3 ms·

I will reply in the coming days. Too much work, no time for research today. The one thing I'd like to say is that I haven't yet found the documents that would s

by pipy 13y ago

I will reply in the coming days. Too much work, no time for research today. The one thing I'd like to say is that I haven't yet found the documents that would support your thesis about the human rights record of Bashar Al Assad, especially the numbers of his victims. Also, too bad, US government doesn't seem to care about the possible humanitarian catastrophe in Syria that would ensure after strikes. At least, I haven't found any documents that support this. If you and US government are so sure that the bombing of Syria is for the better, I think that you should provide documented arguments in support of your position.

berntb 13y ago
>>I haven't yet found the documents that would support your thesis about the human rights record of Bashar Al Assad I do believe you never heard of e.g. HRW... This took seconds with Google: http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/05/16/syria-visit-reveals-torture-chambers http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/05/16/syria-visit-reveals-tortu... http://www.hrw.org/reports/2012/07/03/torture-archipelago http://www.hrw.org/reports/2012/07/03/torture-archipelago (Also note that the present dictator isn't the first one in the family to use artillery on cities...) >>US government doesn't seem to care about the possible humanitarian catastrophe in Syria that would ensure after strikes I gave multiple reasons why it was a very bad idea to let mass murdering and torturing dictators use civilian hostages to get away with using WMD on civilians. You are just going to ignore that? AGAIN: WHY WOULD THE RESULTS OF THE STRIKES BE WORSE THAN LETTING THE MASS MURDERERS GET AWAY WITH IT, SO THEY KEEP USING WMD??? (Not to mention keep using air/artillery on civilians.) Again: I just don't think you're intellectually honest. Edit: Now also Britain corroborates use of chemical weapons. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23975030 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23975030
- pipy 13y ago
  First, I would reiterate some of my points and supplement them with new information. Then I would comment on your concerns. The last part of my message will be my response to your ad-hominem points. 1. Lack of evidence. >You know full well that information sources often can't be publicized when you disqualify everything. The members of US Congress who have seen the classified evidence about Syria gas attacks and say that it fails to prove anything. [1] The BBC article that you've linked to has also no proof whatsoever, just allegations from Mr Cameron, who, by the way, has just failed to convince the House of Commons. If you would take the time, as I did, and randomly scan through the discussion in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom [2], you would hear yourself that the same arguments that I have already made in this discussion were voiced by many of it's members. I guess, that now you've got to accuse the US Congressmen and the members of the UK House of Commons of being intellectually dishonest and pro-Putin shilling? 2. Lack of humanitarian project, disregard for consequences, lack of a clear humanitarian objective. I already have provided the argument that the number of civilians killed during the three weeks of bombardments of Kosovo was higher than the number of Milosevic victims, that were supposed to be the cause for bombardments. And that doesn't even include the number of Serb civilians that were killed by various organized Albanian groups afterwards. The bombing of Syria has no humanitarian goals whatsoever. There is no assessment of potential civilian casualties, no roadmap for resolution. [3] 3. You seem to claim that keeping Bashar-Al-Assad in power is somehow worse than allowing him to continue being in power, but there's no evidence that supports this. The mere idea that you seem to infer that you should first take action(bomb a country, kill people), and weight the consequences of the action after you've already made it, defies logic. The most authoritative document on Syrian death toll provided by UN suggests that there is total of 92,901 dead, predominantly males (as of June 2013). The number includes combatants and non-combatants. [4] The document also states that the current data makes it hard to make a distinction. There is no data on the number of victims of Bashar-Al-Assad that would support that he is worse than Pinochet. The document by HRW that you've provided states that the Assad regime has made about 25,000 documented detentions (as of June 22, 2012) [5]. As we also know, the US, Saudi Arabia, Quatar and Turkey all have been pouring weapons and foreign fighters into Syria for a number of time, which is to say that they must be held accountable for their fair share of a total death toll. Let's suppose that the Bashar-Al-Assad is worse than Pinochet, just for the sake of the argument. How come would it justify bombing Syria into oblivion? There is no such thing as being partly pregnant. If you know anything about military, there is no such thing as `limited strikes`. 