3 ms·

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 "uncon

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

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