Why does Syria continue to slaughter its innocents, especially children?

[Banks]

Why?

 

Look at this jawless child...please be warned, videos are very graphic.

 

 

http://i.imgur.com/pwpg7.jpg (WARNING: NOT FOR THE FAINTHEARTED, VERY DISTURBING IMAGE. DO NOT CLICK IF YOU'RE UNDER 18)

 

http://www.youtube.c...pcontrinter%3D1

 

U.N. or U.S. or Russia should invade Syria to remove its corrupt government or something, am I wrong? Apparently, Syrian government is OK with this.

 

Apparently, government soldiers / officials are OK with this. Apparently, world is OK with this. Apparently, governments across the globe are OK with this.

 

Disgusting....can't believe what I found or discovered. I seriously feel bad for this guy. Assad or whatever his name is, is obviously an evil dictator.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Banks

[Santalum]

Why?

 

Look at this jawless child...please be warned, videos are very graphic.

 

 

http://i.imgur.com/pwpg7.jpg (WARNING: NOT FOR THE FAINTHEARTED, VERY DISTURBING IMAGE. DO NOT CLICK IF YOU'RE UNDER 18)

 

http://www.youtube.c...pcontrinter%3D1

 

U.N. or U.S. or Russia should invade Syria to remove its corrupt government or something, am I wrong? Apparently, Syrian government is OK with this.

 

Apparently, government soldiers / officials are OK with this. Apparently, world is OK with this. Apparently, governments across the globe are OK with this.

 

Disgusting....can't believe what I found or discovered. I seriously feel bad for this guy. Assad or whatever his name is, is obviously an evil dictator.

 

I think I have to agree with China and Russia on this.........up to a point.

 

It is not as one sided as the western media is making it out to be.

 

There is an armed revolt going on Syria.

 

What if all the muslims in America or Australia got together and demanded that the Gillard or Obama governments resign and hold fresh elections, and backed up their demands with armed attacks on police, institutions and the army?

 

Would we not react with live rounds proportionate to the attacks mounted by such hypothetical muslim insurgents in our own countries?

 

What is going on in Syria is clearly not isolated Timothy James McVeigh type attacks on the state. It is much more widespread than that and the distinction between criminal, protestor and civillian is far more blurred.

 

The good old USA has gotten it wrong in Afghanistan and Iraq on numerous occasions, particularly with the killing of the Reuter's reporters in the famour Wikileaks video. I am not so sure that the USA and the west are in a position to lecture Syria with a holier than thou attittude.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Santalum

[CaptainPanic]

What makes you think that there won't be horrible (civilian) casualties when the UN, US or Russia would invade to remove the government? I think an invasion would be to cure an itch with an amputation.

 

Besides, the people in those lands still remember the crusades (when the crusaders slaughtered entire cities). They aren't very fond of Western intervention. So, they might even oppose Western troops, instead of welcome them.

 

Would you like an intervention in your country by thousands of foreign troops, who don't speak the language, don't understand the culture and just generally don't have a clue? Or would you prefer to hope that the bloodshed will stop?

[jryan]

What makes you think that there won't be horrible (civilian) casualties when the UN, US or Russia would invade to remove the government? I think an invasion would be to cure an itch with an amputation.

 

Besides, the people in those lands still remember the crusades (when the crusaders slaughtered entire cities). They aren't very fond of Western intervention. So, they might even oppose Western troops, instead of welcome them.

 

Would you like an intervention in your country by thousands of foreign troops, who don't speak the language, don't understand the culture and just generally don't have a clue? Or would you prefer to hope that the bloodshed will stop?

 

 

 

I'm guessing you can't know how you would respond until your country's government starts shelling your town.

[imatfaal]

I am surprised that the first two responses were both tending to the side of no intervention - but I have a vague feeling both Santalum and CaptP might be right.

 

There is little doubt that Pres Assad is determined to maintain his hold on power - but then there are precious few countries in the world where the transfer of power is peaceful and orderly. And whilst people are certainly being killed there by the Government - we must, in the spirit of critical thinking, ask ourselves why we are being shown scenes of horror (and they are horrific) every night on the BBC and CNN etc from Syria and very little from anywhere else? I have a horrible sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach that if it were the UK and USA who were supplying the Assad regime with armaments and not Russia and China, then we would be seeing a very different spin on this dreadful situation. It should be acknowledged that the government in Syria is being brutal and murderous to its populace - and sections of the populace are in violent revolt; but does anyone really think that a western lead invasion of Syria would be anything other than calamitous?

 

We in the rich western world have been playing power politics in much of Africa and Asia for far too long - it has seemed to be de riguer in London, Washington Paris etc to support and undermine various regimes on the flimsiest of ideals. With high intensity and wide band media coverage this intervention has become open to much greater scrutiny and almost universal condemnation. The increasing media saturation has also had a converse effect on the subjected peoples. The people living in repressive nations around the world have been able, for the first time in generations, to formal new social structure and networks; and these new groupings have created great ferment. The upheavals and changes are not necessarily to our benefit (and why in heavens should they be?) , and may even be regressive - but they do seem to be local. Would it not be best to support humanitarian efforts and peaceful solutions until we are certain that no other endgame is possible? There is so much we can do in the rich western nations to aid others in the developing world without the need for military intervention - why do we have to consider the armed conflict solution before we have exhausted all other possibilities?