4. Why is US disregarding the peace talks and doesn't push for ceasefire? We oppose any foreign military intervention in Syria under any pretext, because it does not serve the Syrian aspiration for freedom and justice. Instead it will exacerbate the crisis, and push the parties of the armed conflict to escalate their armed actions, and push them to use the worst of weapons. А statement made by part of the Syrian opposition. [6] 5. Your posts contain ad-hominem attacks and too much of hand-waving instead of informed arguments. You have already accused me of 1) paid shilling, 2) having multiple accounts, 3) intellectual dishonesty. And your strongest argument for bombing Syria is that "OMG, Assad is a really, really bad guy and he uses WMD!" (I concur that Assad is a very bad guy, but bombing is really not enough for a plan to solve Syrian problems). Please forgive me for the one ad-hominem attack in return to three of your's. Here's the difference between me an you: in 2003 I have participated in protests against the war in Chechnya, for a large number of years I have taken part in criticizing Russian regime. An you are engaged in blind warmongering on behalf of your ruling elites. To quote the Bible: “Why do you look at the splinter in your brother’s eye but you don’t notice the log in your own eye? And how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me get that splinter out of your eye,’ with that log there in your own eye? You fake, first get the log out of your own eye, and then you can see about getting the splinter out of your brother’s eye.” I wish you all the best and, first and foremost, to do your own research instead of blindly believing your very own government. To quote Vladimir Lenin, "if you're not interested in politics, sooner or later, politics would be interested in you". I hope this won't be the case for you and your loved ones, and that you're life won't be taken neither in any new imperialist war waged by your government in your name, nor in any of the terrorist fallouts that usually come afterwards. [1] http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/09/classified-intelligence-doesnt-prove-anything.html http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/09/classified-intelligen... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pcssm6sLUk#t=1h18m10s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pcssm6sLUk#t=1h18m10s [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pcssm6sLUk#t=5h50m3s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pcssm6sLUk#t=5h50m3s [4] http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/SY/HRDAG-Updated-SY-report.pdf http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/SY/HRDAG-Updated-SY... [5] http://www.hrw.org/print/reports/2012/07/03/torture-archipelago http://www.hrw.org/print/reports/2012/07/03/torture-archipel... [6] http://binaa-syria.com/B/en/content/press-statement-regarding-threatened-american-strikes-syria http://binaa-syria.com/B/en/content/press-statement-regardin...
  - berntb 13y ago
    I wrote an answer, but removed it. I repeat my only argument regarding motivation from the GP comment, for the THIRD time. You seem to have missed answering it? This is hardly new for you. Almost the same argument is presented by the Obama administration whenever anyone there gives an interview. (I'll post my original comment when/if you finally talk about my answer to your position.) (Since you don't want to answer my point: See Wikipedia re Pinochet and Syria. Mainstream estimates is ~3200 dead for Pinochet's regime, Amnesty talks about 10K dead just in detentions (without e.g. bombing/shelling of cities) as probably low. E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Syria#Ba.27athist_Rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Syria#Ba.27athi... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_violations_during_the_Syrian_civil_war#Sexual_violence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_violations_during_... ) Here is a link to my original statement, referenced below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6328506 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6328506 -------- I gave multiple reasons why it was a very bad idea to let mass murdering and torturing dictators use civilian hostages to get away with using WMD on civilians. You are just going to ignore that? AGAIN: WHY WOULD THE RESULTS OF THE STRIKES BE WORSE THAN LETTING THE MASS MURDERERS GET AWAY WITH IT, SO THEY KEEP USING WMD??? (Not to mention keep using air/artillery on civilians.)
    - pipy 13y ago
      I've made my best to explain my position upper in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6357072 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6357072
      - berntb 13y ago
        >>explain my position So much text and you didn't answer my single argument (same as what the Obama administration use) for the FOURTH time. You even repeated that which the argument answered, pretending never to have seen it... (Note that I motivate why I think you're not intellectually honest -- you write many kb without touching the only counter argument. So it is not an ad hominem.) Edit: HRW also points out the Syrian junta for the chemical attack: http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/10/syria-government-likely-culprit-chemical-attack http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/10/syria-government-likely-c...

