The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

A forum for respectful discussion & exchange of views on news, current affairs & thought-provoking topics; please read and be aware of the guidelines prior to posting.

Forum rules

Welcome to the News, Current Affairs & Debate subforum.

This forum is the place for intellectual discussions relating to news, current affairs, or philosophical & scientific debates. There are some guidelines that apply specifically to posts in this forum, of which you will be expected to have made yourself aware before participating. They are as follows:

  • Intellectually stimulating topics only. If you can't have a deep discussion about something, it does not belong here.
  • If you're going to post, have something to say. When you make a new thread, write the initial post in a way that provides an introduction to the topic and invites further discussion. You could tell us how you feel and why, but always aim for constructive responses that further a discussion about the ideas involved, rather than a simple list of people's views. (Instead of asking "Are you a vegetarian?", discuss some of the arguments involved.) This guideline likewise applies for responses to topics.
  • Write using good English. That means full sentences with proper capitalisation, punctuation, spelling and grammar. No one is perfect, though; this is not an invitation to criticise others for minor mistakes.
  • Be nice. This is a forum for rational discourse, not flame wars. No one is always right. Be respectful of other people's views and accept that we are all entitled to our own.

These guidelines will be enforced by the moderators based on their best judgement, and anyone who does not take them seriously will lose the privilege of posting here. Spammers will be banned from the entire forum.

The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby Jacketh » 21st December, 2016, 2:57 pm

In August 2013 the UK parliament voted against airstrikes in Syria and joining the US. Many will pinpoint this in the debate on intervention, and led to the US slowing down or rethinking their strategy. The West firmly remembers the ghosts of Iraq, and even Afghanistan, and clearly did not want a repeat of such. After all, Syria is a lot more complex than both of them wars. Whilst one may argue it was better that we stay out of what was already a complex situatiion, and that we avoid any complications with Russia and Iran by doing so, as well as not meddling in the Middle East for the second decade in a row (because, you know, the whole 'we're here to save you from your brutal dictator thing didn't work out too well in Iraq...), others may say more should be done. That Russia should not have been given an essential free-pass to back Assad. That the situation in Aleppo should have never advanced like it. We've heard a narrative from the Republicans' in the US saying that we should have considered military invention, Ted Cruz even vowed to carpet bomb the place. Others' would have preferred more aid to be given and support in other ways - but, would this really had made the situation drastically better?

Discuss.
Image
User avatar
Jacketh
Admin
 
First name: Jack
Posts: 10119
Likes received: 627
Joined: 12th June, 2012, 7:00 pm
Location: London
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby George » 21st December, 2016, 3:12 pm

Absolutely not. We left those people to their doom.
Image
Image Hi, I'm George. Never met Me before? Image
User avatar
George
Diaper Rash
 
First name: George
Posts: 1950
Likes received: 124
Joined: 11th December, 2012, 11:56 am
Location: Essex
Country: Belgium (be)

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby Dolly » 21st December, 2016, 5:27 pm

Absolutely. I think we intervened too much, actually. Syria and the Middle East is not of our concern. It may be more of Europe's issue given the continent is physically closer to the area and the stakes are higher with regards to immigration because there are tens of countries available that may have their own interests or lack thereof.

Anyways, my point is that whatever is happening to the citizens and government of Syria is not a priority for the West. The maximum amount of intervention I would support would be sanctions on the government. It is not the West's responsibility to create space for migrants nor is it our job to attempt the control the very complex issue of terrorism in the region. Virtually of the rebel groups have ties to larger terrorist organizations, so the West should not provide any material support to these groups.
Image
User avatar
Dolly
hotty & country singer
 
Posts: 3123
Likes received: 531
Joined: 19th July, 2015, 11:50 pm
Location: Tennesee
Country: United States (us)

Team: The Wild West

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby TheBrunswickian » 21st December, 2016, 9:38 pm

After the genocides in Rwanda and at Srebrenica, the international community established the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine in 2005. The idea is that when a state is unwilling or unable to protect its civilians, it is the responsibility of the international community to take action and intervene. I stand by this doctrine. It got used disastrously in Libya after Cameron and Sarkzoy pushed for intervention and NATO suffered mission creep.

Intervention isn't always a disaster. Sierra Leone, East Timor, the Solomon Islands - Yugoslavia (in time). It has worked in the past, and it can continue to work in the future when all sides communicate and cooperate properly.

R2P applies to Syria. The government is deliberately committing crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide. The rebels have done the same. The extremists, the same. The international community has to act. Peacekeeping forces to establish demilitarised and humanitarian areas where civilians can receive aid and medical attention.

