| Forum Index > General Forum |
Please guys, stay on topic. This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
On August 30 2013 21:30 zezamer wrote: Fucking pathetic to use wounded children to try to get sympathy on your side.. Might be pathetic but it's effective that's why it number 1 propaganda tool for last 10,000 years. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
The only good that can come from this vote is avoiding more polarisation of UK/USA/FR - RU/CN and the hope that Russia and China will vote for concerted action when the evidence is presented. If not, we've failed completely on a humanitarian level; we've simply allowed a regime to systematically massacre its own citizens including through the use of chemical weapons. The government should have made a clear plan of action to demonstrate intervention was only on behalf of the citizens at risk and that it was not in support of one side or the other, but rather a demonstration that attacking civilians would result in international punishments in the hope of deterring such attacks. | ||
|
revel8
United Kingdom3022 Posts
On August 30 2013 21:30 zezamer wrote: ****ing pathetic to use wounded children to try to get sympathy on your side.. This thread is about the Syrian Civil War. I thought we were supposed to be posting details about it here. Sorry if the realities of the situation upset you. | ||
|
zezamer
Finland5701 Posts
On August 30 2013 21:41 revel8 wrote: This thread is about the Syrian Civil War. I thought we were supposed to be posting details about it here. Sorry if the realities of the situation upset you. I'm not upset. I just think it's really desperate... | ||
|
Zarahtra
Iceland4053 Posts
On August 30 2013 21:17 DeepElemBlues wrote: Lord Reid doesn't sound like he's throwing a hissy fit there, he sounds like he's very pleased but trying not to show it too much at the Tories getting such a rebuke from the Commons. USA isn't in desperate need of a PR move except on the internet, which means it is not in need of a PR move at all. That's just the sad consequence of the EU ignoring its citizens for almost ten years: the bureaucracy at Brussels and its enablers in European capitals really don't give a shit about the NSA or PRISM or any of it. They aren't concerned with European public opinion about America just as they aren't concerned with European public opinion about anything. Lord Reid isn't having a hissyfit there, no but Education Secretary Michael Gove is. And I'm not talking about PR move between EU and USA, which although USA needs to mend a lot of bridges(and don't kid yourself, it's not just a minority on the internet that is annoyed at USA). I'm talking about PR move towards the middle east, which USA is in desperate need of after the last 12 years. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On August 30 2013 21:43 zezamer wrote: I'm not upset. I just think it's really desperate... Seeing as we're voicing irrelevant opinions here, I think you're an idiot User was warned for this post | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
It was absolutely pathetic by our MPs in my opinion. It wasn't a vote on whether we WOULD go in, it was whether we COULD go in.... We've thrown the baby out with the bath water and stalled the diplomatic process immensely. I am not saying we should do anything... but to take that off the table at this stage was incredibly foolish and completely the wrong message. By voting no at this step we essentially said we wouldn't stand up against chemical attacks and we've weakened the UN's position and weakened the worlds' stance against chemical weapons. 189 UN states signed up to the chemical weapons convention.. the ones on the outside: Angola, Myanmar, Egypt, Israel, North Korea, South Sudan, Syria They are not a tool of war; they are a tool of fear, genocide and crimes against humanity. When weapons are being made in states under conflict it's only a step away from terrorists getting their hands on them. We are now in the position where France has the balls to go in, and Britain is turning it's back. Evil prospers in the dark and we just drew the curtains; well done France, today you are the better nation. As for politicians claiming this is a win for democracy... ha! All 220 Labour MPs voted against, considering how split the public is it's mathematically virtually impossible that none of them wanted to vote for. I at least have respect for Lib Dems and Tories who went against the Government, but those Labour MPs who sat their and followed the party line should be ashamed, as I am right now... I really hope this doesn't come back to bite us... If there's a terrorist attack using chemical weapons in the next 10 years we will have to take responsibility for allowing that to happen. | ||
|
revel8
United Kingdom3022 Posts
