Turn on thread page Beta

Syria rebels executed civilians, says Human Rights Watch watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24486627


    views?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    And we support these monsters?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    And we support these monsters?
    Who are the monsters? Them, Assad, or our own governments?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    And we support these monsters?
    There is no "we" you don't personally have to

    And Assad is scum
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ripper-Roo)
    There is no "we" you don't personally have to

    And Assad is scum
    I'm talking about the West, UK, the US and France. As a nation we do whether we want to or not, but individually hardly anyone wanted to go to war with Syria.

    Assad might be scum, but at least he doesn't eat the heart of his victims or try to impose a new radical Islam on state. Considering the alternatives, I'd rather have Assad in control than another unstable Islamic statehood.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MENDACIUM)
    Who are the monsters? Them, Assad, or our own governments?
    All of the above. But I'd rather see Assad in power than the rebels.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    I'm talking about the West, UK, the US and France. As a nation we do whether we want to or not, but individually hardly anyone wanted to go to war with Syria.

    Assad might be scum, but at least he doesn't eat the heart of his victims or try to impose a new radical Islam on state. Considering the alternatives, I'd rather have Assad in control than another unstable Islamic statehood.
    they're all as bad as each other.

    I didn't want the UK to go to war with Syria, but you can't let these leaders go unpunished or undeterred.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Ripper-Roo)
    I didn't want the UK to go to war with Syria, but you can't let these leaders go unpunished or undeterred.
    Why not punish King Abdullah (Saudi Arabia) and King Hamad (Bahrain) aswell?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Kiss)
    And we support these monsters?
    Do we? As the report says:

    Its 105-page report says that in the early hours of 4 August fighters from several different rebel groups attacked and overran army positions in the Sheikh Nabhan area of the Latakia countryside. A soldier told HRW that about 30 of his comrades were killed in the assault.

    Our governments have never actually came out and said who they are supporting other than "the rebels" but there are dozens of factions involved so we could support these particular groups but is just as likely we are not.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Algorithm69)
    Specious. Very specious.
    What's your issue?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Not surprising, they've done it before, and they'll do it again.

    Not sure where the idea the rebels were morally stand-up came from. They just about as dirty handed as their opponents.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Algorithm69)
    Your assertion that our government can somehow support "the rebels" as a collective but are suddenly able to say "well, not those rebels" whenever a horrific war-crime occurs. By opposing Assad and weakening him we are, directly or indirectly, assisting all rebels, including the terrorist factions. What will you say if, after the inevitable years of bloodshed and infighting that will occur after Assad's downfall have subsided, an Islamist faction wins? "Oops"? "My bad"? "We weren't helping those guys"?
    I was not saying they are supporting the rebels as a collective, merely that they have not publicly started who they support. It's pretty obvious they will be supporting certain groups. Whilst this is not relevant now it was a few months ago when Assad appeared to be on shaky ground, Western governments were trying to influence the outcome of the conflict to counter the Islamist groups in Syria that are being bank rolled by surrounding states and al Qaeda. Which made a lot of sense at the time, less so now that Assad is regaining ground.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Well around half of the rebels are jihadists or hardline Islamists according to a report
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...es-report.html
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Do we? As the report says:

    Its 105-page report says that in the early hours of 4 August fighters from several different rebel groups attacked and overran army positions in the Sheikh Nabhan area of the Latakia countryside. A soldier told HRW that about 30 of his comrades were killed in the assault.

    Our governments have never actually came out and said who they are supporting other than "the rebels" but there are dozens of factions involved so we could support these particular groups but is just as likely we are not.
    It was made fairly clear that they were against Assad and preferred the Syrian rebels when the talks held with Russia were on.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    We know there are no innocent parties in this except the civilians themselves.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Most likely to be propaganda, or the fact that the one's executed were not "civilians".
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Its not propaganda. its Muslim on Muslim.

    They are beheading people in the street with glorious chants of ALLAH SNACKBAR! If you tools need the Un to tell you that muslims are slaughtering each other then you need a brain operation.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    I'm talking about the West, UK, the US and France. As a nation we do whether we want to or not, but individually hardly anyone wanted to go to war with Syria.

    Assad might be scum, but at least he doesn't eat the heart of his victims or try to impose a new radical Islam on state. Considering the alternatives, I'd rather have Assad in control than another unstable Islamic statehood.
    Been saying this from the start.

    Punishing Assad's regime undeniably strengthens the position of those who oppose him. It is easy to call for justice and forget about the consequences but it's innocent Syrians who have to deal with the consequences not us. Any stance we take needs to consider them as priority over the fate of one man. Personally I'd rather Assad got away with his crimes rather than forcing Syrians to live under one of these barbaric rebel groups.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.