But any international intervention in Syria requires Russia and Iran to place the most pressure on Assad to relent. To back down. Which they won't do. Because they are winning.
House Cup 2016 - Team Westeros
House Cup 2017 - Team Lion King
Year Cup 2017/18 - The Far East



Image
User avatar
TheBrunswickian
Data Collector, Community Ambassador
 
First name: Jesse
Posts: 2924
Likes received: 361
Joined: 30th January, 2014, 11:49 pm
Location: Melbourne
Country: Australia (au)

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby Togetik » 21st December, 2016, 10:04 pm

We can collectively ignore Pity's garbage, right? Anyway.

Either way, acting sooner would've been pretty awful for the country and acting now would be just as bad. As much as the country needs intervention, and needs Assad out of power, there's just not really anyone who can take his place to even ensure any kind of peaceful rule/democratic function after toppling him?
User avatar
Togetik
Member
 
Posts: 546
Likes received: 82
Joined: 5th February, 2016, 11:24 pm
Country: Australia (au)

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby TheBrunswickian » 21st December, 2016, 10:15 pm

Togetik wrote:We can collectively ignore Pity's garbage, right? Anyway.

Either way, acting sooner would've been pretty awful for the country and acting now would be just as bad. As much as the country needs intervention, and needs Assad out of power, there's just not really anyone who can take his place to even ensure any kind of peaceful rule/democratic function after toppling him?

Based on my conversations with people who have worked on the ground and research the current situation, they say that what Syria needs to find someone from the upper echelons of the regime, who is popular with both the regime and the rebels to be a unifying force. Then the rest of the regime's upper echelons and relatives of Assad need to be removed, leaving the underlying bureaucracy to manage the country, while a unity government is constructed mostly of advocates, like the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces. Then the military needs to be totally liquidated and rebuilt from the ground-up. Aid and money will need to be pumped into Syria and a UN peacekeeping mission will need to stick around to give the country stability but also train the new army. Peacebuilding is a difficult process and will take place over decades before Syria can once be the Jewel of the Middle East again.
House Cup 2016 - Team Westeros
House Cup 2017 - Team Lion King
Year Cup 2017/18 - The Far East



Image
User avatar
TheBrunswickian
Data Collector, Community Ambassador
 
First name: Jesse
Posts: 2924
Likes received: 361
Joined: 30th January, 2014, 11:49 pm
Location: Melbourne
Country: Australia (au)

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby Dolly » 21st December, 2016, 10:51 pm

Togetik wrote:We can collectively ignore Pity's garbage, right? Anyway.


Ignoring differing opinions seems to be the only response from liberals.
Image
User avatar
Dolly
hotty & country singer
 
Posts: 3123
Likes received: 531
Joined: 19th July, 2015, 11:50 pm
Location: Tennesee
Country: United States (us)

Team: The Wild West

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby Unseasoned Chicken » 21st December, 2016, 11:14 pm

Pity wrote:
Togetik wrote:We can collectively ignore Pity's garbage, right? Anyway.


Ignoring differing opinions seems to be the only response from liberals.

Because when liberals spend time constructing an educated response for 'differing opinions' they're often discarded with no justification other than 'I'm right'.
Twink enthusiast

ImageImage

ImageImage
User avatar
Unseasoned Chicken
Is shaking
 
First name: Ethan
Posts: 3994
Likes received: 649
Joined: 4th November, 2015, 3:49 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Country: Australia (au)

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby Togetik » 22nd December, 2016, 1:13 am

Pity wrote:Ignoring differing opinions seems to be the only response from liberals.


My dude you're a transphobic white supremacist hanging around a forum for LGBT teens who finds it physically painful to create any sort of argument against any well researched or written replies, prefering to create new threads in fear of being blown out again by anyone who puts 5 minutes effort into googling what you're pretending to talk about

We're ignoring you because you're a god damned idiot, not because The Damn Nasty Liberals are bullying you
User avatar
Togetik
Member
 
Posts: 546
Likes received: 82
Joined: 5th February, 2016, 11:24 pm
Country: Australia (au)

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby Dolly » 22nd December, 2016, 1:47 am

Togetik wrote:
Pity wrote:Ignoring differing opinions seems to be the only response from liberals.


My dude you're a transphobic white supremacist hanging around a forum for LGBT teens who finds it physically painful to create any sort of argument against any well researched or written replies, prefering to create new threads in fear of being blown out again by anyone who puts 5 minutes effort into googling what you're pretending to talk about

We're ignoring you because you're a god damned idiot, not because The Damn Nasty Liberals are bullying you


I do not hate transgender people nor do I believe the white race is supreme, but I can tell you are not a connoisseur of basic logic. I am very thankful this forum is welcoming to my opinions and love the community on here. I respond to arguments when I can. Considering I am the only one to discuss the elephants in the room, it is hard to respond in length to every person who disagrees. It is safe to say if I do not reply it is because I disagree.

