• 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

Better yet, why don't you go in yourself?

What a lame argument. Do you bust that out on everyone who disagrees with you? As if someone must do everything in this world, or they are not allowed to have an opinion. I've told you, I did my time in an elite infantry unit and I'm old now.

aa.jpg
 
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.

False dichotomy. You don't have to support either side. That's like saying Switzerland supported Nazi Germany by remaining neutral in WW2.
 
False dichotomy. You don't have to support either side.

It's not a false dichotomy. It's taking a position in a conflict with ONLY TWO SIDES. So, you want the democratic movement to be totally slaughtered by Assad, fine. But at least admit that.
 
False dichotomy. You don't have to support either side. That's like saying Switzerland supported Nazi Germany by remaining neutral in WW2.

Nah, they just provided banks for them to store the riches they stole from the Jews they liquidated.
 
It's not a false dichotomy. It's taking a position in a conflict with ONLY TWO SIDES.

It is not our conflict. It is an internal war, and there is no necessity to take either side.
 
Actually, I don't understand Europe's attitude if your statement about it is true. I have European roots myself, from a small western European ethnic group that had been in existance even before the Indo-European languages came in, but I didn't notice religious discrimination, the European discrimination is usually linguistic. They force you to abandon your real language and go with some national language. Now that IS evil (and common).

Did the Europeans really commit crimes against the religion and health of the Bosnian people recently?
of course ..tehy werent as interested in those people as they were interested in syria................


Serbia’s Atrocity, Holland’s Shame « Iconic Photos


if teh europeans really wanted to end this humanity tragedy,they would do ,holland is just a sample
 
It is not our conflict. It is an internal war, and there is no necessity to take either side.

You want the democratic movement exterminated and Assad to continue iron-fisted rule. Fine. You can take whatever position you like. I'm just glad that the US congress, the Arab League and Europe have a different opinion.

But hey, just because everyone in the world except a few internet people (and Assad) disagree with you is no reason to reconsider your pinion, right?
 
It's not a false dichotomy. It's taking a position in a conflict with ONLY TWO SIDES. So, you want the democratic movement to be totally slaughtered by Assad, fine. But at least admit that.

I don't want the democratic movement to be slaughtered. What is going on is not a democratic movement but rather a movement that has been infiltrated by jihadists, that has been committing war crimes, and is armed by the West to further Western interests in removing the Assad regime.
 
You want the democratic movement exterminated and Assad to continue iron-fisted rule. Fine. You can take whatever position you like. I'm just glad that the US congress, the Arab League and Europe have a different opinion.

No. I want them to solve their own internal problems. Democracy is a good thing, but it's not something that we can hand them.
 
No. I want them to solve their own internal problems. Democracy is a good thing, but it's not something that we can hand them.

It's something they are fighting for, and being slaughtered in the street for, and having their families killed for... but you're not willing to help. Fine.
 
False dichotomy. You don't have to support either side. That's like saying Switzerland supported Nazi Germany by remaining neutral in WW2.

Well the French resistance murdered civilians and were supported by Britain and America (neither of which had particularly noble motivations for entering the war and both of which committed war crimes) do you not think there was a moral different between the two sides despite that? surely in both instances what is important is why they are fighting rather then how they conduct themselves when doing so (you could say the same about Israel and Palestine).

Lastly most of the flak that the FSA has got regarding war crimes relates to killing prisoners, as regrettable as this is one has to ask where they are supposed to open a POW camp. Another moral difference is that Assads commands a conventional army with a clear chain of command and the rebels are loosely affiliated small groups who are able to act independently of the FSA's leadership. Assad can be proved culpable for what those under his command do, whereas this is not so much the case with the FSA.
 
Last edited:
Eco's opinion reminds me of what I asked James Corbett in a recent interview (http://www.globalresearch.ca/selling-war-to-the-public/):

Devon DB: Many in the alternative media are focusing on the actions of the rebels, while, some would say, ignoring the actions of the Assad regime. This usually results in one being accused of being a regime supporter. Why do you think that the focus is so much on the rebels rather than on the regime and how would you respond to such accusations as being a regime supporter?

James Corbett: Selling war to the public has always involved portraying the issue as a clear-cut case of black and white, good and evil. Once the issue is framed in that way, anyone who opposes the war can be portrayed as a supporter of evil. In every instance, the case for peace is effectively taken off the table by arguing that “if you’re not for the war, you’re supporting X,” where X is the boogeyman du jour.

This has transitioned easily from the Bush era “axis of evil” and “war on terror” to the Obama era of “humanitarian intervention.” The rhetoric and reasoning are virtually identical, but they have been transposed into a liberal-friendly context. This thinking necessarily begs the question of who gets to decide who to “help” and what groups will take over in the aftermath. I do not support Assad any more than I supported Gaddafi or Assad. But neither do I support Mugabe, or the Al Khalifa dynasty in Bahrain, or the House of Saud, or Netanyahu, or any of the other leaders of repressive regimes. Why is one leader demonized and the other feted? The answer is obvious.

So the question is whether refusing to support the bombing and military invasion of a foreign country is morally equivalent to supporting that government’s leader. This comes down to the question of moral responsibility. As a Canadian citizen in Japan I have absolutely no control over what happens in Syria. I do have a say over what the Canadian government does, what actions it takes, and what its military does. When it lends its support to the bombardment of Libya, I become implicated in the deaths of those civilians who were killed in those strikes. So it is up to us to stop the violence, bloodshed and power grabs made by our leaders under the guise of “humanitarian intervention” as it is up to the people of Syria to deal with the Assad government however they can. This is the nature of moral responsibility.
 
It's something they are fighting for, and being slaughtered in the street for, and having their families killed for... but you're not willing to help. Fine.

And some of them, as I have stated and linked to previously in this thread, want an Islamic state.
 
It's something they are fighting for, and being slaughtered in the street for, and having their families killed for... but you're not willing to help. Fine.

I don't want to be irritating but how do you know you are helping the right side?
 
It's something they are fighting for, and being slaughtered in the street for, and having their families killed for... but you're not willing to help. Fine.

Remember us helping the rebels in Afghanistan just a couple of decades ago? How'd that all work out for us, and for them?
 
Well the French resistance murdered civilians and were supported by Britain and America (neither of which had particularly noble motivations for entering the war and both of which committed war crimes) do you not think there was a moral different between the two sides despite that? surely in both instances what is important is why they are fighting rather then how they conduct themselves when doing so (you could say the same about Israel and Palestine).

Lastly most of the flak that the FSA has got regarding war crimes relates to killing prisoners, as regrettable as this is one has to ask where they are supposed to open a POW camp.


I am not saying that there is no moral difference, I am saying that a war crime is a war crime no matter who commits it. In addition to this, the situation is quite different from the current situation in Syria, with the Syrian rebels being backed by AQ.
 
Remember us helping the rebels in Afghanistan just a couple of decades ago? How'd that all work out for us, and for them?

Live in the now.
 
I am not saying that there is no moral difference, I am saying that a war crime is a war crime no matter who commits it.

Not all war crimes are the same.
 
I don't want to be irritating but how do you know you are helping the right side?

Just like Iraq. When Syria goes back to a regime that bombs its own people with its airforce, I'll worry about losing progress.
 
Yeah, you can have different types of war crimes. Doesn't mean that they aren't war crimes ;)

Even war crimes of the same "type" are not all the same. There's a big difference between killing 20 civilians (and who knows what "faction" actually did that) and killing thousands with the country's military (openly and officially). If you think those two things are the same, oh well.
 
Back
Top Bottom