2 ms·

That's precisely the point I was making. Resistance starts with peaceful protests and gets gradually more violent. The "main surge of protests" you're talking a

That's precisely the point I was making. Resistance starts with peaceful protests and gets gradually more violent. The "main surge of protests" you're talking about was a lot less peaceful than the initial peaceful protests. It never got to the point of armed resistance, for two reasons: 1) Milošević didn't go around killing ordinary people indiscriminately and 2) the army decided to withdraw its support when he ordered them to disperse the protesters. What do you think would have happened if general populace started getting slaughtered left and right? Sure, the vast majority of the people would've shut up and bent down their heads, because shutting the hell up is a lot better than having your kids shot or growing up as orphans. But some sort of armed resistance would have surely sprung into existence. I don't want to be unfair or rude here, but to me it seems that you are either deliberately ignoring what people are trying to say in this thread or you're having reading comprehension problems. It has been pointed out several times that things in Syria started out as protests and turned into armed resistance due to use of lethal force to suppress protests. By now it should be clear what we're all trying to say. Using Milošević and his regime as a counter-argument doesn't hold up, precisely because Milošević's dictatorship was quite "benign" compared to extremes such as Syria.

mladenkovacevic 15y ago
I am not arguing against anyone's opinion and concede that in Syria it is perhaps too late for "peaceful protests". But as an outsider I have to rely on "unconfirmed reports", "third party accounts" and "anonymous youtube videos". Watch any newsreel and this is exactly how every report from Syria is prefaced. I'm just trying to remain objective. Maybe my paranoia has reached unhealthy levels as result of propaganda in my own life but I don't think it's unreasonable to consider exactly how the conflict escalated to this point. It's a little scary how people are quick to turn on you unless you blindly buy into unconfirmed reports of government snipers indiscriminately taking out civilians. Taking part in this kind of group think puts you on a fast moving train towards a single resolution... when in fact there might be 2 or 3 forks in the road that might result in less collateral damage. And finally to re-iterate.. I am not arguing that Assad is not a bastard who ordered the troops to shoot on civilians: so far he seems to most definitely be that kind of bastard. I'd just like to retain my ability to keep an open mind and consider all sides of the story. Ok now downvote away.
- CodeMage 15y ago
  Now, that I can completely understand and agree with. This is precisely the source of... frustration, to use a mild term, a great part of the world feels towards USA and, to a lesser degree, NATO. From what I've seen over the years, it's incredibly easy to get people convinced that "we need to send our troops to fight for democracy and freedom". Yes, the world has been peaceful compared to the World War 2, but instead of a great world-wide war, we've been having lots of small wars all over the place. The important thing is that it's "far from home", so everyone can feel both safe and righteous. And when it turns out that things weren't really the way media reported them, people can have a round of "boo, shame on you government" and cheerfully move on to the next target. You call it "paranoia", I call it "a healthy dose of skepticism based on empirical evidence", but I've been told it's merely "bitterness" :-P

mladenkovacevic 15y ago

I am not arguing against anyone's opinion and concede that in Syria it is perhaps too late for "peaceful protests". But as an outsider I have to rely on "unconfirmed reports", "third party accounts" and "anonymous youtube videos". Watch any newsreel and this is exactly how every report from Syria is prefaced. I'm just trying to remain objective. Maybe my paranoia has reached unhealthy levels as result of propaganda in my own life but I don't think it's unreasonable to consider exactly how the conflict escalated to this point. It's a little scary how people are quick to turn on you unless you blindly buy into unconfirmed reports of government snipers indiscriminately taking out civilians. Taking part in this kind of group think puts you on a fast moving train towards a single resolution... when in fact there might be 2 or 3 forks in the road that might result in less collateral damage. And finally to re-iterate.. I am not arguing that Assad is not a bastard who ordered the troops to shoot on civilians: so far he seems to most definitely be that kind of bastard. I'd just like to retain my ability to keep an open mind and consider all sides of the story. Ok now downvote away.

CodeMage 15y ago
Now, that I can completely understand and agree with. This is precisely the source of... frustration, to use a mild term, a great part of the world feels towards USA and, to a lesser degree, NATO. From what I've seen over the years, it's incredibly easy to get people convinced that "we need to send our troops to fight for democracy and freedom". Yes, the world has been peaceful compared to the World War 2, but instead of a great world-wide war, we've been having lots of small wars all over the place. The important thing is that it's "far from home", so everyone can feel both safe and righteous. And when it turns out that things weren't really the way media reported them, people can have a round of "boo, shame on you government" and cheerfully move on to the next target. You call it "paranoia", I call it "a healthy dose of skepticism based on empirical evidence", but I've been told it's merely "bitterness" :-P