Let me know when you contribute anything intellectually stimulating and worth talking about because, at the minimum, I generate thought and uniqueness.

Bye, Felicia
Image
Image
User avatar
Dolly
hotty & country singer
 
Posts: 3123
Likes received: 531
Joined: 19th July, 2015, 11:50 pm
Location: Tennesee
Country: United States (us)

Team: The Wild West

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby Togetik » 22nd December, 2016, 2:42 am

I apologise that this has veered off the tracks of the topic and plunged into the bigoted sewerage below, but at the same time fuck Pity, am i right?

Pity wrote:I do not hate transgender people nor do I believe the white race is supreme,


Do we need to get quotes in here Pity because both of those things are observably false, assuming you're not going to reply with "Well disagreeing with people being that isn't the same as hating" or "I don't believe the white race is supreme, just better than black people"

Pity wrote:but I can tell you are not a connoisseur of basic logic. I am very thankful this forum is welcoming to my opinions and love the community on here.


??? Who, though

Pity wrote:I respond to arguments when I can. Considering I am the only one to discuss the elephants in the room, it is hard to respond in length to every person who disagrees. It is safe to say if I do not reply it is because I disagree.


Your elephants in the room are universally just lies though, and you're constantly caught up on that fact. You're the only one discussing them because they're untrue and bigoted, and when you're the one to bring up the argument if you just ignore people disagreeing with you in a forum meant for discussion, you're just putting your false information out there with no capability of mental growth for realising you're wrong. Take ConnorM's big deconstruction of your sources in your "why are black people just genetically inclined to be criminals" thread, or my entire deconstruction of your argument in the "why are black people just genetically dumber than white people" thread

Pity wrote:Let me know when you contribute anything intellectually stimulating and worth talking about because, at the minimum, I generate thought and uniqueness.


Is regurgitating information from bad sources with no personal spin, and no ability to fact check said information considered uniqueness? You've got some low standards
User avatar
Togetik
Member
 
Posts: 546
Likes received: 82
Joined: 5th February, 2016, 11:24 pm
Country: Australia (au)

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby TheBrunswickian » 22nd December, 2016, 5:12 am

:tea:
House Cup 2016 - Team Westeros
House Cup 2017 - Team Lion King
Year Cup 2017/18 - The Far East



Image
User avatar
TheBrunswickian
Data Collector, Community Ambassador
 
First name: Jesse
Posts: 2924
Likes received: 361
Joined: 30th January, 2014, 11:49 pm
Location: Melbourne
Country: Australia (au)

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby Strider » 22nd December, 2016, 5:18 am

Assad is the only option for Syria at the moment, end of discussion. Syria was a secular state before the terrorist insurgency began. And that's what the rebels are, Islamist terrorists. The so called 'moderates' have even admitted that they are allies with Al Nusra. And air strikes on Libya was so successful last time as well, it really is a shining example of the West's policies. Libya is now a democratic paradise.

Russia and Iran are doing a fine job, the West are just pissed off because they've been sidelined. Once this war is over Syria can start to rebuild, so the quicker it ends the better. If the west had their way the war in Syria would last for decades. America commits atrocities all the time as well, educate yourselves and look at the Vietnam war and the 600,000 + Iraqi's who died as a result of the West's illegal and unjustified invasion of Iraq. Russia is not actively trying to exterminate civilians, unfortunately people are going to die in wars and there's nothing we can do about that. Just ask the Americans about that hospital they blitzed in Afghanistan.

People still seem to have the Cold War mindset that America = Good and Russia = Bad. That's not the case and never has been.
User avatar
Strider
Veritas vos liberabit
 
Posts: 205
Likes received: 6
Joined: 30th August, 2016, 3:50 pm
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby TheBrunswickian » 22nd December, 2016, 6:59 am

Strider wrote:Assad is the only option for Syria at the moment, end of discussion.

No. Not end of discussion. Assad is a terrible option for Syria in the long-run. Why? Because there are too many people who have felt his wrath and will never again feel sage in their own country, their own home. A man who inspires that level of fear is not the man who should lead a country in the long run.

Strider wrote:Syria was a secular state before the terrorist insurgency began.

