- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 133,429
- Reaction score
- 43,228
- Location
- Miami
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
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.
False dichotomy. You don't have to support either side. That's like saying Switzerland supported Nazi Germany by remaining neutral in WW2.
It's not a false dichotomy. It's taking a position in a conflict with ONLY TWO SIDES.
of course ..tehy werent as interested in those people as they were interested in syria................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?
It is not our conflict. It is an internal war, and there is no necessity to take 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.
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.
False dichotomy. You don't have to support either side. That's like saying Switzerland supported Nazi Germany by remaining neutral in WW2.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Remember us helping the rebels in Afghanistan just a couple of decades ago? How'd that all work out for us, and for them?
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?
Live in the now.
Live in the now.
Live in the now.
Yeah, you can have different types of war crimes. Doesn't mean that they aren't war crimes