Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Why did Hezbollah come into existence? Why do they remain in existence?
And I'm fine leaving the bigotry to you Lyle.
Because Israel had enough of the PLO in South Lebanon lofting rockets into Israel so they decided to do something about it and when the little Lezbos ;) got the crap slapped out of them they cried foul as per usual....."B-b-b-but we can't defeat Israel :eek::eek::eek:"
They remain in existence because they much like the other "Palestinians" :rolleyes: are the lynch pin behind Arab and Persian unification.
Of course, there's NEVER been a liberal bigot :shakehead: you're a pathetic little bastard you know that? Of course you'd have to because you know EVERYTHING :beat:
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
I think the UN should go in and force the leaders to talk or threaten them with imprisonment. If that fails then take away the women, children and men who want to be away from this and let the rest kill themselves.
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
When most people hear the word "rebels" they think of the under dog freedom fighters but in this age of 24/7 media coverage and instant information you can find out who these people actually are and make a more informed decision on whether or not you wish to support their cause.
EXAMPLE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotat...&v=U30EEsDMmFo
That "rebel" just cut open the chest of a Syrian soldier and ate his heart.....I'd rather NOT give that guy US weapons and funds, but hey maybe that's just me
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
El Kabong Putin agrees with you.
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greenbeanz
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greenbeanz
Whilst Russia and others continue to arm the regime inactivity is no longer passive. The ideal solution may not exist but surely pressure on those who are propping up the regime to desist would at least allow the war that is happening anyway, to not be prolonged. Or is the converse true ? I have no idea but am wary of suggesting doing nothing is in some way standing up for the oppressed. I hope I am wrong but Kirkland and Miles seem to be more interested in point scoring and demonizing any intervention by the west in any of these situations, than actually being concerned with civilians being killed and that is a bit sad.
It's nice that we care about civilians being killed now. We put sanctions on Iraq that killed over a million civilians, mainly children. We're backing regimes in Saudi, Kuwait, Bahrain and the other Gulf emirates who ruthlessly supress and kill any kind of civilian opposition. Circulating a petition in Saudi asking for democratic elections will get you thirty years if you're lucky. Doctors in Bahrain treating pro-democracy protestors have been executed in their offices or thrown in jail without trial. We'll stand any level of killing and repression from any dictator in the region who we support, including Saddam Hussein in the 70s and 80s, so don't say I'm point scoring or any other bullshit when I point out facts.
Once agin -- we don't give a flying fuck, not a moment's thought to civilian repression and death in the Middle East. We only notice it's happening when we want to use it as an excuse to intervene over there. Right now there are civilians being slaughtered in half a dozen conflicts in Africa. When was the last time you saw coverage of one of those conflicts, hmm? When was the last time an African conflict was wall-to-wall coverage on the teevee?
And you seriously want to give weapons to the rebels? Most of those guy swe were calling Al Quaeda terrorists and fighting them in Iraq a decade ago. They just killed a 14 year old boy for being disrespectful to Islam and that's only one story that's made it through into our free press. Neither side in this are angels and neither side is good news for us, just one side hates Iran too so some idiots on our side think it's a good idea to support them.
I never suggested arming the rebels. You are point scoring, it's not bullshit. Yourself and Miles are no different to Lyle. You have an entrenched position, you have already made up your mind and are much more interested in pointing out the flaws in others arguments than providing any alternatives. Yours is the politics of inaction. You act like an apologist for dictators that kill their own civilians and then reserve the right to apply a different criteria for judging Western elements. The whole regions problems are complex and rooted in the balance not only between Sunni and Shia but between democrats and theisits, moderates and extremists, Jews ,Christians and Muslims. Yet you can only offer a rebuttal that blames interventions by the west as though those weilding power within the middle east from Imans, to Ayatollahs and Presidents and extremists should just be allowed to kill their own as long as its not an outside power that causes that death.
Miles and yourself go on and on, endlessly about Britain and the States having an expansionist Imperialist, nationalistic agenda and yet you both wash your hands of the difficult alternative. If you want an internationalist society where countries respect others and do not only operate under self interest, then other peoples problems are not something you can just ignore. If you care about ideals and human rights then it means nothing if you think they only apply to you. That is the naive reasoning of a college kid still wet behind the ears, not a responsible, reasoning adult whose experience has taught them that real life is concerned with making difficult uncomfortable decisions.
