Syria: The "Rebels" Are Terrorists

Discussion in 'Politics' started by RedStar, Jul 25, 2012.

  1. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Haven't we seen this script , or something like it, before?
    Isn't this Afghanistan, remastered and with new special effects?
    Syria is a target to be "helped" because of its strategic position between Iraq's Oil and Gas, and Western Europe.
    Once its people have been helped by having their people killed and buildings destroyed, the US will set up a puppet Government, and start building pipelines.
    Radical Muslims will use the chaos to gain power, and eventually all the women in rural areas will be dressed in Burkahs and the girl's schools will be closed.
    But, hey, at least they are free to have their thumbs marked blue every 4 years.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    If the US is looking for people to help, why not try the suffering people on the Congo Rwanda borderlands?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. RedStar The Comrade! Registered Senior Member

    Very well said. If the US is serious about "human rights", they'd take a look at Saudi Arabia. Bells and others continually ignore this reality.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. The Esotericist Getting the message to Garcia Valued Senior Member

    James, your deluding yourself if you believe you live in a democracy. In the United States, parties choose the candidates, and it is the same in all western democracies. These parties are controlled by party elites, and these party elites are controlled by money. Cold. Hard. Cash. This cash comes from the international banking cartel. The same cartel that bought and paid for the Russian (bolshevik) revolution I might add. Democracy in the post industrial age is a myth, it is an illusion propagated by the MSM, which incidentally is bought and paid for by these same elites. Wasn't there a scandal involving Murdoch's media empire in the UK recently that was relatively instructive of this? Do you honestly believe that this is as far as it goes? The government tell the media what to print/post, and they do it. If they don't, they don't get access.

    My, what an illusory world people of the west must live in to believe they live in "representative governments." They live in oligarchies. Same as communists societies.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    We depend on their oil. Why do you ignore this reality?
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Heinlein's Razor applies here. Stupidity is a better explanation than a super-effective worldwide shadowy conspiracy.
  9. RedStar The Comrade! Registered Senior Member

    I don't. You have just admitted here that the US only cares about "human rights" when it is convenient. That's why I don't trust this "rebellion". Captain Kremmen is right; they only care about their own interests, no matter the cost to the Syrian people.
  10. RedStar The Comrade! Registered Senior Member

    I'll have to agree with billvon. I don't think the West has a "genuine" democracy, but it's not because of a conspiracy theory. It's simply because of class struggle.
  11. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    It's more than convenience, it's life itself.
  12. RedStar The Comrade! Registered Senior Member

    It's still unprincipled. At least Russia doesn't even pretend to stand for idealism and "freedom and democracy" (meaningless buzzwords) when she participates in imperialism.
  13. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    In the first place, Bells isn't American. In the second place, even if she was her personal rhetorical attention would not be equivalent to "AMERICA."

    In the third place, the Saudi population is not up in arms looking to overthrow the regime, so I'm unclear on what you want America to do about human rights there. Various Americans do speak out on the subject, and the USA does use its good relations with the Saudi government to (quietly, gently) prod them in the right direction.

    Is the implication supposed to be that because the USA isn't invading Saudi Arabia to overthrow the king and establish democracy, that America is therefor hypocritical about human rights? Because that's pretty silly.

    The rebellion - no scare quotes are appropriate here - is not being waged by "the US." You can perfectly well distrust the USA, without going further and then imputing that onto people who rose up against a dictatorship. The fact that the USA might be hypocritical doesn't render your support for brutal dictatorship defensible.
  14. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    You mean, not since her ideology was discredited 20-odd years ago. Before that, Russia spent generations pursuing worldwide imperialism in the name of various ideals.

    These days, it's nothing but naked power politics and ethnic nationalism. It is not clear to me that such is preferable to even a hypocritical embrace of some form of ideals.
  15. RedStar The Comrade! Registered Senior Member

    "Quietly and gently" with Saudi Arabia, but with Syria, they give them advanced weapons and training.

    And no, the United States has a vested material interest in the continuation of a friendly puppet state in Saudi Arabia. That's the reason. That's the reason why the United States supports or opposes anything world wide.

    The silliest thing is Saudi Arabia joining the United States in their condemnation of Syria and calls for "democracy".

    But it is. Which is why many, if not most, Syrians support the "dictatorship". It's the lesser of two evils.

    It was not "discredited" considering all the economic statistics I've provided you; and I agree, the foreign policy of Kruschev and those who followed, which was "Peaceful Coexistence", was garbage and counter-revolutionary.
  16. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Well, being an ally has its perks. But I am going to have to demand that you provide evidence of the USA giving the Syrian opposition "advanced weapons." That is contrary to the explicitly stated policy and every report I've read about the CIA's involvement. If you have some evidence of such, I'd like to hear it.

    Meanwhile, it is well known that Russia continues to sell actual heavy weaponry to the Syrian dictatorship, which it uses to murder civilians.

    That must be why the USA opposed the overthrows of Mubarak, Qaddafi, Saleh, etc.

