Syria: The "Rebels" Are Terrorists

Discussion in 'Politics' started by RedStar, Jul 25, 2012.

  1. RedStar The Comrade! Registered Senior Member

    The rebels are violent. Their group is responsible for the unrest in Syria. Wanting them to get punished is not 'murder'. Quit judging people unfairly.

    Apparently, it's "murder" when Assad does it but not murder when the rebels do it. Assad's government is under attack. He responds with force. As would any government.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. RedStar The Comrade! Registered Senior Member

    According to Bells, "freedom and democracy"! Yay!
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    And you're - what - Cuban? Which is why you were commenting on Batista?

    "To know what one is talking about" in this matter is to possess a US passport with its admonishments against travel to Syria, and to collect the images of sites like Hamas with their bombed out homes. The evidence is everywhere. To deny best evidence in order to perpetuate a lie is propaganda. So far that's all you've offered, besides cowering away from my remarks above (p.4) which have decimated your ludicrous appeal to hatred and violence.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. RedStar The Comrade! Registered Senior Member

    I'm Russian.

    Except you clearly don't know, and don't take into account, the concerns of all the Syrian people who do support Assad; you don't take into account the damage the rebels have caused, which Assad is responding to in turn; you don't take into account the fact that the United States is condemning Syria while allying itself with Saudi Arabia; and you apparently don't take into account all the evidence thus far presented that Islamic extremists and foreign powers are on the ground in Syria adding to the unrest.

    You're basically the typical American idealist. Apparently you know more about what's going on in Syria than Syrian people do.
  8. RedStar The Comrade! Registered Senior Member

  9. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Shelling civilians is indefensible. At the moment, you have only condemned yourself by advocating evil. My judgment is moot.
    No, murder is murder. Any government that shells its own people commits murder, no matter the cause. For you to continue to deny this is sick.
  10. RedStar The Comrade! Registered Senior Member

    "Advocating evil"? Now I know this debate is futile, when you bring your one-sided moralism into it.

    Again, let's be consistent, O' USA, and condemn Saudi Arabia. But they don't. How convenient that they don't condemn a friendly regime.

    No, I agree, it is. But the alternative is to let the "rebels" win. A precision strike team apparently won't work.

    I'd like to take this opportunity to remind you that in the "War on Terrorism", the USA routinely killed civilians in Pakistan as "collateral damage" with the Drone strikes.
  11. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Maybe you are and maybe you aren't. You exhibit Western attitudes and speech. Even if you ever lived there, your own national identity is indistinct. Perhaps you are Russian in your mind.

    Time will tell how many freely support him and how many are worried abut the consequences of voicing their dissidence. What is clear is that you are not only naive about the safety and security of Syria, but you're buying all the pro-Assad propaganda that's for sale.

    Damage? The response to "damage" is to shell his own villages? It's you that fail to take into account the scale of harm. And you continue to wallow in contradictions. You assail Islamic fundamentalism, but support the tyrant who is in league with the Mother of All Theocracies Iran.

    He responding to any challenge to his maniacal grip on power. One man has controlled the destiny of millions for decades, and has done so by atrocity.

    No I just don't care about the external facts. The subject here is terror in Syria. You started this, but can't finish it.

    Irrelevant. The subject is terror in Syrian.
    You know nothing about me or what I know. So far the only ideals I have posited are the rules of war concerning governments versus their civilian populations. That's by international accord, so equating this to idealism is bogus. It is you who have brought a boatload of tired ideals and of the worst kind, outdated (Batista? Lenin?) and advocating for carnage and destruction for the survival of enemy of the West, simply because it pleases you, a pleasure that is without remorse for his victims. That's not only idealism, but it's of the psychopathic variety.
  12. RedStar The Comrade! Registered Senior Member

    Woah, that sounded deep, bro.

    Probably. But considering all news is propaganda and pretty much everything political is propaganda, the statement "you're buying all the pro-Assad propaganda for sale" is as meaningless as the statement "you are buying all the pro-America/pro-rebel news for sale".

    A strategic partnership, to be sure, much like the USA and Saudi Arabia, I imagine. Hmm. You point out Assad's hypocrisy here, yet ignore all the hypocrisy I've pointed out.

    Lol. You'd be good at writing epics.

    Of course you don't care about external facts when they demonstrate what bullshit the US foreign policy and Syrian "uprising" is.

    Very relevant. It calls into question the reliability of the parties involved.

    Convenient that the US ignores these international laws when it feels the need.

    I see. So you present an ultimatum; either I agree with you, or I'm a "psychopath". Sorry, you are not God and you do not determine right and wrong. In my opinion, your sickening imperialist ideals that feel the need to intervene in every country are sick and psychopathic, without remorse for the victims. That's not only idealism, but it's of the psychopathic variety.
  13. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Not one-sided, as I have repeatedly mentioned the rules of war, which are multilateral accords. And not moralism, but accords.

    You are skirting your own OP. The topic is terror in Syria.

    Ah, now you agree Assad is a murderer. A fatal admission that destroys your whole premise.

    The alternative is democracy.

    That's supposed to be a justification for slaughtering villagers with haphazard shelling?