by pipy 13y ago

berntb 13y ago

>>I haven't yet found the documents that would support your thesis about the human rights record of Bashar Al Assad I do believe you never heard of e.g. HRW... This took seconds with Google: http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/05/16/syria-visit-reveals-torture-chambers http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/05/16/syria-visit-reveals-tortu... http://www.hrw.org/reports/2012/07/03/torture-archipelago http://www.hrw.org/reports/2012/07/03/torture-archipelago (Also note that the present dictator isn't the first one in the family to use artillery on cities...) >>US government doesn't seem to care about the possible humanitarian catastrophe in Syria that would ensure after strikes I gave multiple reasons why it was a very bad idea to let mass murdering and torturing dictators use civilian hostages to get away with using WMD on civilians. You are just going to ignore that? AGAIN: WHY WOULD THE RESULTS OF THE STRIKES BE WORSE THAN LETTING THE MASS MURDERERS GET AWAY WITH IT, SO THEY KEEP USING WMD??? (Not to mention keep using air/artillery on civilians.) Again: I just don't think you're intellectually honest. Edit: Now also Britain corroborates use of chemical weapons. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23975030 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23975030

pipy 13y ago
First, I would reiterate some of my points and supplement them with new information. Then I would comment on your concerns. The last part of my message will be my response to your ad-hominem points. 1. Lack of evidence. >You know full well that information sources often can't be publicized when you disqualify everything. The members of US Congress who have seen the classified evidence about Syria gas attacks and say that it fails to prove anything. [1] The BBC article that you've linked to has also no proof whatsoever, just allegations from Mr Cameron, who, by the way, has just failed to convince the House of Commons. If you would take the time, as I did, and randomly scan through the discussion in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom [2], you would hear yourself that the same arguments that I have already made in this discussion were voiced by many of it's members. I guess, that now you've got to accuse the US Congressmen and the members of the UK House of Commons of being intellectually dishonest and pro-Putin shilling? 2. Lack of humanitarian project, disregard for consequences, lack of a clear humanitarian objective. I already have provided the argument that the number of civilians killed during the three weeks of bombardments of Kosovo was higher than the number of Milosevic victims, that were supposed to be the cause for bombardments. And that doesn't even include the number of Serb civilians that were killed by various organized Albanian groups afterwards. The bombing of Syria has no humanitarian goals whatsoever. There is no assessment of potential civilian casualties, no roadmap for resolution. [3] 3. You seem to claim that keeping Bashar-Al-Assad in power is somehow worse than allowing him to continue being in power, but there's no evidence that supports this. The mere idea that you seem to infer that you should first take action(bomb a country, kill people), and weight the consequences of the action after you've already made it, defies logic. The most authoritative document on Syrian death toll provided by UN suggests that there is total of 92,901 dead, predominantly males (as of June 2013). The number includes combatants and non-combatants. [4] The document also states that the current data makes it hard to make a distinction. There is no data on the number of victims of Bashar-Al-Assad that would support that he is worse than Pinochet. The document by HRW that you've provided states that the Assad regime has made about 25,000 documented detentions (as of June 22, 2012) [5]. As we also know, the US, Saudi Arabia, Quatar and Turkey all have been pouring weapons and foreign fighters into Syria for a number of time, which is to say that they must be held accountable for their fair share of a total death toll. Let's suppose that the Bashar-Al-Assad is worse than Pinochet, just for the sake of the argument. How come would it justify bombing Syria into oblivion? There is no such thing as being partly pregnant. If you know anything about military, there is no such thing as `limited strikes`. 