Why CNN gave Miley Cyrus top spot over Syria

The only way to get the evidence that might satisfy you is to place the attacked area under military occupation by a third party.

More black and white thinking. And, once again, you (nor the U.S. government) has shown any evidence whatsoever that bombing Syria will help the situation. No doubt, I think we can both agree it’s a horrible situation. But, I’m going to have to agree (in part) with “paranoid leftists” like Republican Representative Mike Rogers that there’s not even a solid plan for transition to a post-Assad Syria submitted from the Obama Administration.

I mean, once we’re done bombing Assad (and, inevitably, civilians) do we then attack the rebels (and, inevitably, civilians) who have recruited child soldiers, eaten the hearts out of soldiers, carried out beheadings and are strongly suspected of already carrying out chemical attacks as well?

What’s the plan?

Cowicide, I didn’t mean to reply to you. I was replying to a comment on your comment. Yes, I agree with what you wrote, both times ;).

1 Like

Umm, no its not. There are actual chemical weapons inspectors on the ground in Syria right now. Of course the US government won’t wait to hear from them before they start dropping bombs… this has all happened before.

1 Like

You, sir… are the best damn entertainment on BB in a while. I can see CNN trends there, that is not the page title: those are links. You see, on the internet, “hyperlinks” are used to take you to other information you might like to read. In fact your handle right here in this thread is a “hyperlink” - so by your logic, this is the LightningWaltz Page, right?

Learn to spell and use correct grammar. It belies betrays your youth and ignorance.

And the ipad comment… if you weren’t just a blow-in here you’d know that I’d be the last person to own one of those.

Maybe they too don’t like watching as a despotic leader kills over 100,000 of his own people and displaces millions more… d’ya think?

Based on your suggestion of this, we probably have similar humanitarian beliefs. Your ideas, while noble, are not practical. More than a million refugees have flooded over the borders to Turkey and Lebanon as a direct result of this crisis. Evacuating children to our lands will protect them, but you do not understand what you are asking people to do. Would you want to leave your homeland forever or fight to protect it?

Furthermore, I’m pretty sure dead people DO care how they died. Copping a bullet and bleeding out, while likely unpleasant, is a far cry from the mind-bending torment of having chemicals corrode your nervous system. There is a reason there are extreme restrictions on chemical weapons and that is because they are largely indiscriminate and often impossible to see or run from.

I am not in favour of indiscriminately bombing civilians as you seem to be suggesting. You don’t understand that this war has been waged over almost 3 years and has been completely one-sided. Obama is talking about bombing military targets to stop them being able to launch similar chemical attacks again. Military combatants are not innocents as you’d like to pretend. They are being paid by a despotic regime to indiscriminately kill civilians. They are fair targets.

You realise that more than 5,000 children have been killed in this civil war, right? Did those children not deserve protection?

You say ‘not practical’, are you SURE of that? Sure that a refugee doesn’t have a mind and a body? One that can create, invent, and produce? As far as I’m concerned they’re the ultimate citizen employees!

It’s only a radical thought in context, because the wrong things are considered socially acceptable.

We should seek to create that option, it would take FAR less resources than blowing people and infrastructure up and having to keep rebuilding. I’m really amazed people consider military intervention ‘practical’ now that I’ve learned from some better people.

Oh, I do! I very much do!

Maybe some parents will choose to stay in a war zone, but some would prefer to leave. . . and I like to think EVERYBODY would agree that it’s immoral to trap your children there with all that risk when there is a better alternative.

It doesn’t mean we have to make it hard, in fact . . . we should make it easy, let them carve out their own lives, right? And they should be allowed to go back whenever they want. We should give them options.

I’m starting to like your questions. I do, and each one of them is no less potentially awesome than my own children, when I open up my own monkeysphere and look at them it is mind-bogglingly painful . . . no wonder the best of us constantly go mad.

It’s important to save them, and all those in the Congo, and so very much more. In months, weeks, or days if we can.

If you want to help, maybe this is crazy, but we’ve got a few angles that we can’t find people considering anywhere else . . . and maybe there is a practical way to save them all? After almost two years of obsessing over nuts and bolts, we’ve finally gotten our passion back. If you can help us use that passion and insight to kick this into gear, it’d be appreciated.

Looking more and more like the Iraq War as it goes…


Actually, I find you and Cowicide to be intelligent individuals who are clever and passionate.

Watching your arguments, you’ve both made excellent points, and you’re both a little stubborn (like most of us)

I think this is a communication medium problem, you guys are closer fundamentally than you think, you’re just focused on different (very accurate) complexities.

You’re overlapping a lot in the Venn diagram, it’s just that you’re fighting about something that is SO mind-bogglingly stupid and horrible that I can’t pick a side . . . you’re both right, it’s not your fault you’re arguing over the actions of madmen.

You say ‘not practical’, are you SURE of that? Sure that a refugee
doesn’t have a mind and a body?

