• 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!

Syrian rebels caging prisoners in new defense tactic

Remember: we have to pick a side. We always have to pick a side.

and there are many sides to pick from, but none of them particularly appealing. It's a lot like the presidential race in that regard.
 
Obviously, people shouldn't be put in cages, especially of that size, and imprisoning the POWs' family members is completely disgusting. However, I don't really see the problem (unless international law forbids it) with keeping POWs in residential areas given that the Assad regime is not supposed to be bombing those areas in the first place. It's funny how people focus on the rebels' attempt to defend civilians under their rule rather than the root cause of the regime bombing civilians at random.
Do they want to crucify Christians or kill them humanely? If the latter then I think that makes them the moderate rebels.

Not even ISIS wants to just murder Christians. The fate of religious minorities in the event of a rebel victory is a real concern, but there is no Islamic justification for killing Christians without at least giving them the option to pay jizya, and IIRC that's only valid if the caliphate exists.
 
I am concerned for anyone that thinks there are "moderates" anywhere in this fight.

It wouldn't be the first time the US was duped by that. The Mujihadeen in A-Stan in the early 80's, believed to be moderates, were the Islamic extremists which morphed into the group we would fight and who would kill US forces a couple decades later. USFP in the ME is exacerbating global terror. And that's a lot of people's understanding. In fact, way back in 2006, Bush was delivered a NIE which concluded that the Iraq war had caused an increase in global terror and made America less safe!!!!!!!
 
The use of human shields is a war crime, which underscores just how vile these people are. The one mentioned Russian bombing. I doubt the Russians will let the possible deaths of however many people are put in those cages deter them from their mission. If these clowns think 70 people being killed is an extremely violent air attack, they have no sense of scale. I see Duma is practically a suburb of Damascus, which would make anti-Assad forces operating in that district a serious threat to the government.
 
Not even ISIS wants to just murder Christians. The fate of religious minorities in the event of a rebel victory is a real concern, but there is no Islamic justification for killing Christians without at least giving them the option to pay jizya, and IIRC that's only valid if the caliphate exists.

That hasn't stopped them.
 
That hasn't stopped them.

I don't disagree with you there. Their treatment of Christians in conquered territories is directly at odds with their stated theology, so it's an oversimplification to describe them as "wanting" to slaughter Christians. For comparison, they proudly proclaim their genocidal hatred of Shia and Yazidis.
 
I don't disagree with you there. Their treatment of Christians in conquered territories is directly at odds with their stated theology, so it's an oversimplification to describe them as "wanting" to slaughter Christians. For comparison, they proudly proclaim their genocidal hatred of Shia and Yazidis.

Think how much better off the world would be if Jews, Christians, and Muslims could simply learn to get along.

But, after thousands of years of fighting, I suppose that's not possible. What a pity.

467ae037a71ff8c602050e8c7df41794.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom