Another example of your failure to understand what is posted or your propensity to distort what you read. I NEVER SAID ASSAD WAS HITLER.
Yes, you did. Every time the issue of intervention is brought up, you call back to Hitler being left alone by the rest of the world while he built his power base (even going so far as to inaccurately state that the Germans tried nothing to stop him). Unless you're saying that these Hitler references are non-sequiturs, then it's fair to presume there's a point to them. And the point, so far as anyone can tell, is to equate Assad to Hitler.
Who do you think Hitler was, some superhuman freak never to be seen again in history. He wasn't, he was an immoral thug that only achieved power because no one stood up to him and his street gang(the Brown Shirts)in the beginning. In this he is exactly the same as Assad and the danger is very real.
I don't think Hitler was superhuman, but to pretend that he and Assad are on the same planet in terms of what they're capable of is asinine. Even without American intervention, Assad knows there are limits to what he can do. Dropping a gas bomb on a neighborhood hosting the rebels that are attempting to depose him is nothing at all like gassing millions of Jews based on paranoid delusions and antisemitism. Assad may be scumbag, but Hitler was deranged, and far more dangerous.
And the reason I insist upon you understanding the difference is because going into Syria to prevent the next Hitler (even WWIII, which you seem to believe is going to occur in that area) would be going in for the wrong reason.
Amazingly the propaganda of the Right Wing in our country today is comparable to that of the Nazis in the thirties, just with better PR men.HITLER WAS NOT UNIQUE or even that remarkable, even in his own era Stalin was more than twice the outright killer. Proportional to population Pol Pot killed 30 times as many. HITLER IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF A TYPE, a type all too common throughout history. It was the technology of the time that increased the scale of the evil, it had no effect on the kind of evil I speak of, A kind of evil Assad is certainly a practitioner of.
Was Harry Truman evil? Bill Clinton? GW Bush? Barack Obama? All of these men oversaw battles that directly caused the deaths of innocent civilians. All of them willfully accept those deaths as collateral damage serving the greater good, and in Truman's case, civilians were the target. So were those men evil?
And please, climb down off your stump. I never said Hitler was one of a kind, I simply said that Assad was in no danger of joining his ranks. Even if Assad were as psychotic as him (which we don't have evidence of, so far as I'm aware) there's no way he'd be allowed to do what Hitler did. He'd get checked. Your insistence on blind rage and dismissing context keeps you from understanding that he didn't just indiscriminately drop gas on civilians. He dropped gas where he thought the rebels were. That's a
huge distinction. If he had dropped gas on his civilians for no reason other than to quiet a protest, say, or for the purposes of eradicating an ethnic minority, we'd likely already have stepped in. No matter how much you plug your ears, stamp your feet, or type in all-caps that Assad is no different than Hitler, you can't change reality.
I don't advocate invasions at all, why should a whole country and all it's innocent people suffer because of the actions of a few? I would advocate for rocket propelled dildos through a few of these asshole's bedroom windows, however. AS I POSTED BEFORE, precision, snipers not grunts. Invasive interference will not help in most cases, but taking out a few of the worst actors would.
No one is
that precise. Surgical strikes would result in civilian casualties. But I guess you're just going to pretend that doesn't happen? Is that how you square that?
THE WORLD MADE THAT DECISION AFTER WW1, not me. Because of their experience of poison gas on the battlefield. We made the same decision after WW2 about atomic weapons, for much the same reasons. Gas, biological and nuclear weapons use is the world's concern, no use can be permitted because they affect the world outside the borders of any conflict.
So then you fall in line with a caucus rather than a cause. After all, if your stance were moral, it wouldn't be the device by which suffering was caused that you opposed, but the suffering itself. You would be asking for us to go into North Korea and China and Russia and every other idiotic place where innocent people suffer for no good reason. You'd be calling Putin evil, and that fat little seed of Kim Jong-Il. But you don't, because your flimsy philosophical position isn't even philosophical. It's
political, based solely on a law, not an ethical position!
Don't be an idiot, the world came together and made a MORAL decision that no one of any political bent or in any circumstance could use poison gas based on their direct experience of the consequences. There is nothing silly or vapid about that. "Those who forget history..."
It wasn't the world--there have been many since, and there are quite a few currently, who still own and produce chemical weapons--it was a group of nations, and morals didn't factor in. Practicality, logistics; those were the champions of the convention, not some abstract notion of right and wrong.
