke it apart in 1920?
 
And our leaders are the banks (that Jefferson warned against) for extreme cash. Which one is worse?

The lesser of two evils are BOTH evil. The whole Industrial Military Complex sucks, but there it is, the immortal paradox. It never goes away and there is never an answer to it.
 
So, don't you subscribe to the idea that the Ottoman Empire was a regional stabilization force, until the trio UK+FR+US broke it apart in 1920?

no ,it was just being called " sick man " by westerners . and yes they didnt demolish it because ottomans had given them hundreds of privileges both politically and economically . and it was the turks and atatürk who ended teh ottoman administration.
 
Nonetheless, the Syrian government must be held responsible, no? Or do we now allow rogue regimes to do what they want and the host country is not liable? I guess, considering Hamas, Hez and Syria itself, that may be the case.

How can you hold the Syrian government responsible when you don't even know if they fired the mortars in the first place?

EDIT: It also needs to be known that Turkey has been aiding the Syrian rebels (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/sy...rth-to-turkeys-soil.aspx?pageID=238&nid=31258) (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/july-dec12/turkey1_09-26.html)
 
Last edited:
How can you hold the Syrian government responsible when you don't even know if they fired the mortars in the first place?

If they weren't busy slaughtering civilians, they'd have that crap under control. If a US military unit went rogue and started poppin' civs, you don't think the US government should be held responsible? Then why'd we pay people.
 
1. Did what the Syrians did just an accident or was it deliberate?
2. I don't think the Turks will do anything drastic at this point. But it could also be an opportunity opener for those who truly want to help the Syrian people get rid of Assad. The Assad regime has closed off any possibility of dialogue. It's their way or the hiway.
 
bosnians were human too ,but civilized westerners just waited untill they were raped and killed....
.....

because you have no opinion about it,you may laugh at me ,but they are regarded as turks in europe...........................
 
If I felt I knew Turkey better than you I wouldn't ask the question. Nothing in that post addresses what you feel an appropriate response would be.

I think we got her response, after wading through unintelligible bull****. It was that her response would be to blame America, Hillary Clinton, and Obama in that order.
 
If they weren't busy slaughtering civilians, they'd have that crap under control. If a US military unit went rogue and started poppin' civs, you don't think the US government should be held responsible? Then why'd we pay people.

Actually, they wouldn't as Turkey and the rest of NATO have been aiding the Syrian rebels.

Also, speaking of killing civilians, the Syrian rebels have done that as well (Syrian rebels kill 16 civilians | Al Akhbar English) (Pro-Regime Iranian Journalist Killed by Syrian Rebels - Global - The Atlantic Wire) (BBC News - Syria conflict: Aleppo shootings by rebels condemned)
 
1. Did what the Syrians did just an accident or was it deliberate?
2. I don't think the Turks will do anything drastic at this point. But it could also be an opportunity opener for those who truly want to help the Syrian people get rid of Assad. The Assad regime has closed off any possibility of dialogue. It's their way or the hiway.


What are you talking about? The Syrian regime accepted the peace plan (BBC News - Syrian government accepts Annan peace plan). They just wanted insurance that the rebes were going to obey it as well and when they added this demand, the rebels rejected the plan. (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-troop-pullbacks/story-e6frg6so-1226321789955)
 
Actually, they wouldn't as Turkey and the rest of NATO have been aiding the Syrian rebels.

Assad is responsible for military attacks from within Syria. I know you probably will not hold Iran responsible for Hamas or Hez either, but the buck must stop somewhere before "the movie did it".

Also, speaking of killing civilians, the Syrian rebels have done that as well

Wow, the rebels (actually, some within them, supposedly) have killed like 20 civilians! And Assad?
 
Nonetheless, the Syrian government must be held responsible, no? Or do we now allow rogue regimes to do what they want and the host country is not liable? I guess, considering Hamas, Hez and Syria itself, that may be the case.

I get Ikari's point, and the UN is suppose to be stepping in with humanitarian aid to help the refugees and THE CHILDREN, right? I think Ikari means US military action.
 
Assad is responsible for military attacks from within Syria. I know you probably will not hold Iran responsible for Hamas or Hez either, but the buck must stop somewhere before "the movie did it".



Wow, the rebels (actually, some within them, supposedly) have killed like 20 civilians! And Assad?


Assad is not responsible for military attacks that are not done by the Syrian military. That question is still currently up in the air.


As to your other question: A war crime is still a war crime, no matter who does it or how many people they kill. The fact is that both sides have committed war crimes and both sides should not be being supported.
 
I get Ikari's point, and the UN is suppose to be stepping in with humanitarian aid to help the refugees and THE CHILDREN, right? I think Ikari means US military action.

Many are Paulists on foreign policy, and would like to see all foreign US bases abandoned. And many have no problem standing aside and watching two genocides and 400k children starved to death by a dictator, in a country with the resources to develop like an Asian Tiger.
 
As to your other question: A war crime is still a war crime, no matter who does it or how many people they kill. The fact is that both sides have committed war crimes and both sides should not be being supported.

False equivalence. To support Assad? :(


Assad is not responsible for military attacks that are not done by the Syrian military. That question is still currently up in the air.

Assad is responsible for military strikes coming out of his country. It's his job to prevent such things, he fails but remains responsible.
 
