[im so fresh]

It seems soldiers these days have very little/no moral at all.
I mean it's understandable to listen to orders from your leader but surely you should refuse if you were told to open fire on civilians with no threat?

I don't know the full story but it's either the soldiers are all brain dead or are being blackmailed by higher forces.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by im so fresh)
It seems soldiers these days have very little/no moral at all.
I mean it's understandable to listen to orders from your leader but surely you should refuse if you were told to open fire on civilians with no threat?

I don't know the full story but it's either the soldiers are all brain dead or are being blackmailed by higher forces.

Nah, we're doing much better. This type of stuff is nothing new. Historically, it used to be more widespread. It's not really to do with being brain dead. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deindividuation.

(Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
I'd like to see you justify this.

His probably referring to Islamic Dawa Party.

[Dirac Delta Function]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
His probably referring to Islamic Dawa Party.

The Dawa party are against theocracy and have done very little to indicate otherwise. They don't rule by themselves either, they are part of a list which itself is part of a broader coalition.

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
The Dawa party are against theocracy and have done very little to indicate otherwise. They don't rule by themselves either, they are part of a list which itself is part of a broader coalition.

Their ideology gives the impression that they're a theocracy i.e. "Absolute sovereignty belongs to God. Islamic injunctions are the basis of legislation. The legislative authority may enact any law not repugnant to Islam. The people, as vice-regents of Allah, are entrusted with legislative and executive powers. The jurist holding religious authority represents Islam. By confirming legislative and executive actions, he gives them legality". And they supported Iran's theocracy when the revolution was taking place and they still have a relationship with Iran.

I don't really view them as a Islamist party though. Would it be fair to say their analogous to the Christian democracy union in german?

[Dirac Delta Function]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
Their ideology gives the impression that they're a theocracy i.e. "Absolute sovereignty belongs to God. Islamic injunctions are the basis of legislation. The legislative authority may enact any law not repugnant to Islam. The people, as vice-regents of Allah, are entrusted with legislative and executive powers. The jurist holding religious authority represents Islam. By confirming legislative and executive actions, he gives them legality". And they supported Iran's theocracy when the revolution was taking place and they still have a relationship with Iran.

I don't really view them as a Islamist party though. Would it be fair to say their analogous to the Christian democracy union in german?

Originally they were indeed an Islamist party with close connections to the Islamic revolution in Iran, but they were established more than 30 years ago at the formative stages of the revolution.

The party as it exists today bears little resemblance to what it originally was. They are very explicitly against the idea of creating a theocracy in Iraq for numerous reasons, and have gone on record as saying so. Their senior members are laymen (ie, not clerics), and they have no connection to the clerical establishment in Iraq (which, in any case, is a school of though different to the Iranian one, asserting that clerics should remain out of politics until the return of the 12th Imam).

The individuals that make up the party are personally religious, but politically, they are fairly secular.

[xXxiKillxXx]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
Again, how would they or you know who these non uniformed armed thugs were working for?
How would you know it wasn't the rebels posing as government forces? Which in all likelihood it was.



Yes, keep believing your little BBC narrative handed to you on a plate.
Don't for the love of God question anything!

The 'opposing army' was formed from the very beginning by foreign backers with foreign money and foreign weapons. Hardly anything 'Syrian' about it.

I suppose the many eye-witness accounts are all fabricated ? Plus, I never trust BBC, my friend is Syrian and his family originates from the areas being attacked by the pro-assad forces

[callum9999]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
Again, how would they or you know who these non uniformed armed thugs were working for?
How would you know it wasn't the rebels posing as government forces? Which in all likelihood it was.



Yes, keep believing your little BBC narrative handed to you on a plate.
Don't for the love of God question anything!

The 'opposing army' was formed from the very beginning by foreign backers with foreign money and foreign weapons. Hardly anything 'Syrian' about it.

You are just as guilty as anyone else of "having a narrative handed to you on a plate" - you are merely believing a different source from them. Yet you feel your edgy and unsupported view is the correct one and everyone else is wrong - a common moan of the conspiracy theorist.

I take it you're also one of those who believed that hilariously ridiculous list going around about how great Gadaffi was because everyone had free electricity, money thrown at them, free houses etc.?

[fuze-mo25]

The worst thing is that the people now fighting happily lived amongst eachother a couple years ago with no problems. And the way some turned into ruthless killers.

Just WOW! I feel for the families having to suffer!

[Pindar]

(Original post by xXxiKillxXx)
I suppose the many eye-witness accounts are all fabricated ? Plus, I never trust BBC, my friend is Syrian and his family originates from the areas being attacked by the pro-assad forces

Again, stop avoiding the question. What are these eyewitness accounts and how would they know whether non uniformed thugs were pro-rebel or pro-government?

Your friend originates from Syria. Big deal. Was he there? Did he personally witness something? Did he capture one of the perpetrators, torture them and get them to confess to being part of the government?

If not then stop bringing it up because it's irrelevant.

