Thanks for saving me the effort.
Oh, so bombing first before we know the bad actor here is somehow not indiscriminate?
Please elucidate, in words my genocide-loving, Assad-revering mind can understand.
Seems like a postcard mightâve been more cost-effective.
1 Like
I detect the old diplomatic logic at work here.
We must do something about this problem.
This is something
Therefore we must do this.
5 Likes
Something must be done. This is something, therefore we must do it.
4 Likes
Oh, i forgot you were the police of the world, US. Top notch work! A war is exactly what we need. Good work!
2 Likes
What a terrible way to argue a point. Are you visiting from Free Republic or Red State, by chance?
and⌠here we go again⌠Letâs sacrifice more husbands, fathers, and best friends to shit that they donât even understand or have anything to do with.
1 Like
Shhh. Youâll blow the whole plan!
Accusing somebody you disagree with of being a freeper is, however, perfectly fair, and not ad-hominem at all.
Back when Snowden was the headline, I was astonished how many people leapt to condemn him. Some of the condemnations were so knee-jerk and unsubstantiated that I had to ask why they were so eager to hate Snowden.
Now I see people rushing to excuse Assad, and assign blame all over the place, and it makes me wonder why theyâre so eager to love somebody who, based on the news I read, seems like an absolute monster. Maybe theyâre just cooler than me, and have inside information on Assadâs innate goodness and innocence. Maybe itâs the Canadians. Hell if I know.
But I have to say I have a hard time with the idea that the vicious goat-herds gassed themselves just to make the poor army look bad.
1 Like
Who says that we love Assad? Did I tell you that you love the ârebelsâ and Al Qaeda? Because that is who is fighting against Assad.
The question here is that we donât even have firm evidence that it was Assadâs forces who used the chemical weapons, and even less that he ordered it. On the contrary, evidence points toward the ârebelsâ.
Both sides are wrong, and need to show restraint. Both sides have committed crimes against humanity.
Irrelevant. False equivalency. Making a claim of what âmany peopleâ said has no relevancy to the discussion at hand, even if they were the same people (which amazingly, you didnât even try to demonstrate). You are demonstrating a persecution complex. You didnât agree with criticism in the past and now that your views are being criticized you have decided to connect them and imply that they are related. They arenât.
No you donât. Nobody here has said anything of the sort. People are criticizing the justification to go to war and the evidence that was provided. And if you donât know the difference between your absurd claim and what is actually being argued, then you probably are not in enough of a rational state to hold a discussion on this topic.
No, I didnât mean to say that. I almost edited my post to say theyâre probably not the same people, but I figured I had annoyed people enough already. I definitely donât feel persecuted; Iâm not Syrian. I am just baffled why some people are so quick to condemn the Syrian rebels, just as some totally different people were quick to condemn Snowden. Maybe they know more than I do.
Again, you are making a connection where there is none. Some totally different people condemned Prenda Law. And some other totally different people condemned the treatment of Bradley Manning. And even some other totally different people condemned Amanda Palmer. There are a lot of judgements being made on this forum. Making a connection between them to justify feeling outraged is sort of a silly endeavor.
And as far as âtheyâ knowing more that you do, that is also silly. There isnât a âtheyâ. You are seeing structure in the meta-arguments when none exists. There are just a lot of individuals stating their individual opinions. Honestly, you need to be aware that this style of argument borders on conspiracy theorizing. My recommendation is to take each thread as if it exists in a vacuum and respond to the points as if the arguers made them in good faith (unless proven otherwise).
Even that is something one should consider the likely effects of based on past experience, rather than blindly assuming it would help. But itâs not even relevant here:
The âthree daysâ of strikes would be limited in scope, and aimed at
sending a message to Syriaâs President Bashar Assad rather than
degrading his military capabilities, U.S. officials told NBC News.
So that shows my point: people may be interested in doing something, but there doesnât seem to be much interest in figuring out if what we could do that might actually improve the situation.
1 Like
You think Cyrus is a government distraction? The evil bastards.
1 Like
Seems pretty useless to get into a âNuh-uhâ/âYes-huhâ match here because it makes it sound like an axiom where if Assad used chems on civilians, then the USA is justified in dropping bombs. Seems like too little, too late to me- I do believe that over a year ago civilians were crying out to the world for help and got none. Now all of a sudden the help they get isnât evacuation and refuge, or aid, itâs bombs dropped on the country.
1 Like
U.S.has done enough. Fâ them and Fâtheir problems. If the people canât figure out how to topple their own corrupt government then theyâll die. Americans are broke, weâve lost enough loved ones over crap that matters nothing to us and we no longer care. Enough is enough. Untie Israelâs hands and let them nuke everything around them. Problem solved.
What I want to know is, when was nuking the entire Middle East (and simultaneously The Vatican) into oblivion taken off the table? So many problems solved all at onceâŚ
1 Like