On August 30 2013 21:43 zezamer wrote: I'm not upset. I just think it's really desperate... This thread's purpose is to inform people of developments regarding the Syrian Civil War and discuss them. If you think showing detailed footage of the events that are occurring this week are somehow desperate then perhaps adult debate is not for you. This footage is pertinent. It is relevent and new. It was released yesterday, so is still depicting current events. I think it is pretty desperate for certain posters (who are not Mods) to attempt to censor the information that is posted in this thread. It is also ****ing pathetic for people to ignore the fact that children have been victims of incindiary weapons in Syria in the last few days because it is an inconvenient truth. I believe children getting killed by incendiary weapons is actually newsworthy and I am not going to apologise for that. | ||
|
Xayoz
Estonia373 Posts
On August 30 2013 20:51 Uvantak wrote: I would really like to know why so many of you guys are opposed towards intervening in Syria. Can't say about this forum, but having discussed this quite a bit irl - most people from where I'm at seem to think, that a more or less secular (personally, I have no idea it that's really the case) dictator, no matter how brutal, is still preferable to Islamic democracy. | ||
|
Orek
1665 Posts
We have a dillema today. While we want to avoid hasty, unnecessary or unjustifiable interventions, we don't want to witness another Rwanda either, where intervention from international community would have prevented tens of thousands of deaths. | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
On August 30 2013 21:54 Klive5ive wrote: I really hope this doesn't come back to bite us... If there's a terrorist attack using chemical weapons in the next 10 years we will have to take responsibility for allowing that to happen. If there's a terrorist attack using chemical weapons in the next 10 years it will have nothing to do with the current situation in Syria. In fact, any western military action that doesn't involve putting an immense contingent of troops on the ground probably has more chance of allowing chemical weapons fall into the hands of terrorist groups (considering the lack of cohesion of rebels groups and the presence of terrorist organizations in their mist). | ||
|
Polis
Poland1292 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 30 2013 22:06 Sbrubbles wrote: If there's a terrorist attack using chemical weapons in the next 10 years it will have nothing to do with the current situation in Syria. In fact, any western military action that doesn't involve putting an immense contingent of troops on the ground probably has more chance of allowing chemical weapons fall into the hands of terrorist groups (considering the lack of cohesion of rebels groups and the presence of terrorist organizations in their mist). The only good reason for attacking the regime at this point it so assist in the ending the conflict. From reports, the chemical weapons were used after standard airstrikes and bombardment failed to dislodge the rebels from a section of the capital. Two of the regime's planes were shot down a week before over that area(from reports this morning) which appears to have caused them to use the chemical weapon(this assume that the regime used them, which seems likely, but not proven). Ending the conflict quickly could reduce the likely hood of them using further chemical weapons. But that is really the only reason to do it. There is not a lot to gain from a strike beyond the hope that it will assist the rebels in ending the conflict. Playing king maker is not great, but there are no good options in this conflict. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
On August 30 2013 21:43 Zarahtra wrote: Lord Reid isn't having a hissyfit there, no but Education Secretary Michael Gove is. And I'm not talking about PR move between EU and USA, which although USA needs to mend a lot of bridges(and don't kid yourself, it's not just a minority on the internet that is annoyed at USA). I'm talking about PR move towards the middle east, which USA is in desperate need of after the last 12 years. Why is the education secretary making statements about foreign policy -_- I don't know if the USA needs a PR move towards the Middle East. Its geopolitical importance is determined by how much importance it is given in Western capitals. The West (the public anyway) is also pretty disgusted with and tired of the Middle East, Obama is hopefully the last gasp of Westerners wanting to get up their elbows in Muslim messes. We seem to be moving in the long-term from engagement to containment at arm's length (keeping terrorists in the Middle East and killing them if they come after us and arresting them if they try to come here, past that, whatever), a good thing. It is just a minority on the internet that is annoyed at the USA in any meaningful way and even there it is only the tiniest bit meaningful, the unaccountable European aristocracy that survived the 19th century and the first half of the 20th re-invented itself with the EU and still holds the keys to power in most of the member nations don't give two shits whether it's 10% or 90% of the European masses that are annoyed at the USA. Or annoyed at anything. If European governments followed public opinion there would have been a major diplomatic crisis with the USA, instead it's a few statements of indignation and a promise of investigations... and move on to the next issue. | ||