[Pindar]

(Original post by callum9999)
You are just as guilty as anyone else of "having a narrative handed to you on a plate" - you are merely believing a different source from them. Yet you feel your edgy and unsupported view is the correct one and everyone else is wrong - a common moan of the conspiracy theorist.

No, I'm not taking anything on a plate. It's merely my opinion based on what I already know, I'm not saying it's an already established fact like the title of this thread or most of the posters here, with everyone going "oh how sad, evil assad, we must intervene" instant emotional response exactly how the perpetrators want you to think.

Just because you don't take everything the BBC says on face value doesn't make you "edgy", it means you have more than one braincell.

(Original post by callum9999)
I take it you're also one of those who believed that hilariously ridiculous list going around about how great Gadaffi was because everyone had free electricity, money thrown at them, free houses etc.?

No... is this some attempt at a straw man? I take it your one of those ridiculous people who believed Iraq has weapons of mass destruction? I take it you wait to see what the BBC tells you to think before deciding anything? Two can play at that game.

[xXxiKillxXx]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
Again, stop avoiding the question. What are these eyewitness accounts and how would they know whether non uniformed thugs were pro-rebel or pro-government?

Your friend originates from Syria. Big deal. Was he there? Did he personally witness something? Did he capture one of the perpetrators, torture them and get them to confess to being part of the government?

If not then stop bringing it up because it's irrelevant.

''Survivors have testified that the militiamen spoke with an Allawite dialect.''

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCKJ5...endscreen&NR=1

one of many videos^ if you search around (which you haven't)

[callum9999]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
No, I'm not taking anything on a plate. It's merely my opinion based on what I already know, I'm not saying it's an already established fact like the title of this thread or most of the posters here, with everyone going "oh how sad, evil assad, we must intervene" instant emotional response exactly how the perpetrators want you to think.

Just because you don't take everything the BBC says on face value doesn't make you "edgy", it means you have more than one braincell.



No... is this some attempt at a straw man? I take it your one of those ridiculous people who believed Iraq has weapons of mass destruction? I take it you wait to see what the BBC tells you to think before deciding anything? Two can play at that game.

I'm just curious how you can come up with a statement saying "in all likelihood this was the rebels", when the UN monitors who are there, and the locals, say it was Assad-linked militia? The BBC aren't saying this - virtually everyone is saying it. By holding a differing view you aren't going against the BBC, you are going against the "western establishment" as a whole - something many people do to make themselves look "edgy" and pretend they are free-thinkers.

I used that "straw man" argument because you reminded me of those people. From your phrasing it doesn't sound like you've come up with an objective view of it at all. To me, it looks like you've seen the media/UN say something and therefore assumed it's wrong because they have said it. While it's naive to believe everything a specific outlet tells you, when virtually all outlets and the only independent people on the ground monitoring it are saying one thing, and the Syrian government, Iranian government and to a lesser degree the Russian government are saying the other, it's even more naive to believe them.

And two can play at that game yes - congratulations.

[Brandmon]

As much as it pains me, I am against unilateral intervention, for a number of reasons. And naturally hear me out before you scream murder.

First of all while the situation on the ground is horrible, it is not easily solvable. I am doubtful that the massacre in question has been committed by troops commanded by the central government. At this stage the Assad regime is not stupid enough to instigate further trouble by committing warcrimes while its only ally - Russia - is begging it to behave itself. Nor were they anti-government terrorists as the Assad regime wants us to believe. Instead there are clear indications that such acts were committed by gangs that happened to be pro-Assad simply because they are against the protesters. This brings up the fact that there are multiple factions at play, separate from the Assad regime itself and the recognised rebels. Toppling the Assad regime would not be enough to solve the problems at hand and an occupation effort at the scale of Iraq or Afghanistan would be required to remotely secure the region by military intervention.

Secondly, any unilateral military intervention will simply be, not only costly, but unwise. The main variable of the situation is Russia. Yes, they are the scum in this situation with their supply of weapons to the Assad regime and their opposition to any condemning statements to the regime, but they are a significant player nonetheless. They are the ones that have the most at stake and therefore the ones that are most opposed to intervention (China is simply so because Russia it). There is enough trouble between NATO and Russia over the European Missile Shield, a situation that is causing more trouble than its worth. What we don't need is to trigger the Russians to step up an intervention in Syria against whatever forces are sent there in order to secure their Mediterranean port there, winding the clock back about 40 years back to the Cold War for no justification whatsoever.

What the international community needs to do is just to have an intervention force standing by, waiting for the Russian green light. The Syrian situation is one where Russia will inevitably lose face over, one way or the other. If the West intervenes prematurely, then Russia will just put the whole blame on NATO and its actual responsibility of the situation will be forgotten and Syria, like Iraq or Afghanistan, will be unjustly considered a NATO created mess. But instead if Russia is held responsible for allowing the actual troops to intervene, whatever happen in Syria will be their fault. Pressure will only accumulate on the Russians, with massacres, a stubborn government, an eventual rebel victory and thus a likely loss of the Naval Base and the emergence of a government hostile to Russia. Indeed at the moment the Russian are clinging against intervention only out of the little hope that the situation can be stabilised with an Assad regime intact. As this become ever less likely, their opposition to military intervention will be rapidly wane away. Then a proper international effort can follow to solve the situation and the best result obtained.