4. Why is US disregarding the peace talks and doesn't push for ceasefire? We oppose any foreign military intervention in Syria under any pretext, because it does not serve the Syrian aspiration for freedom and justice. Instead it will exacerbate the crisis, and push the parties of the armed conflict to escalate their armed actions, and push them to use the worst of weapons. А statement made by part of the Syrian opposition. [6] 5. Your posts contain ad-hominem attacks and too much of hand-waving instead of informed arguments. You have already accused me of 1) paid shilling, 2) having multiple accounts, 3) intellectual dishonesty. And your strongest argument for bombing Syria is that "OMG, Assad is a really, really bad guy and he uses WMD!" (I concur that Assad is a very bad guy, but bombing is really not enough for a plan to solve Syrian problems). Please forgive me for the one ad-hominem attack in return to three of your's. Here's the difference between me an you: in 2003 I have participated in protests against the war in Chechnya, for a large number of years I have taken part in criticizing Russian regime. An you are engaged in blind warmongering on behalf of your ruling elites. To quote the Bible: “Why do you look at the splinter in your brother’s eye but you don’t notice the log in your own eye? And how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me get that splinter out of your eye,’ with that log there in your own eye? You fake, first get the log out of your own eye, and then you can see about getting the splinter out of your brother’s eye.” I wish you all the best and, first and foremost, to do your own research instead of blindly believing your very own government. To quote Vladimir Lenin, "if you're not interested in politics, sooner or later, politics would be interested in you". I hope this won't be the case for you and your loved ones, and that you're life won't be taken neither in any new imperialist war waged by your government in your name, nor in any of the terrorist fallouts that usually come afterwards. [1] http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/09/classified-intelligence-doesnt-prove-anything.html http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/09/classified-intelligen... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pcssm6sLUk#t=1h18m10s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pcssm6sLUk#t=1h18m10s [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pcssm6sLUk#t=5h50m3s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pcssm6sLUk#t=5h50m3s [4] http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/SY/HRDAG-Updated-SY-report.pdf http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/SY/HRDAG-Updated-SY... [5] http://www.hrw.org/print/reports/2012/07/03/torture-archipelago http://www.hrw.org/print/reports/2012/07/03/torture-archipel... [6] http://binaa-syria.com/B/en/content/press-statement-regarding-threatened-american-strikes-syria http://binaa-syria.com/B/en/content/press-statement-regardin...
- berntb 13y ago
  I wrote an answer, but removed it. I repeat my only argument regarding motivation from the GP comment, for the THIRD time. You seem to have missed answering it? This is hardly new for you. Almost the same argument is presented by the Obama administration whenever anyone there gives an interview. (I'll post my original comment when/if you finally talk about my answer to your position.) (Since you don't want to answer my point: See Wikipedia re Pinochet and Syria. Mainstream estimates is ~3200 dead for Pinochet's regime, Amnesty talks about 10K dead just in detentions (without e.g. bombing/shelling of cities) as probably low. E.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Syria#Ba.27athist_Rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Syria#Ba.27athi... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_violations_during_the_Syrian_civil_war#Sexual_violence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_violations_during_... ) Here is a link to my original statement, referenced below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6328506 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6328506 -------- I gave multiple reasons why it was a very bad idea to let mass murdering and torturing dictators use civilian hostages to get away with using WMD on civilians. You are just going to ignore that? AGAIN: WHY WOULD THE RESULTS OF THE STRIKES BE WORSE THAN LETTING THE MASS MURDERERS GET AWAY WITH IT, SO THEY KEEP USING WMD??? (Not to mention keep using air/artillery on civilians.)
  - pipy 13y ago
    I've made my best to explain my position upper in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6357072 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6357072
    - berntb 13y ago
      >>explain my position So much text and you didn't answer my single argument (same as what the Obama administration use) for the FOURTH time. You even repeated that which the argument answered, pretending never to have seen it... (Note that I motivate why I think you're not intellectually honest -- you write many kb without touching the only counter argument. So it is not an ad hominem.) Edit: HRW also points out the Syrian junta for the chemical attack: http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/10/syria-government-likely-culprit-chemical-attack http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/10/syria-government-likely-c...