5 ms·

> When he started chlorine and barrel bombing civilians? I would suggest to you that the world is more complicated than the soundbites vomited to you by the as

by pdx 10y ago

> When he started chlorine and barrel bombing civilians? I would suggest to you that the world is more complicated than the soundbites vomited to you by the as of lately, largely discredited media and Obama administration. The accusations against Assad change as necessary. It used to be Sarin, until that was disproved, for example. Bottom line, they just really want Syria to be destroyed like Iraq and Libya were, and will make up accusations as necessary. Did he drop some barrel bombs (home made bombs)? Probably. Did some of them hit civilians? Probably. The US has killed it's share of civilians also, hasn't it? You don't know anything, but you want a nuclear war with Russia. Seems appropriate. https://off-guardian.org/2016/07/25/assad-the-tyrant/ https://off-guardian.org/2016/07/25/assad-the-tyrant/

the_watcher 10y ago
Wait, are you actually defending Assad? EDIT: just want clarify that I don't necessarily disagree that Iraq and Libya were disasters, and that the Syrian situation seems to have devolved into a no good options situation, but that in no way excuses Assad's human rights violations.
- pdx 10y ago
  Am I defending he used Sarin? Hell yes. That's already disproved. Am I defending he may have killed civilians while bombing rebels? Well, not defending, but putting in perspective, since we kill civilians almost daily. Am I saying that you have been lied to by an administration that destroyed Libya and wants nothing more than to do the same to Syria? Yes, I am.
  - the_watcher 10y ago
    Killed civilians as collateral damage, while tragic, and something that we should work to reduce and minimize, is in no way equivalent to targeting civilians. Following your logic, manslaughter should not be a distinct crime from murder.
    - pdx 10y ago
      There's no proof that he targeted civilians. He may have, he may not have. How do you know he did? Who told you so? 1) It's a war. There is a fog of war where accurate information is not always available. 2) It's a common tactic to lie about your enemy to garner more money and weapons from your US sugar daddy. 3) The US government itself has an agenda to topple Syria for it's own reasons and those of it's Sunni ally, Saudi Arabia. Given 1,2, and 3, you are confident that you are in possession of the true state of affairs, even as you conveniently discount that the sarin gas accusation that so infuriated everybody originally, has been proven to be a lie. But hey, let's go to war with Russia based on unproven accusations. I wonder if you're old enough to remember Iraq, and the lies we were told about that? In 2003, we were told a lot of lies to get the population behind the destruction of Iraq. That was 13 years ago, so you were probably in high school or grade school. But it does happen that our government lies to the populous when it wants to destroy a country. https://off-guardian.org/2016/07/25/assad-the-tyrant/ https://off-guardian.org/2016/07/25/assad-the-tyrant/
    - the_watcher 10y ago
      I can't reply directly to pdx, but pdx seems convinced that Assad has not targeted civilians despite ample evidence to the contrary, based on one post from a site that strains credibility, and takes acceptance of the very clear fact that he has done so to mean someone is advocating for a nuclear war with Russia, and accuses me of not being old enough to remember Iraq. How these conclusions are reached is left unstated besides "you don't have every single fact that could possibly be had about this despite that not being necessary." You've shown the level of credibility we should attribute you, which is none.
      - pdx 10y ago
        I am being polite and laying out the reasons why you need to examine your beliefs. Nobody said you need to know every event in Syria to form an opinion. You just need to know about a single, proven event that supports the war hysteria narrative you have been fed. Do you?
        10y ago
- poshli 10y ago
  As the previous posters have stated, it's complicated. If Assad's regime falls, the Al-Queda and ISIS affiliated groups move in. I'm not sure America wants that. Do we want that? Hard to say! Saudi Arabia supports the Assad regime falling because the Assad regime is not Sunni. If we set up a no fly zone in Syria, we are then in direct conflict with Russia's forces. It's no longer a proxy war. I hope there's a way to be against US intervention in Syria(if only because of grim realpolitik reasons) and simultaneously not defend Assad. I fully recognize that the Assad regime is terrible(I can pummel you with New Yorker articles). I don't quite believe the Assad people used poison gas, I think the jury is still out on that.
  - the_watcher 10y ago
    As I mentioned, Syria seems to have spiralled into a "there are no good outcomes" territory. But the fact that deposing Assad could (is even likely) to create a new enemy doesn't negate the behavior that has landed Syria on the state sponsors of terror list.