    The USA wants good relations with the states in question. If the people there are fed up and prepared to do away with their current governments, then it behooves US interests to refrain from supporting said governments. To do so would result in states that are hostile to the USA, and the USA is sophisticated enough to understand this. Unlike Russia and China, apparently, who seem to hope against hope that dictatorship and violence will prevail and so leave them with a grateful client state. Should Assad fall, the incoming government is likely to be extremely hostile to Russia in particular for their complicity in the brutal violation of the Syrian people.

    It's ironic, I suppose, but the upshot is how clear it is that Saudi Arabia is walking a tightrope and that their current system is ultimately untenable.

    That's nothing more than a mass of self-serving bullshit. Go ahead and tell yourself whatever you think you want to hear, but understand that it doesn't impress anyone else.

    In the real world, the USSR is universally regarded as an economic disaster, and its governing ideology is roundly discredited. You can tell youself whatever you think you want to hear about that, but it will just make you look out-of-touch.
  17. RedStar The Comrade! Registered Senior Member


    I'll grant you that the article said they are actively trying to "avoid giving weapons to people linked to Al-Qaida", but I am doubtful of the effectiveness of their policy.

    I've not read any reports of civilians deliberately being killed by Assad's forces. Collateral damage =/= murder, and if you really want to argue that it is, I have numerous examples to point to for the collateral damage of IDF and American forces.

    Quit with your moral high horse. The USA is no more "free" or "good" than anybody else. And again, where was the US opposition to dictators like Fulgencio Batista and the Shah of Iran when it was convenient? Where was their opposition to Pinochet and Metaxas? In fact, they funded Metaxas against the people rebelling against him.

    And you're getting ahead of yourself. If Assad falls, the rebels are not going to waltz right in to the capital and start a new government the next day. I predict a civil war. And many Syrians see Russia very positively. We were Cold War allies, after all, to some extent.

    But it's true. I've given you examples.

    Nay. Americans live in a bubble. Anybody who calls a country that industrialized in 20 years, fought two World Wars, and still went on to become a superpower a "disaster" is an idiot who doesn't look at context. And besides, perhaps Soviet socialism has been "discredited", but nobody is trying to replicate the Soviet Union. We're trying to learn from their mistakes.
  18. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Your source there says nothing about "advanced weapons" (it's all small arms type stuff), and is also explicit that it's not the USA giving them out but Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The story is that those guys are consulting with the CIA on exactly which rebels they are going to fund and arm.

    Apparently you didn't even read the NYTimes link you provided above, then. It explicitly describes Assad's forces targetting civilians with military weapons.

    Or you could read any number of other reports from the last couple of years.

    Or you could refer to the regime's long history of doing that sort of thing - like the elder Assad's infamous assault on Hama.

    Targetting civilians is not "collateral damage." It is murder. The Assad regime is engaged in a systematic campaign of war crimes - which is to say, crimes against humanity.

    Again you are addressing a strawman. What I described in the material you are responding to there was a matter of cold-blooded calculations of interest. It seems that you are unable to cope with disagreement without resorting to silly strawman tactics and bloviation.

    On the one hand, the US ended up getting burned in the long run on various of those misadventures and now calculates differently. This has - again - been abundantly evident throughout the Arab Spring.

    On the other hand, Carter declined to support the Shah when he ran into trouble with protest movements and this is widely thought to have been instrumental in his fall. Carter made a deliberate effort to distance the USA from the Shah and reach out to the Iranian people as his regime collapsed. It was only later, in the internecine battles in the aftermath of the Shah's overthrow, that the Ayatollah managed to sour relations with the USA as part of his consolodation of power. People forget that the hostage crisis didn't occur until well after the Shah was gone.

    Nobody implied that they would.

    They're already having a civil war. You're simply rooting for the side that is in bed with Russia.

    Those would be the regime and regime supporters - the very same people who will be shut out of a post-Assad government.
  19. RedStar The Comrade! Registered Senior Member

    In collusion with the USA, arming the rebels. That's what I've demonstrated.

    I could, if they existed. However, as I've pointed out, neither side is innocent of harming civilians. I don't understand your focus on the Assad government.

    That was not unsolicited. There was an "uprising" by Islamic extremists in Hama. I don't think Syria has a capable force of doing precision strikes, so unfortunately, they resort to broad bombing tactics; just like the Allies did with Dresden.

    No more than the American targeting of Japanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the Allied targeting of civilians in Dresden, or the American murder of civilians in Pakistan, Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. I'm not bringing up these examples to justify what Assad is allegedly doing, but to insist that you have no leg to stand on.

    How do we know for sure that it calculates differently? The same interests are in play.

    That seems to me like Carter deciding the shit was hitting the fan and conveniently changing his position regarding the Shah. As it is, when the oppressive governments are strong (e.g. Saudi Arabia and Metaxas), the USA has no problem being allied with them.

    Yes, I am. And you are rooting for the side in bed with the USA.

    Unless, of course, they are a substantially large group of Syrians, as I've demonstrated.
  20. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    The last war in which innocents were unlikely to die was WWI.
    By WWII, more civilians died than soldiers, and it has been increasing ever since.
    If you want to protect innocent lives, intervene with aid or other help before a war starts.
    Otherwise innocent people are bound to die.

Share This Page