4 ms·

Well, I have tried... Here's my last reply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6362371 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6362371 I have put quite an effor

by pipy 13y ago

Well, I have tried... Here's my last reply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6362371 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6362371 I have put quite an effort to explain my position and the view on the situation. I've got some background in applied math and (I suppose) that my arguments are well in line with the requirements of elementary logic. Maybe I was too emotional in making my case, I don't know. I really feel helpless to somehow protect the Syrian people from unnecessary deaths and their country from complete destruction by US and it's allies. In a similar way I feel helpless in arguing with you. I feel that I've been deluding myself in a sense that discussing the issue of Syrian bombardments with you was only a channel to funnel my complete helplessness to prevent US from bombing Syrian people. I feel that for now it is better for me to channel my free time and efforts to the subjects that are in the realm of reach, such is the situation in my own country and in my own life. Best wishes and good luck! Let's hope that our motives in this issue are much closer than we might feel.

berntb 13y ago
I didn't read carefully -- after I asked FOUR times, you really did touch (not answer) my single argument, similar to the Obama administration's position. Just five days after I posted it... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6328506 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6328506 I will answer to your comments on my point. >>the so called 'evidence' is not to be taken seriously. Even the members of the US House Intelligence Committee that have seen the full classified version of it don't seem to consider the evidence compelling. You still didn't really touch the content of my argument, the trivial game theoretical points. Intelligence organisations in multiple countries, the EU and now HRW has claimed there was a chemical attack. Almost certainly from the junta (from signal intelligence -- and the rebels lack heavy delivery mechanisms in Damaskus). So you, Putin, Iran and Assad claim it is a conspiracy between those disparate organisations... I don't believe you are honest here. >>First and foremost, if the good of the Syrian people is to be taken as the priority, before any strike there should be a plan that takes potential civilian death toll into consideration. I posted the wikipedia links, which you read, so you only pretend you don't know this: From a humanitarian perspective, the chemical attack was a rounding error -- the junta has systematically used artillery, bombs, torture, rape and indiscriminate murder of civilians, to break the population's resistance. It would help the Syrian population to remove the military capabilities which are used to mass murder them. >>really feel helpless to somehow protect the Syrian people from unnecessary deaths and their country from complete destruction by US and it's allies Thanks for a good laugh! See above, you don't believe yourself that bombings of Syrian military units would "destroy Syria". Enough. I have better things to do than to read dishonest propaganda. (You wouldn't write this much crazy and carefully written text if you just were a troll.) Edit: I'll append my simple argument (see link above): ---------------- Some trivial points: 1. How much atrocities will the Assad regime do, Mr Neville Chamberlain, if they win the civil war and then "clean up"? It is a small minority that oppress a large majority; they must be f-cking brutal. 2. To let use of chemical weapons against civilians pass will lower the threshold for using WMD. A very, very bad precedent. 3. No reaction because of civilian damage makes the Assad method work of moving artillery etc into civilian areas... Another bad precedent. 4. Your argument about the risk of a spreading conflict implies the world should let the Assad mass murdering torturers keep the whole Middle East as hostage with WMD. A ridiculously bad precedent.

by pipy 13y ago

berntb 13y ago

I didn't read carefully -- after I asked FOUR times, you really did touch (not answer) my single argument, similar to the Obama administration's position. Just five days after I posted it... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6328506 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6328506 I will answer to your comments on my point. >>the so called 'evidence' is not to be taken seriously. Even the members of the US House Intelligence Committee that have seen the full classified version of it don't seem to consider the evidence compelling. You still didn't really touch the content of my argument, the trivial game theoretical points. Intelligence organisations in multiple countries, the EU and now HRW has claimed there was a chemical attack. Almost certainly from the junta (from signal intelligence -- and the rebels lack heavy delivery mechanisms in Damaskus). So you, Putin, Iran and Assad claim it is a conspiracy between those disparate organisations... I don't believe you are honest here. >>First and foremost, if the good of the Syrian people is to be taken as the priority, before any strike there should be a plan that takes potential civilian death toll into consideration. I posted the wikipedia links, which you read, so you only pretend you don't know this: From a humanitarian perspective, the chemical attack was a rounding error -- the junta has systematically used artillery, bombs, torture, rape and indiscriminate murder of civilians, to break the population's resistance. It would help the Syrian population to remove the military capabilities which are used to mass murder them. >>really feel helpless to somehow protect the Syrian people from unnecessary deaths and their country from complete destruction by US and it's allies Thanks for a good laugh! See above, you don't believe yourself that bombings of Syrian military units would "destroy Syria". Enough. I have better things to do than to read dishonest propaganda. (You wouldn't write this much crazy and carefully written text if you just were a troll.) Edit: I'll append my simple argument (see link above): ---------------- Some trivial points: 1. How much atrocities will the Assad regime do, Mr Neville Chamberlain, if they win the civil war and then "clean up"? It is a small minority that oppress a large majority; they must be f-cking brutal. 2. To let use of chemical weapons against civilians pass will lower the threshold for using WMD. A very, very bad precedent. 3. No reaction because of civilian damage makes the Assad method work of moving artillery etc into civilian areas... Another bad precedent. 4. Your argument about the risk of a spreading conflict implies the world should let the Assad mass murdering torturers keep the whole Middle East as hostage with WMD. A ridiculously bad precedent.