by pdx 10y ago

the_watcher 10y ago

Wait, are you actually defending Assad? EDIT: just want clarify that I don't necessarily disagree that Iraq and Libya were disasters, and that the Syrian situation seems to have devolved into a no good options situation, but that in no way excuses Assad's human rights violations.

pdx 10y ago
Am I defending he used Sarin? Hell yes. That's already disproved. Am I defending he may have killed civilians while bombing rebels? Well, not defending, but putting in perspective, since we kill civilians almost daily. Am I saying that you have been lied to by an administration that destroyed Libya and wants nothing more than to do the same to Syria? Yes, I am.
- the_watcher 10y ago
  Killed civilians as collateral damage, while tragic, and something that we should work to reduce and minimize, is in no way equivalent to targeting civilians. Following your logic, manslaughter should not be a distinct crime from murder.
  - pdx 10y ago
    There's no proof that he targeted civilians. He may have, he may not have. How do you know he did? Who told you so? 1) It's a war. There is a fog of war where accurate information is not always available. 2) It's a common tactic to lie about your enemy to garner more money and weapons from your US sugar daddy. 3) The US government itself has an agenda to topple Syria for it's own reasons and those of it's Sunni ally, Saudi Arabia. Given 1,2, and 3, you are confident that you are in possession of the true state of affairs, even as you conveniently discount that the sarin gas accusation that so infuriated everybody originally, has been proven to be a lie. But hey, let's go to war with Russia based on unproven accusations. I wonder if you're old enough to remember Iraq, and the lies we were told about that? In 2003, we were told a lot of lies to get the population behind the destruction of Iraq. That was 13 years ago, so you were probably in high school or grade school. But it does happen that our government lies to the populous when it wants to destroy a country. https://off-guardian.org/2016/07/25/assad-the-tyrant/ https://off-guardian.org/2016/07/25/assad-the-tyrant/
  - the_watcher 10y ago
    I can't reply directly to pdx, but pdx seems convinced that Assad has not targeted civilians despite ample evidence to the contrary, based on one post from a site that strains credibility, and takes acceptance of the very clear fact that he has done so to mean someone is advocating for a nuclear war with Russia, and accuses me of not being old enough to remember Iraq. How these conclusions are reached is left unstated besides "you don't have every single fact that could possibly be had about this despite that not being necessary." You've shown the level of credibility we should attribute you, which is none.
    - pdx 10y ago
      I am being polite and laying out the reasons why you need to examine your beliefs. Nobody said you need to know every event in Syria to form an opinion. You just need to know about a single, proven event that supports the war hysteria narrative you have been fed. Do you?
      - 10y ago
poshli 10y ago
As the previous posters have stated, it's complicated. If Assad's regime falls, the Al-Queda and ISIS affiliated groups move in. I'm not sure America wants that. Do we want that? Hard to say! Saudi Arabia supports the Assad regime falling because the Assad regime is not Sunni. If we set up a no fly zone in Syria, we are then in direct conflict with Russia's forces. It's no longer a proxy war. I hope there's a way to be against US intervention in Syria(if only because of grim realpolitik reasons) and simultaneously not defend Assad. I fully recognize that the Assad regime is terrible(I can pummel you with New Yorker articles). I don't quite believe the Assad people used poison gas, I think the jury is still out on that.
- the_watcher 10y ago
  As I mentioned, Syria seems to have spiralled into a "there are no good outcomes" territory. But the fact that deposing Assad could (is even likely) to create a new enemy doesn't negate the behavior that has landed Syria on the state sponsors of terror list.