Yes. I’m very sure of that. No one (certainly not me) is saying that a refugee doesn’t have the right to seek refuge. That’s why I made the comment about humanitarian beliefs as I strongly believe that the visa and emigration systems of this world are tools designed to keep us divided. I’m saying that it is not practical in terms of: refugee support infrastructure, cultural and language differences, the expectation on someone that they - when presented with risks to their own safety - should run and hide instead of stand and fight.

Turkey has a population of ~75m and an unemployment rate of ~8% meaning that there are over 6m unemployed Turks. The large majority of refugees are going into Turkey. Do you expect a system that already has 6m+ unemployed to fairly accommodate 1m extra people who have a language/cultural barrier? No, what happens is those refugees accept lower pay and working conditions in exchange for any job. This hurts the job market both in remuneration and supply of work.

The influx of refugees also has repercussions beyond economic and social stress on the refuge nation. A lot of refugees from Syria are going into Lebanon. The Lebanese militant group Hezbollah is fighting on the side of and supplying the Syrian Regime. So when refugees end up in Lebanon and are of the opinion that al-Asshole and his cronies should DIAF what happens is that attacks start happening in Lebanon, which is precisely what’s been happening over the last few months. Is it fair for Lebanese civilians to be caught up in violence whose roots are in another country?

I like to think EVERYBODY would agree that it’s immoral to trap your
children there with all that risk when there is a better alternative.

Me too man, but your presumption of the ease with which that better alternative can be achieved is not objective. You realise that al-Asshole’s forces indiscriminately bomb and shoot at people attempting to cross into Turkey? Leaving your home to become a refugee holds its own risks: risks that many would and do deem to be too high to attempt.

we should make it easy, let them carve out their own lives, right? And
they should be allowed to go back whenever they want.

How are “we” making it hard anyway? All of the things you mention are already a thing. You know what military intervention such as an imposed no-fly zone might mean for the refugees trying to cross the border? The very safety and protection you assert they should have.

I think he means ‘indulge in’ or ‘divulge’ … either way I agree with your charge of paranoid leftist.

Again, those are only two alternatives. Why not create a third? This is important enough, right? It’s not ‘running and hiding’ if you’re going somewhere more peaceful, and if you’re taking all the soldiers too, then who’s left to fight?

ONE child dying over a chunk of dirt is too many, true? I’m pretty sure that’s not a crazy thought, I think that’s supposed to be obvious to all of us.

Actually, I’d rather we look one layer underneath, if you don’t mind?

Sure, if you have a bunch of people flooding into an area that aren’t given anything useful to do . . . and that area already has a strained economic system, then that sounds like a really stupid place to go, doesn’t it?

I’ve dealt with the supply chain side of things on and off, and I am honestly completely baffled as to why people keep thinking that these people are incapable of supporting themselves, of making their OWN economy. They don’t have to manufacture scarcity (a requirement of capitalism) or play by the same rules, do they? Surely fake laws are less important than real people in the grand scheme of things, right? So why not exploit EVERY tool at our disposal and not be limited to two options.

Open up the WORLD to them.

This is kind of important, right?

Doing the unheard-of and going back to the original topic…

Y’know I look at that video and I read it as “Damn it, Disney, what do I have to do to get out of this Hannah Montana Banana Hosanna contract $#!+ ?”

Surprise, surprise… the guy who consumes the same media sources as Cow agrees with him. By the way, I didn’t waste my time with you in our last stouch but I loved how you railed on how shit the mainstream media is before linking me to The Guardian as an example of “REAL” news… whatever you think that means.

Actual chemical weapons inspectors you say? Looking for actual chemical weapons? I can tell you aren’t reading much on the subject because the UN inspectors are there to see if chemical weapons have been used and are not mandated to decide who used them. There are other things that could prove guilt on the part of the Syrian regime in this case, such as signals intelligence. If intercepted military communications correlate with the timings and locations of chemical attacks then it pretty much destroys any truth to al-Asshole’s claims of innocence.

The other thing that I expect you and Cow (though I’m quickly losing hope with him) to explain is why al-Asshole stalled letting the UN inspectors into the area for 5 days? He claims no hand in the attacks so why would he stall allowing access to the place that would allegedly vindicate him? It’s because he has things to hide which is precisely what he did: bombed (with conventional weapons) the bejeezus out of the area which was attacked with chemical weapons in an effort to destroy the evidence.

FWIW, I think you meant “betrays”.

But, yeah, if you want folks to take your communications seriously you should make an effort to meet them halfway by not being excessively sloppy.

You are very idealistic and I commend you for it. Unfortunately those two alternatives are actually the only two alternatives. Since al-Asshole’s army is clearly loyal to him and the FSA are clearly not going away until al-Asshole does, you have absolutely no hope of ‘taking all the soldiers too’.