|
zezamer
Finland5701 Posts
On August 30 2013 21:57 revel8 wrote: This thread's purpose is to inform people of developments regarding the Syrian Civil War and discuss them. If you think showing detailed footage of the events that are occurring this week are somehow desperate then perhaps adult debate is not for you. This footage is pertinent. It is relevent and new. It was released yesterday, so is still depicting current events. I think it is pretty desperate for certain posters (who are not Mods) to attempt to censor the information that is posted in this thread. It is also ****ing pathetic for people to ignore the fact that children have been victims of incindiary weapons in Syria in the last few days because it is an inconvenient truth. I believe children getting killed by incendiary weapons is actually newsworthy and I am not going to apologise for that. Why there's report of dem children hurt("World has failed our nation"), big news about France going to support US, nothing about Germany backing out, legal article that claims attacking without UN approval is fine, on the front page of BBC news? | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6638 Posts
| ||
|
Zarahtra
Iceland4053 Posts
On August 30 2013 22:16 DeepElemBlues wrote: Why is the education secretary making statements about foreign policy -_- I don't know if the USA needs a PR move towards the Middle East. Its geopolitical importance is determined by how much importance it is given in Western capitals. The West (the public anyway) is also pretty disgusted with and tired of the Middle East, Obama is hopefully the last gasp of Westerners wanting to get up their elbows in Muslim messes. We seem to be moving in the long-term from engagement to containment at arm's length (keeping terrorists in the Middle East and killing them if they come after us and arresting them if they try to come here, past that, whatever), a good thing. It is just a minority on the internet that is annoyed at the USA in any meaningful way and even there it is only the tiniest bit meaningful, the unaccountable European aristocracy that survived the 19th century and the first half of the 20th re-invented itself with the EU and still holds the keys to power in most of the member nations don't give two shits whether it's 10% or 90% of the European masses that are annoyed at the USA. Or annoyed at anything. If European governments followed public opinion there would have been a major diplomatic crisis with the USA, instead it's a few statements of indignation and a promise of investigations... and move on to the next issue. Well he is not really making a statement but whining that people voted against their 'team'. Well the sad reality is that the US(and to lesser extend UK) is the only country with any real terrorist problems. There are ofcourse a lot of reasons behind this, but a big part of it is the last 12 years of fuck ups. Ofcourse if you are going to continue committing war crimes in Pakistan, Yemen etc etc, focusing on humanitarian work in Syria and helping the Syrian civilians won't change public appearance much, but it's atleast a start. If the USA wants those to terrorist attacks to stop, I don't think only time will be enough to heal the hatred a lot of middle eastern countries have towards USA. When Obama went to Germany only 10% came to see him compared to when he ran 2008. I don't recall if that was before or after PRISM came out, but that should tell you that it isn't just people on the internet that are pretty pissed off. It's hard to speak for anyone except myself, but when I talk about USA people are mostly annoyed about Iraq aswell as the continuous war crimes USA is committing via drone strikes aswell as ofcourse the way you handle journalists and whistleblowers. NSA/PRISM come last, even if that might be what people talk about the most on the internet(and don't get me wrong I do hate that too). | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