    Here you are engaging in blame-shifting while minimizing victim impact. It's the same psychopathy demonstrated by Norsefire.
  14. RedStar The Comrade! Registered Senior Member

    And when the US and her allies start following international law, I'll care.

    Nay. Assad is a killer. The rebels are killers. The United States is a killer. Governments are killers. I imagine you are either naive, or just being intellectually dishonest here.

    If it were that easy. The alternative is leave Syria alone and let the Syrian people deal with this themselves.

    It's the justification the United States uses in Pakistan, so I guess it's good enough by your own standards.

    I'm actually starting to get really personally offended with this "psychopathy" accusation. Again, I can easily call you the psychopath for supporting a group of murderers (the rebels).

    No. My point in bringing up the US actions in Pakistan is destroying the credibility of the United States in condemning Syria. Stop being intellectually dishonest. Again, why is it that the USA gets to do this, but when Assad does it, it's "murder"? Here, you are engaging in more one-sided moralism, completely ignoring the material facts.

    You're a pyschopath.
  15. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    You are skirting your own OP which is terror in Syria. The day you start to care about oppression and atrocity wherever it occurs, regardless of political ideals, is the day you begin to show rehabilitation from the naive idealism that advocates murderous dictatorships.

    Admission noted. Now follow through, and state you do not advocate Assad's campaign of terror on Syrians. Then you wil finally get around to addressing your own OP.

    We see no crumbled buildings at the hands of rebels. And their recent actions (executions) are by a minority of criminals. The rebel population, as a whole, has been beaten into submission for decades by totalitarian rule and atrocity. You make the naive assumption that a huge crowd are responsible for the crimes of a minority. It's a common fallacy, generalizing from the particular to the whole. Fatal logic.

    So open a thread on that topic. You're trolling your own topic - red herring.

    Earlier you were expounding the virtues of Switzerland, and the safety and security of Syria. Another contradiction.

    A bald assertion unsupported by fact.

    You have said nothing about the parallels in North Africa. When left to the bully with the firepower you get an Iran, a North Korea, a (OK: Stalinist) Russia, not to mention all the third world atrocities under brutal dictators during the Cold War. The intervention in Libya appears to have mitigated the carnage. There is a time and a place to stand up for the underdogs. And this is one of them.

    You will notice I have said nothing to advocate US intervention so far, except in North Africa. "My standards" remain the rules of war, the international human rights accords, and the same standards used to measure Assad for his material support of global terror (getting back to the OP).

    Defensiveness is another attribute.

    I'm not supporting any murderers. I'm supporting the vast number of people in rebellion who had not killed anyone, until you painted them as such by gross generalization.

    The US began condemning Syria since Bhutto (Zulfikar) was running Pakistan. Having found and killed Bin Laden in Pakistan has given the US credibility.

    Another bald allegation without supporting facts.

    Because the USA is not the topic of this thread. Nor is the US shelling its own towns.

    Prove how multilateral accords are either of those. I have brought this forward, and you have admitted to it (finally).

    Unlike you, I'm not minimizing the victims of terror in Syria. It would be the first element of such a claim.
  16. Bells Staff Member

    Do you actually think Assad is better?

    No, really?

    I have to ask, what do you think will be achieved by supporting Assad? The man promised reforms for how many years and has delivered nothing and there is no sign that things are about to change. When it gets to the point where you are ordering the murders of peaceful protesters because they dare to criticise your regime, then really, I would say that it is high time to ask what could possibly be achieved by supporting his rule.. a rule that allows no political opposition and where elections are not open and free. What we have seen from Assad is further restrictions and repression of Syria's population.
  17. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    The rebels oppose Assad, who has links with Russia and Iran, therefore they are Good.
    Imagine them in white hats. Hurrah!
    Assad is bad. He has a Black Hat. Boooooh!
    Cowboys and Indians.
  18. RedStar The Comrade! Registered Senior Member

    More proof that the "Free Syrian Army" is a sectarian, terrorist organization.

    Care to comment on that, Bells? Or will you ignore all the evidence, yet again, and continue with your one-sided assertions?
  19. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Comment on what? The essay you cited was itself a commentary, not a journalist's report. The only evidence seems to be a flyer, which may or may not have been printed by the rebels, and some biased accusations by the Russian press. If the Christians generally supported Assad in the past, it's not surprising that they would fear reprisals. Whether this has anything to do with discrimination based on religion is another question.
  20. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  21. RedStar The Comrade! Registered Senior Member

    Why is it "biased" if it's a Russian source and somehow entirely legitimate and "fair and balanced" when it's a pro-Western source? I'm sick of your intellectual double standards and dishonesty.

    Al-Qaida confirmed to be involved in Syria (again)
  22. RedStar The Comrade! Registered Senior Member

    Alawite Filmmaker Assassinated

    Please enlighten me, O' Civilized Peoples of the West, on how this "uprising" is truly about freedom and democracy for all! We, the less civilized barbaric peoples, would love to learn.
  23. RedStar The Comrade! Registered Senior Member

    Huge Pro-Assad Rally in Sydney, Australia

    The mainstream media would like to paint this as "Assad vs every other Syrian", but it's really not. There are probably as many, if not more, Syrians that support Assad as oppose him. And as for me, I don't support Assad because I actually like the guy. I support him because I oppose the rebels that much.

Share This Page