One child dying over a chunk of dirt is too many, but your idea presumes that children weren’t dying to begin with. al-Asshole is killing anyone in the areas of support for the FSA: children, babies, women, men, old, young… anyone. It’s hard to imagine a situation where bombing military targets would result in deaths of more than a couple dozen children, but if such bombing had taken place 2 years ago there’s a good chance al-Asshole’s guys wouldn’t have been able to kill so many children for 2 years, with such little resistance. Sometimes the deaths of a few can protect the lives of many; It’s an unpleasant thing to think about and say but it’s true. Making choices about how to deal with bullies is hard.

that sounds like a really stupid place to go

Since Turkey is one of the few places refugees are able to walk to, and since refugees are taking only what they can carry in order to cross at night and avoid being killed by al-Asshole I don’t really know what you’re suggesting. These people could start their own economy, but the question would be: since they’re living in a freaking tent, often with little more than the clothes they’re wearing, how do you suppose they’re gonna get this economy started? Food aid is being brought to these camps… nothing but poo comes out. How exactly do you propose these refugees get out of the cycle of uncertainty that being a refugee who relies on the generosity of others to survive brings?

They don’t have to manufacture scarcity (a requirement of capitalism)
or play by the same rules, do they?

^This, man. Who is manufacturing scarcity? What’s that got to do with refugees? Why does every topic eventually have to come round to the idea that capitalism is bad? Keep topics compartmentalised or it’s impossible to get to any conclusions. No one is saying that these people shouldn’t have a ‘third way’ I’m just waiting for you to explain what that third way is in a clear and itemised way, not as a lengthy screed against capitalism.

Thanks man… very true.

Though, I don’t know if I’d characterise one incorrectly chosen word as “excessively sloppy”.

You want them to have options, right? A place to go? To live fruitful, productive lives? I mention the economics because you yourself pointed out that in Turkey they have no opportunity, right? Did I miss something?

Then stop playing to ‘al-Asshole’s’ strength.

Give them their own world, and let them choose the system they want to work in. This is just the seed of one way, and it’s made out of science, but it should be good enough for them, right?

Or you can just assume it can’t work and there aren’t any other options, and wish them instead to be forced to choose between the options that they are given now . . . and I think they’re crap options.

A mind is a mind, a person is a person, and I’d happily work by their side to create something better. And we’ve actually got something more plausible than the mess they’re stuck in.

And if after mentioning it twice here, I think you’re better off making sure that we’re not right before seriously considering any of those other options . . . because seriously, that shit’s fucking WRONG. They should have just as many chances as any of us do, and that should be the low bar.

Again, idealism trumping pragmatism. Let’s extrapolate your suggestion into reality, shall we? No solution is a true solution if all the details haven’t been worked out. Take a look at Israel, lands taken from Palestinians and ‘given’ to the Jewish people as a homeland. Did that work terribly well?

Where do you propose this “own world” is located? Who does that land belong to presently? How are you going to repay them for their lost investment? Who will pay them? Who arbitrates disagreements? What happens if al-Asshole decides to invade that “own world” and take it for himself? These are all very real, very practical problems you would face in the commission of your plan.

The problem with the site you linked to is this: It’s not a plan. Many of the points listed are to the effect of “work out this problem”. Sweet, guys… I have solution to AGW: we’ll just work out how to stop producing excessive CO2 and methane! Where the hell’s my Nobel peace prize already? The other problem with the plan set out on that site is that the intended cultural guidelines it sets out are in direct contradiction to inherent human characteristics such as greed, selfishness and loyalty to family over others.

I don’t “wish them … to be forced to choose” between current options, I just don’t think there’s much practical reality to your suggestions. As I said: I admire your idealism but it needs to be tempered with a touch of practical reality. What is happening in Syria is a power struggle. Those who have power are fighting to hold onto it and they would never let any plans such as the ones you outline to come into effect, if they are even possible. Al-Asshole is already shooting at and bombing civilians who are trying to seek refuge, how would you plan change that?

we’ve actually got something more plausible than the mess they’re
stuck in.

I’m sorry but I don’t believe you do. The mess they’re in is most certainly plausible: they’re actually in it right now as we pontificate

You actually brought up questions that are addressed repeatedly in the tiny bit of the actual documentation we have on the site. . .

You’re not even TRYING, are you?

Dude, I’m ONLY about practical nuts and bolts. Guess how far THAT approach got me? TL;DR. There are so many problems to address that when you DO address them you’ve got a freakin’ novel. I had to be practically COERCED to not put every problem and solution out there at first because people would just follow the rabbit holes and miss the greater point.

I’ll give you another chance, start with the FIRST LINE on the first page. I’m so sorry that a bit of reading is more difficult than trying to actually solve what is obviously a fundamentally flawed situation.

Sorry to be sarcastic, but you’re just hitting a particularly exasperating set of issues I’m dealing with, and I can’t UNDERSTAND things for people, I’ve gone way further than meeting halfway here.

Yeah, I really do need to apologize for the sarcasm there, It’s more other people than you, but you kind of poked at a nerve there. Smart people can be exasperating because they’re too used to being right and too used to dealing with idiots.