Indeed the non-Western opposition is mainly borne out of fear of it becoming another Libya. I'm afraid the situation begs for it to be allowed to develop for the worse, in order to show anyone who doubts that the other option is much much worse.

[Pindar]

(Original post by xXxiKillxXx)
''Survivors have testified that the militiamen spoke with an Allawite dialect.''

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCKJ5...endscreen&NR=1

one of many videos^ if you search around (which you haven't)

......



Do you really expect anyone to fall for that? The Houla massacre happened on the 25th May, that video was uploaded on the 12th of March, a whole month before it even happened.

Are you telling me the injured man came back from the future to tell us who perpetrated the massacre? I hope nobody falls for your obvious propaganda. It's unfortunate you couldn't even get the dates right

[Pindar]

(Original post by callum9999)
I'm just curious how you can come up with a statement saying "in all likelihood this was the rebels", when the UN monitors who are there, and the locals, say it was Assad-linked militia? The BBC aren't saying this - virtually everyone is saying it. By holding a differing view you aren't going against the BBC, you are going against the "western establishment" as a whole - something many people do to make themselves look "edgy" and pretend they are free-thinkers.

Source? And who do you count as "everyone"? A lot of the news sources I've read are saying the opposite thing, then again my sources go past just what turns up on the BBC website's front page.

Let me guess, because I hold a different view from the pro-War propagandists that makes me some sort of blasphemer who's just trying to be "edgy", the powerful interests who are banging the drums for war couldn't possibly be distorting the truth, they'd never do that!

Now come back when you are less naive.

(Original post by callum9999)
I used that "straw man" argument because you reminded me of those people. From your phrasing it doesn't sound like you've come up with an objective view of it at all. To me, it looks like you've seen the media/UN say something and therefore assumed it's wrong because they have said it.

It's not "assuming it's wrong", it's called questioning it. Something which you should learn to do, and not take everything on face value.

(Original post by callum9999)
While it's naive to believe everything a specific outlet tells you, when virtually all outlets and the only independent people on the ground monitoring it are saying one thing, and the Syrian government, Iranian government and to a lesser degree the Russian government are saying the other, it's even more naive to believe them.

"All" outlets aren't saying the same thing. Stop pretending they do. All the outlets you're referring to are owned and ran by the same people with the same interests. Not exactly unbiased broad and varied sources of information.

Give me one reason why I should believe the UK/US/NATO/Israel lobby propaganda over the Syrian/Iran/Russia's and Independent journalism?

[xXxiKillxXx]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
......



Do you really expect anyone to fall for that? The Houla massacre happened on the 25th May, that video was uploaded on the 12th of March, a whole month before it even happened.

Are you telling me the injured man came back from the future to tell us who perpetrated the massacre? I hope nobody falls for your obvious propaganda. It's unfortunate you couldn't even get the dates right

You are an idiot. Did I at any point state that the video was referring to the Houla massacre? No. I simply posted a video describing one of MANY atrocities committed by Assad's men (who speak in certain accents). I guess the guy in the video shot himself and then recorded it blaming Assad's men right?

[Pindar]

(Original post by xXxiKillxXx)
You are an idiot. Did I at any point state that the video was referring to the Houla massacre? No. I simply posted a video describing one of MANY atrocities committed by Assad's men (who speak in certain accents). I guess the guy in the video shot himself and then recorded it blaming Assad's men right?

No, you are the idiot quite clearly. Then why are you trying to change the subject from the Houla massacre to some other apparent event which happened months ago in a completely different place and set of circumstances?

When did I ever say atrocities haven't been committed by Assad's men? The only thing that we were talking about was the Houla massacre, now you are trying to change the subject and attack a straw man. Well done for proving nothing and making yourself look like an idiot.

Now you mention it, who knows what happened to the guy in the video. For all we know he was one of the rebels himself, who after shooting at the army ran away and got shot in the back. Then he turns up at the medical centre claiming to be rescued by the good old rebels "bless their hearts" and gets someone to video it all for propaganda purposes. After all you won't get treated in some places if you are a rebel.

The point is you lap all this sort of stuff up and don't question anything, can't you see that people much smarter than yourself are playing you like a ukulele?

Your point of view would only work if no one ever lies, and war propaganda did not exist. When we know for a fact that is how the world works.

[StUdEnTIGCSE]

"and what is wrong with you that you fight not in the Cause of Allah, and for those weak, ill-treated and oppressed among men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from You one who will protect, and raise for us from You one who will help."
( سورة النساء , An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #75)

[Ano1]

Syria was here 6,000+ years ago and it will still be here tomorrow. I don't think anyone in the West needs to intervene to deal with an internal issue.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iran, when does it end?