You're saying that we can't remain inactive in the face of all this slaughter. Fine, let's forget all the other past and current situations where we're remaining/remained active or all the situations where we are or were actively propping up/arming dictatorships or actively killing people from the region ourselves. Actually, no, fuck it. Seeing as I'm answering your question (below) how the fuck can you suddenly a. get bothered about one situation in the Middle East considering our history there and b. manage to decide the good guys are the rebels, people we were fighting a few years back and the bad guys are the Assad regime, people we were dealing with to various extents up until the latest civil war started. Also, too, how come we completely ignored similar mass slaughter by Bashar Assad's dad Hafez when he was Syrian leader because he was on our side at the time? Why are we making a big deal of it now alliances have changed in the region, hmmm?
Now, to answer your question. As far as the west is concerned the action they want to take is to remove the Assad regime. Negotiations don't begin until Assad agrees to go into exile somewhere. Now the Assad regime just sren't going to do that. Whether they're democratic or not, the Assad regime is the sovereign government of Syria in the same way Putin and the Chinese Communist Party run their respective countries. And we've arrogantly decided to arm a bunch of jihadi nutcases to overthrow a sovereign government because we don't like that government's alliances. Neither the jihadi rebels or the Assad regime aregreat options for Syria. Neither one is going to turn Syria into a democratic paradise. The rebels want to turn the country into an Islamic state, something much worse than the current regime. So our proposed action is to attempt to unlawfully overthrow a sovereign government, something we've done in the past in the region that has caused us great problems afterward, and to strategically ally ourselves with the people we're simultaneuosly calling the greatest threat to our way of life. Can you see there are one or two ethical and practical problems with what we're trying to do, actual legitimate gripes I might have with what we're trying to do that aren't just "point scoring"?
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Why did Hezbollah come into existence? Why do they remain in existence?
And I'm fine leaving the bigotry to you Lyle.
Because Israel had enough of the PLO in South Lebanon lofting rockets into Israel so they decided to do something about it and when the little Lezbos ;) got the crap slapped out of them they cried foul as per usual....."B-b-b-but we can't defeat Israel :eek::eek::eek:"
They remain in existence because they much like the other "Palestinians" :rolleyes: are the lynch pin behind Arab and Persian unification.
Of course, there's NEVER been a liberal bigot :shakehead: you're a pathetic little bastard you know that? Of course you'd have to because you know EVERYTHING :beat:
Calm down, Uncle Daddy. As usual you're just ranting away here. This is too nonsensical to try and answer but where and how are Sunni Arabs and Shiite Persians trying to unify?
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
El Kabong Putin agrees with you.
Yes which should be alarming to consider that in this case I agree with Putin over Obama
Kirkland the Sunnis and the Shia are muslims, their main beef in the region besides that which they have against each other is that Israel is a nation and a nation they can't get at because #1 Israel is strong enough to defend itself as it has shown before and #2 Israel has powerful allies.
Also Kirkland you once again attempted to say "Israel" is the problem...If not partying when missiles are falling in your country constitutes a "problem". But hey you believe Israel is evil obviously my telling you otherwise won't stop you from being a jackass. There were no rantings in my previous post, just facts....facts that shot down your argument that the "Hezbos" exist because of Israeli oppression....they exist because they are hateful ignorant bastards...which answers why you side with them
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
As usual, if you manage to come up with a factual/coherent post I'll reply to it.
Re: Do you support the arming of Syrian 'rebels'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
As usual, if you manage to come up with a factual/coherent post I'll reply to it.
1964 - The PLO is created by the Arab League Cairo Summit :rolleyes:
1969 to 1970 - The PLO fights a war of attrition vs Israel
1971 - Black September: "Palestinians" are kicked out of JORDAN....huh? What was that...JORDAN you say?
1971 - "Palestinians" ;);) go to Lebanon to continue to fight against Israel
1982 - Israel has had enough of the PLO's bullcrap and enough of Lebanon sitting idly by and allowing rocket attacks and so Israel invades and occupies southern Lebanon
Due to that invasion and the poor hurt feelings of the sweet terrorist supporting dupes in Lebanon Hezbollah was created and gained support and is still around today advocating the destruction of Israel
Can you follow that?
Odd that when it comes to minorities as a people you're all bleeding heart about it.....but Israel as a minority in the Middle East where it is surrounded by nations wanting to wipe it off the face of the Earth.....nah you're cool with that :shakehead: and the funniest part is the British set all those countries up....bang up job your empire did with that