It is what Christianity teaches. To those being MURDERED, there is no difference, the motivation for MURDER makes not one whit of difference, nor does the MURDEREE'S place on the MURDERER'S hit list.
You'll have to forgive me for not giving a single fuck what Christianity teaches about the morality of killing.
A killing in a fit of passion is MANSLAUGHTER, not murder, a MURDER is the deliberate, unjustified killing of another, so I did not say a wife slayer was a murderer or say they were equivalent.
Again we have an instance in which the lodestone guiding your compass is tugged at by the iron of
law, which is political and often arbitrary, rather than actual conceptions of what is right and good. That's laughably absurd. How did a person as smart as you develop such slipshod ethics? And who said Assad's use of gas was unjustified? It's not as if he did it for no reason, or to scratch some itch for blood. He had a reason. Does that therefore disqualify him from being a murderer?
(PS: A husband killing his wife in a fit of passion is no more justified or accidental than a premeditated murder. And if you're going to reduce this to a question of legal code, then you've already lost the thread.)
MURDER OF AN INNOCENT is what I spoke of.
And the wife who is killed by her husband isn't innocent?
You've put yourself out on a flimsy branch, Grump. Ease back before it breaks and you make it impossible for anyone to take you seriously again.
And one or one hundred, it's not a difference in kind of evil, only in number of instances, both are as evil as men get, there is no lower floor. So, yes, George Zimmerman(IMO)is as evil as Breivik, just not as successful in implementing his evil.
I'm genuinely shocked right now. Most children have a more nuanced and, frankly, mature understanding of morality than the one you're embarrassing yourself with here.
I really don't care what motivates these sick pukes, it is their actions that reveal their character and unless stopped you get more Breiviks rather than just Keystone cop wannabes like Zimmerman.
And that's a problem. That you would equate Anders Breivik and George Zimmerman speaks to how immature you are emotionally. No good can come from that mindset.
A murderer has always been unacceptable in any civilized society, and the morality of a society is judged by how they deal with them, in part.
You'll note that Assad does not
belong to our society. He lives in Syria, and commits his crimes there. You still haven't established why it's on us to stop him. At least, you haven't without fallaciously pointing out that every despot left to his own devices becomes Adolf Hitler.
No, the German's closed their eyes to the creeping murder regime that Hitler and his gang created. Hard times got better under Herr Hitler, times were good, lots of work. The Jews were not their problem, let them defend themselves(only one in a hundred Germans were Jewish). The communists were a minor faction that the Germans didn't like much. The crazy people were better off being out of their misery. The country was recovering from the Great Depression, the people followed the ones with the food, and the Nazis sure knew how to make the trains run on time(an allegory for an efficiently run dictatorship).
Perhaps you're referring to German citizens? I don't know. I also don't know what you expected them to do. A lot of people believed what he said, as well. Part of being a dictator is getting some pretty unwavering support.
Future generations of tyrants will certainly know it is possible to get away with massive chemical attacks if they get themselves in trouble, if Assad did.
We deposed Saddam Hussein for the crime of
owning WMDs within the last decade, and it didn't stop Assad from gassing the rebels in his country. I think you overlook history and overestimate its ability to convince despots not to do bad things. Assad knows why we're shuffling our feet, and any tyrant in the future looking back on this moment will know why as well.
Who knows under what circumstances that would occur?Or in what part of the world. Or what constitutes "trouble", for that matter. In 1930 Germany had no idea what was going to happen in the next 15 years, similar conditions in the Middle East could very well have similar outcomes(Egypt falling apart, Iran acting an ass, Syria already at war). History repeats unless we learn the lessons it teaches, the lesson on chemical, biological and atomic weapons is they are our doom if we don't control their use WORLDWIDE. Whereas if Assad was reduced to his constituent atoms future dictators will KNOW that they will not survive such use, that it WON'T save his ass, we would be wise to treat that Son Of Kim in North Korea exactly the same way if he ever used a nuclear weapon.
Perfect summation of your paranoid delusions regarding the outcome of the Syria crisis. In your simple estimation, Assad gassing rebels = Assad gassing Israel, which is patently a fucking ridiculous claim to make. No one will look at this moment and say, "Well, he gassed his own folks, so I guess that means I can gas someone else's." Doesn't work like that, much as you need it to for your fatuous argument to stand.
This post has been CONTENT HIGHLIGHTED for those who have terrible reading comprehension or a severe case of distorted cognizance of what they read.
Translation: I get frustrated when my points are defeated, so I type in ALL-CAPS to compensate for my impotence.