[Banks]

You guys make good points, but something really has to be done. Hopefully he steps down, if that's what people over there really want. It's too bad some (important?) people value power over the human life, it's depressing to know this but...you get the point.

 

It's like the next classroom to ours is being loud enough that something has to be done for it to stop being loud...in order for our classroom to be in a peaceful state.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Banks

[iNow]

I've read several good pieces on this in the last few days. Here is one:

 

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/02/09/opinion/husain-syria/index.html

 

Whatever the motivations to advance U.S. military intervention, we need to address the following questions before contemplating placing U.S. armed forces in harm's way again, and demanding the U.S. taxpayer foot the bill.

 

First, what does such U.S. military involvement look like? In military terms, what is the "TTP?" -- the envisaged tactics, techniques and procedures for U.S. armed forces? Is intervention designed to create a safe human corridor through which besieged Syrian citizens in Homs can escape, or are we talking about all-out regime change?

 

Second, if Assad were to be removed by force or arrested by U.S. soldiers for war crimes, who could rule Syria without an ongoing, costly U.S. troop presence on the ground? The U.S.-led, allied mistake in Iraq -- to dismiss the Ba'ath party from power -- led to years of chaos and killing. Today, the Syrian business sector, media, education, security, mosques and police forces are controlled by the Ba'ath party. What happens to this embedded national infrastructure? In other words, what is the day-after plan?

 

Third, how does the United States propose to head off the hostilities of China and Russia, who are Syria's allies? Additionally, Hezbollah, Iran and assorted Jihadist groups will see U.S. forces as sitting targets in an Arab country. Al Qaeda in Iraq will be revived with renewed strategic depth and alliance with terrorists in Syria. What is the potential military and strategic blowback in exposing U.S. forces to an array of enemies at one stroke?

 

Fourth, intervening in Syria sets a new precedent. The Economist reports of unrest in China. If, buoyed by U.S. intervention in Syria, Chinese protesters were to take to the streets and Beijing proceeded to unleash another Tiananmen Square-style massacre, would the United States consider military strikes on China? Why not? Put simply, what "third and fourth tier effects," as they are known by military strategists, have not been thought about by interventionists?

 

I am convinced that military options in Syria will do immeasurably more harm than good. My conviction stems from living in Syria during the U.S. occupation of Iraq and visiting Syria regularly over the last decade. I learned that Syria is a complex nation -- its ethnic, sectarian, tribal and religious composition is fragile. Thankfully, the White House and State Department have so far steered clear of pursuing military options. But the war drums are being beaten in the U.S. media and on the think-tank circuit.

 

Conventional thinking will not solve Syria's complex conflict. These are the questions that should be on the table: How can a face-saving exit route for Assad be found? Will Russia provide a home, or Iran? If protesters in Syria are democracy activists, what stops them from working with their democratic neighbor, Israel? The answer to that question tells us much about anti-Israeli, and by extension, anti-American sentiment in Syria. How can Turkey and Arab nations persuade the opposition to return to nonviolent protest? Who can hold the country together after Assad's departure?

 

War is a costly, deadly last resort. Diplomacy, sanctions, freezing assets, travel bans and international isolation will hasten Assad's demise. He is self-destructing, and we do not need to thump our chests in the midst of a fiscal crisis with the false glory of "mission accomplished" in a country that shares borders with Israel, Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan.

[CaptainPanic]

I'm guessing you can't know how you would respond until your country's government starts shelling your town.

No, no, no... you're doing it all wrong. If you're gonna play on someone's emotions, you should include the children.

 

The argument goes like this: "I'm guessing you can't know how you would respond until your country's government starts shelling your children.

 

Or even better: babies.

 

Wouldn't you want international intervention if your government was murdering innocent babies with tanks?.

 

With such an argument, I am surprised that the B52's haven't taken off yet.

 

On a more serious note: I am not saying that what's happening in Syria isn't bad. I am only saying that it's not the worst in the world. But people die on a daily basis. What's so special about these Syrians? Aren't there dozens of horrible regimes, and aren't there thousands of innocent deaths every day?

[iNow]

The Syrians have a bit of a habit of massacre every few years / decades. I do, however, have to say that we need to be very cautious here. If we think Iraq was a fustercluck, see what happens when we go into Syria who also has Sunni and Shia and other massively different groups.

 

Also, there have been calls from many neocons to arm the opposition since they are struggling against the government troops. However, this too could lead to annihilation. There are something like 300-500,000 troops fully armed with tanks and high end weapons supplied by Iran. Something smarter than handing a bunch of guns to 5,000 in the opposition needs to be on the table, or slaughter will ensue.

 

Also, China and Russia are allies with Syria, so that adds another element to the complexity. Extreme sanctions may not achieve immediate results, but it would at least help us to avoid creating a nightmarish set of new problems.