False equivalence. To support Assad? :(

Not false equivalence. A war crime does not change its definition just because instead of killing one person 20 people were killed. A war crime is still a war crime no matter how many people are killed.

And as to your other question: "The fact is that both sides have committed war crimes and both sides should not be being supported." <----- Reading helps!

EDIT: The Syrian rebels have been accused of war crimes (http://world.time.com/2012/09/19/why-the-syrian-rebels-may-also-be-guilty-of-war-crimes/) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/17/syrian-rebels-accused-war-crimes) (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Midd...ob-Syrian-rebel-fighters-of-moral-high-ground)

Just like the regime has been accused of war crimes (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18437315) (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-also-accused-un/story-e6frg6so-1226451395118) (http://www.rferl.org/content/syria-war-crimes-un-human-rights-pillay/24617727.html)

No one is innocent in this situation.
 
Last edited:
I think we got her response, after wading through unintelligible bull****. It was that her response would be to blame America, Hillary Clinton, and Obama in that order.


she doesnt agree with you ,since the begining of this so called spring ,she is trying to force turkey to take military actions............

if you dont believe in me ,why dont you believe in hillary*

she may be democrat
,but just for you own benefit,when it comes to imperialism. they are teh same.......
 
Not false equivalence. A war crime does not change its definition just because instead of killing one person 20 people were killed. A war crime is still a war crime no matter how many people are killed.

And as to your other question: "The fact is that both sides have committed war crimes and both sides should not be being supported." <----- Reading helps!

False equivalence.

They both have done something bad, so we should help neither!
(as if they are the same)

Yeah, that's BS.
 
bosnians were human too ,but civilized westerners just waited untill they were raped and killed....
.....

because you have no opinion about it,you may laugh at me ,but they are regarded as turks in europe...........................

I can't leave this post unanswered. That part of the world is way too fascinating. You can also have REALLY good house prices all over Bosnia-Herzegovina and Dalmatia. I have never been to these countries, but I hear that they are absolutely beautiful. A statement of a Serbian may be interesting about the Bosnian language, Serbians say it is messed up. What kind of language group is the Bosnian? (I guess it is Turkish.) And they say also that Bosnians are muslims like Albanians, because the Roman Catholic church deserted them. Is this true?
 
False equivalence.

They both have done something bad, so we should help neither!
(as if they are the same)

Yeah, that's BS.


No it is not. Please see the edit I made where I linked to accusations of war crimes on both sides. May be you disagree with it. That's fine, but IMO, I don't do the whole enemy of my enemy is my friend thing. Especially when my "friend" is being supported by Al Qaeda (Frustrated Syrian Rebels Increasingly Turning To Al-Qaeda For Support | ThinkProgress) (Al-Qaida turns tide for rebels in battle for eastern Syria | World news | The Guardian) and certain people in my group of "friends" want to establish an Islamic state (Jihadists join Aleppo fight, eye Islamic state, surgeon says | Reuters)
 
No it is not. Please see the edit I made where I linked to accusations of war crimes on both sides.

Any yet the crimes and the sides are not the same. But you want to treat them the same - false equivalence.
 
I can't leave this post unanswered. That part of the world is way too fascinating. You can also have REALLY good house prices all over Bosnia-Herzegovina and Dalmatia. I have never been to these countries, but I hear that they are absolutely beautiful. A statement of a Serbian may be interesting about the Bosnian language, Serbians say it is messed up. What kind of language group is the Bosnian? (I guess it is Turkish.) And they say also that Bosnians are muslims like Albanians, because the Roman Catholic church deserted them. Is this true?

some of them are slav originally and their belief was not like christianity ,they used to accept muhammed too.but lots of turks had settled in macedonia and bosnia during the ottoman times.they have interacted with each other for hundreds of years and always defended teh turks against christian crusaders....so you can understand why teh europe cant stand teh idea of a muslim country in teh middle of europe,those civilized monsters just watched it...............

their language is not so different from slavs but turkish has a great influence on them
 
some of them are slav originally and their belief was not like christianity ,they used to accept muhammed too.but lots of turks had settled in macedonia and bosnia during the ottoman times.they have interacted with each other for hundreds of years and always defended teh turks against christian crusaders....so you can understand why teh europe cant stand teh idea of a muslim country in teh middle of europe,those civilized monsters just watched it...............

their language is not so different from slavs but turkish has a great influence on them

Thanks for this information. This is so interesting.
 
Last edited:
Any yet the crimes and the sides are not the same. But you want to treat them the same - false equivalence.

False. I want you to treat them the same in the sense of not backing them as it is only going to fuel a conflict in which the real victims are the civilians. But then again, if you want to back the Syrian rebels, who as I just mentioned in my last post are being supported by AQ and some of them want an Islamic state. fine. Better yet, why don't you go in yourself? (British volunteers fighting in Syria: TBIJ)
 
False. I want you to treat them the same in the sense of not backing them as

So, even though they are not the same, you want to treat them the same. That's BS on two levels:

1. Treating them the same is dumb, as if there is no difference.
2. Failing to back the rebels gives the victory to Assad; thus, by not supporting the rebels one is, in fact, supporting Assad.

You wanna play both sides from the middle, even at the expense of popular democratic revolution in the face of unfathomable state brutality. I'd say it's obvious whos side you are on.
 
Back
Top Bottom