On August 30 2013 22:06 Sbrubbles wrote: If there's a terrorist attack using chemical weapons in the next 10 years it will have nothing to do with the current situation in Syria. In fact, any western military action that doesn't involve putting an immense contingent of troops on the ground probably has more chance of allowing chemical weapons fall into the hands of terrorist groups (considering the lack of cohesion of rebels groups and the presence of terrorist organizations in their mist). Even if that was correct, you still want to put immense pressure on countries not to make these weapons in the first place. And you can't create that pressure without at least the threat of military action. As soon as countries start making these weapons there is a risk. The next step is to debate whether military action was a good idea and what you could do to ensure that action doesn't just make the situation worse. The fact that we have got to the point where high grade chemical weapons have been deployed is already a huge failure by the international community. Forcing Syria to admit is has these weapons would be a start, then we could pressure them to shut down plants etc... You can see from the reactions of the Syrian foreign ministers that they are shit scared of the UN getting involved. It's a long shot, but at least worth trying. Now we've weakened that chance of diplomacy. | ||
|
Polis
Poland1292 Posts
On August 30 2013 22:33 Zarahtra wrote: Well he is not really making a statement but whining that people voted against their 'team'. Well the sad reality is that the US(and to lesser extend UK) is the only country with any real terrorist problems. There are ofcourse a lot of reasons behind this, but a big part of it is the last 12 years of fuck ups. Ofcourse if you are going to continue committing war crimes in Pakistan, Yemen etc etc, focusing on humanitarian work in Syria and helping the Syrian civilians won't change public appearance much, but it's atleast a start. There is plenty of Muslim terrorist attack all around the world, not only in the west. And most of it done on "infidel Muslims" by "real Muslims". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamic_terrorist_attacks#2010.E2.80.93current http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11978389 And what does that have to do with any war crimes? "Van Gogh worked with the Somali-born writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali to produce the film Submission, which criticized the treatment of women in Islam and aroused controversy among Muslims. On 2 November 2004 he was assassinated by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/9157929/Al-Qaeda-attacks-in-Europe-since-September-11.html Biggest terrorist attack was in Spain: "March 11, 2004 – A similar, more deadly tragedy hits Madrid in Spain. A series of near-simultaneous explosions tear through trains carrying morning commuters in Madrid. Killing 191 people and injuring 1,800, the bombings are the worst terrorist attack to have hit Europe. The perpetrators claimed they were inspired by the work of al-Qaeda. " They want Islamic state, that is why the terrorist attack are in countries that don't partake in any middle east wars, like India or Thailand. Even if you send no armies to those countries they will hate you anyway for not following Islamism. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 30 2013 22:51 Polis wrote: There is plenty of Muslim terrorist attack all around the world, not only in the west. And most of it done on "infidel Muslims" by "real Muslims". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamic_terrorist_attacks#2010.E2.80.93current http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11978389 And what does that have to do with any war crimes? "Van Gogh worked with the Somali-born writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali to produce the film Submission, which criticized the treatment of women in Islam and aroused controversy among Muslims. On 2 November 2004 he was assassinated by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/9157929/Al-Qaeda-attacks-in-Europe-since-September-11.html Biggest terrorist attack was in Spain: "March 11, 2004 – A similar, more deadly tragedy hits Madrid in Spain. A series of near-simultaneous explosions tear through trains carrying morning commuters in Madrid. Killing 191 people and injuring 1,800, the bombings are the worst terrorist attack to have hit Europe. The perpetrators claimed they were inspired by the work of al-Qaeda. " They want Islamic state, that is why the terrorist attack are in countries that don't partake in any middle east wars, like India or Thailand. Even if you send no armies to those countries they will hate you anyway for not following Islamism. Well done sir. I do like when when people from one country try and claim that only the US and UK have terrorist problem and everyone else is doing just fine. I try to avoid talking about other countries problems with terrorist and other violent groups, because I am aware of how little I know about the subject. | ||
| ||
|
|
Online Event
[BSL 2025] Weekly
Safe House 2
Sparkling Tuna Cup
BSL Team Wars
Team Bonyth vs Team Dewalt
Dewalt vs kogeT
JDConan vs Tarson
RaNgeD vs DragOn
StRyKeR vs Bonyth
Aeternum vs Hejek
Replay Cast
Map Test Tournament
Map Test Tournament
The PondCast
Map Test Tournament
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