[doG]

Also, China and Russia are allies with Syria....

Precisely! If intervention is warranted then let one of these two take a turn and spread the intervention burden to someone besides the U.S. this time...

[JustinW]

I read something about this this morning in the news. It seems that Iraq is providing fighters to support the rebels in Syria. I didn't see it as a formal governmental alliance by Iraq as much as just finatic groups calling their fundamentalist friends to battle against the Syrian government. Al Queada and the Muslim Brotherhood have openly called for support of the rebels. So even if we do get into this mix, which side would we be more confortable supporting? It seems that one side or the other in this conflict would be hypocracy on our part.

[SeptemberMoon]

It is too bad the children cannot be removed from the area while they fight it out. They are the future of their country and culture. If they grow up in that type of environment, their mindset most likely will be similar to that of their parents. The cycle will not end if the children are not taught a better way.

[john5746]

Al Queada and the Muslim Brotherhood have openly called for support of the rebels. So even if we do get into this mix, which side would we be more confortable supporting?

 

If al-Qaeda supports eating beans everyday, does that mean we must outlaw them?

 

Anyways, I hope we find something else to do rather than bombing. Seems that has been the answer too often. If they attack us, we bomb them. If they try to make nukes, we think about bombing them. If they fight against themselves, we bomb them

[JustinW]

If al-Qaeda supports eating beans everyday, does that mean we must outlaw them?

No, that's not a correct comparison. Fighting side by side with them is a different story. You have to ask yourself if the enemy of your enemy really your friend. And visa-versa.

 

 

Anyways, I hope we find something else to do rather than bombing. Seems that has been the answer too often. If they attack us, we bomb them. If they try to make nukes, we think about bombing them. If they fight against themselves, we bomb them

We might try asking nicely. That might work huh?

[Santalum]

Why?

 

Look at this jawless child...please be warned, videos are very graphic.

 

 

http://i.imgur.com/pwpg7.jpg (WARNING: NOT FOR THE FAINTHEARTED, VERY DISTURBING IMAGE. DO NOT CLICK IF YOU'RE UNDER 18)

 

http://www.youtube.c...pcontrinter%3D1

 

U.N. or U.S. or Russia should invade Syria to remove its corrupt government or something, am I wrong? Apparently, Syrian government is OK with this.

 

Apparently, government soldiers / officials are OK with this. Apparently, world is OK with this. Apparently, governments across the globe are OK with this.

 

Disgusting....can't believe what I found or discovered. I seriously feel bad for this guy. Assad or whatever his name is, is obviously an evil dictator.

 

For much the same reason that US troops have been slaughtering innocent woman and children in Afghanistan and Iraq I suspect!

Collateral damage!

[doG]

If al-Qaeda supports eating beans everyday, does that mean we must outlaw them?

If Al Qaeda supports lopping off the heads of those that don't support them should that be OK? What if they support stoning women that are raped by someone other than their husband?

 

Beans are good, beheading is bad, stoning people is bad too!

Edited February 22, 2012 by doG

[john5746]

No, that's not a correct comparison. Fighting side by side with them is a different story. You have to ask yourself if the enemy of your enemy really your friend. And visa-versa.

 

Of course we don't fight with Al Qaeda and of course they aren't our friends. They may oppose a dictator so that they can get their way, but that doesn't mean we must oppose freedom in order to fight Al Qaeda - that is a losing battle, imo.

 

Each dictator has made the same argument. Everytime there is unrest, people start linking Al Queda in the mix, as if this alone is reason to back the dictator. Support democracy and freedom - the people might not choose a government we like, but that's a chance worth taking, assuming we get involved at all.

 

We might try asking nicely. That might work huh?

 

Is that our two choices? ask nicely or bomb them?

 

 

 

If Al Qaeda supports lopping off the heads of those that don't support them should that be OK?

 

Only if they are non-muslim, then it is OK.

 

What if they support stoning women that are raped by someone other than their husband?

 

Yeah, that's crazy. Its the 21st century, they should shoot them instead.

[DrRocket]

I'm guessing you can't know how you would respond until your country's government starts shelling your town.

 

I'm guessing that I know EXACTLY how I and a lot others would respond in such a situation. I doubt that we would be immediately looking for someone else to come in an clean up the mess.

 

I'm also guessing that my country's government also knows how they would be greeted in that situation, and that is one reason that the situation is unlikely to ever exist.

 

A citizen army and a determined population can and does keep governments in check. The last government to get confused about who is really in control in my country was thrown out. They learned a lesson, and Britain is now also a democracy.

Edited February 23, 2012 by DrRocket

[JustinW]

Is that our two choices? ask nicely or bomb them?

Usually the bomb is more effective than the smile.

[doG]

Only if they are non-muslim, then it is OK.

Strawman

 

Yeah, that's crazy. Its the 21st century, they should shoot them instead.

Strawman

 

I take it those questions were a little too hard for you?

[JohnStu]

Well, in a street battle, misfire do happen. Especially when you fire on objects at an angle, the fragments can ricochet 50 meters.