The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 660
Original post by Aj12
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/24/doctors-without-borders-syria_n_3809955.html
Doctors Without Borders In Syria Confirm 355 Dead, Thousands Treated For 'Neurotoxic Symptoms' After Suspected Chemical Attack.

They are an organisation well known for their neutrality and reliabilkity.


Medecins sans frontiere?

Ever heard of the Bernard Kouchner scandal in Bosnia?

kouchner helped set up MSF and worked as a doctor for the entity in bosnia during the war in Kosovo, and is alleged to have removed the organs of dead serbian soldiers.

The man's an arse, i speak french so can personally vouch for this man's lack of integrity.

i don't trust MSF.
(edited 10 years ago)
Assad has fled to Iran.
Reply 662
Original post by nastynas
Assad has fled to Iran.


lol your sig is so distracting! I was going to write something but now I can't be bothered :tongue:
Reply 663
Original post by Rovey
Medecins sans frontiere?

Ever heard of the Bernard Kouchner scandal in Bosnia?

kouchner helped set up MSF and worked as a doctor for the entity in bosnia during the war in Kosovo, and is alleged to have removed the organs of dead serbian soldiers.

The man's an arse, i speak french so can personally vouch for this man's lack of integrity.

i don't trust MSF.


One man's actions is hardly a good enough reason for denying that their hospitals have encountered and treated large numbers of dead and dying in Syria, especially when the organisation as a whole is seen as incredibly reliable and neutral.

Are you even going to believe the UN report if it comes out with conclusions contradicting what you think? Or will it suddenly be western propaganda?
Reply 664
It's not one man's actions, the MSF as a whole was deeply involved in the likely trafficking of organs.
Reply 665
Original post by Rovey
It's not one man's actions, the MSF as a whole was deeply involved in the likely trafficking of organs.


Do you have a source since I can't find anything.

Like I asked earlier if the UN report comes out saying this was carried out by Syria will you believe it? Or is that only the case if it comes to the same conclusions you have come to?
(edited 10 years ago)
Why do people keep negging my posts? If you disagree with what I say then let's have a debate about it, isn't that what forums are about?
UN CONFIRM REBELS USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS:

http://rt.com/news/line/2013-08-28/#50527
Reply 668
Original post by nastynas
UN CONFIRM REBELS USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS:

http://rt.com/news/line/2013-08-28/#50527


Syria’s envoy to the UN Bashar Jaafari on Wednesday accused rebel forces of using chemical weapons to “bring about military intervention and aggression against Syria.
I more and more have come to feel that Shaykh Buti had it right and that people should have put their heads down for the sake of stability. Instead we may well be witnessing the implosion of another Middle Eastern country that will lead to untold misery for an entire nation. My justification for the fighting up until now has been that it was simply unavoidable and that Asad led the rebels to a point of no return. But I have to question the wisdom of fighting a battle when so many are dying who didn't choose to fight for either side. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of refugees are streaming from Syria into Iraq (what a world), and I don't know what their future is to be. So much lost. What has been gained?
Reply 670
Original post by Rovey
It's not one man's actions, the MSF as a whole was deeply involved in the likely trafficking of organs.


The organ trafficking allegations are really little more than unsubstantiated rumors and hearsay which have been embellished by certain individuals and interests with a clear agenda. Three parallel international investigations have failed to uncover any evidence for them, and they remain entirely unsubstantiated after 10 years.

I do agree that Kouchner is an arse, but still.
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 671
Original post by Aj12
Because it was an irrelevant question. Just because they are fighting in Syria does not mean they should be fighting in vastly different situations that are geographically near by.


They were sent to fight in Syria (mainly the Al Nusra) to 'help the people of Syria' (by removing Assad), if they really care about the people then why don't they go help the People of Egypt?
Reply 672
Original post by Enoxial
They were sent to fight in Syria (mainly the Al Nusra) to 'help the people of Syria' (by removing Assad), if they really care about the people then why don't they go help the People of Egypt?


I would't agree with that at all. People said the same about the West during Libya. Just because you aren't taking down every single dictator does not mean you should not remove one when you can do easily. Just because you aren't freeing all oppressed people everywhere does not mean you don't care about people.
Reply 673
Can't help but wonder what Assad must be thinking right now?

What do you think will happen?
Reply 674
Original post by MTR_10
Can't help but wonder what Assad must be thinking right now?

What do you think will happen?


I think syrians don't want to be run by al qaeda mobros.
Reply 675
Original post by Rovey
I think syrians don't want to be run by al qaeda mobros.


But if US doesn't let Syria be run by Al Qaeda then how will they make Syria one of their slaves because surely Assad will never be their Ally.
Original post by nastynas
UN CONFIRM REBELS USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS:

http://rt.com/news/line/2013-08-28/#50527




The UN has made such claim. Bit difficult to after their convoy was attacked. Use RT as a source at your peril
Reply 677
I think its more that rt reports on things that biased western media refuses to, and you just dont like it so its easier to dismiss rt as "biased". If rt is biased, its no more biased than western media. Are you going to tell me to "use BBC as a source at your peril"?
RT most certainly has significant elements of truth to it. However, on this issue they seem to have sided with the assad regime, surprise, surprise, Russia is also siding with assad. I, in my opinion believe we, the UK the US and whoever else should intervene, as it has been stated by officials of only using strategic strikes. NO BOOTS ON GROUND PLEASEEEEEEE. As for those who disagree with the view of the 'west.' I ask you why would assad delay the UN inspectors permission to conduct research, also why in the world would the 'rebels' use chemical weapons in their own strongholds. It's beyond me how they would use chemical weapons in their own areas, they have lost enough men already.
Original post by L'Impératrice
I more and more have come to feel that Shaykh Buti had it right and that people should have put their heads down for the sake of stability. Instead we may well be witnessing the implosion of another Middle Eastern country that will lead to untold misery for an entire nation. My justification for the fighting up until now has been that it was simply unavoidable and that Asad led the rebels to a point of no return. But I have to question the wisdom of fighting a battle when so many are dying who didn't choose to fight for either side. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of refugees are streaming from Syria into Iraq (what a world), and I don't know what their future is to be. So much lost. What has been gained?


It wouldn't cause an implosion but an explosion. That is western intervention in Syria will surely spread the conflict throughout the Middle East. Foolish thing to do...:angry:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Latest

Trending

Trending