Yes, Syria was secular. Sunnis, Shiites, Jews, Christians and more lived peacefully side-by-side. But the regime was hardly peaceful. There are many documented occurrences of disappearance of political activists, opposition leaders, crack downs on dissent. There was a whole bureaucracy dedicated to ensuring the rule of the al-Assads were not challenged. In 2010, a man in Tunisia self-immolated in protest of the oppressive regime. That set in motion the wheels of revolution in Tunisia - a fire that would burn across the Arab World. In February 2011, with regimes in Tunis and Cairo toppled, teenagers in Damascus painted graffiti that read "You're Next Doctor". Those teenagers were then kidnapped and presumably tortured. In response, Syrians took to the streets. Protests. Peaceful protests. And then the regime clamped down with military force almost immediately. Soldiers in the military defected and proclaimed the Free Syrian Army.

Syria has long been a hub of extremist Islamist terrorism. The Assad regime turned a blind-eye as foreign fighters came to Syria to train with al-Qaeda, before crossing the border into Iraq to give hell to the Americans stationed there. So with a genuine rebellion for democracy taking form in Syria, its no wonder that groups like al-Qaeda decided to seize the chance, and took part in attacks against both the FSA and the government.

Strider wrote:And that's what the rebels are, Islamist terrorists. The so called 'moderates' have even admitted that they are allies with Al Nusra.

Actually no. The opposition forces didn't form an alliance with Jabat al-Nusra, they agreed to not attack each other. The enemy of my enemy is my begrudging friend was the doctrine both the FSA and al-Nusra adopted when they entered into their quasi-non-aggression pact.

Strider wrote:And air strikes on Libya was so successful last time as well, it really is a shining example of the West's policies. Libya is now a democratic paradise.

No one said Libya was a paradise of democracy, and yes. Libya was a massive fucking cock-up. A right royal fuck up.

Strider wrote:Russia and Iran are doing a fine job, the West are just pissed off because they've been sidelined.

A fine job of what? Keeping Assad in power? Slaughtering civilians? Now I am not going to take a 'the West has the modern highground' perspective because OF COURSE they don't. I ascribe to the realist perspective on international relations (study it to find out more ;) ). The West is pissed off that Russia is not continuing what they were doing 6 months ago, and that was actively looking for a peaceful political settlement at the 20-party ISSG meetings in Vienna and Geneva.

Strider wrote:Once this war is over Syria can start to rebuild, so the quicker it ends the better.

This much we can agree on.

Strider wrote:If the west had their way the war in Syria would last for decades.

If the West had their way, the war would have ended years ago, and Assad would have been removed from power. If Russia has their way, then thousands more will continue to die, either in strikes or because of a lack of access to things like food, water and medicine. The solution is compromise and political settlement.

Strider wrote:America commits atrocities all the time as well, educate yourselves and look at the Vietnam war and the 600,000 + Iraqi's who died as a result of the West's illegal and unjustified invasion of Iraq.

I don't think anyone here is disputing the United States' lack of moral high ground.

Strider wrote:Russia is not actively trying to exterminate civilians, unfortunately people are going to die in wars and there's nothing we can do about that.

No, Russia is not actively TRYING to kill civilians. But it also not actively trying to NOT kill civilians. Russia's strikes are occurring with impunity and little regard for collateral damage.

Strider wrote:Just ask the Americans about that hospital they blitzed in Afghanistan.

I actually spoke to representatives from MSF about that incident, and they told me that they believed that it was a massive failure of communication and the Americans did not have all the facts and acted hastily. While they are incredibly pissed with the Americans, and lay the blame solely on them, that is what happened.

Strider wrote:People still seem to have the Cold War mindset that America = Good and Russia = Bad. That's not the case and never has been.

Well. It depends on your global perspective. Russia and America are diametrically opposed because of competing interests. But there are areas where Russia and the USA are cooperative. Nuclear weapons is one. There is a long standing agreement between Moscow and Washington that if the government of Pakistan ever collapses, they will send troops into Pakistan to secure control of her nuclear weapons to avoid them falling into the hands of terrorists.

I am of the mindset that America = Beneficial somewhat to the interests of my country and Russia = not so much beneficial to the interests of my country. Globally, I feel the United States has more to offer in terms of military power, diplomatic influence and legitimacy of action then Russia does. The Russian military is still strengthening - they are in no position to win a war against the USA and NATO.

As someone who also believes in liberal institutionalism, I think that the USA and Russia have the greatest power inside the UN and specifically the Security Council to act in ways that can benefit the world. I think that if it were not Putin's Russia, and there was a true pluralistic democratic Russia - we wouldn't see this kind of tensions between Moscow and the West. We didn't see it when Gorbachev and Reagan ended the Cold War; when Bush and Yeltsin forged out a new partnership between the two states. It is possible to return to the days of full open cooperative dialogue - but the onus in on Putin to make the first move.
House Cup 2016 - Team Westeros
House Cup 2017 - Team Lion King
Year Cup 2017/18 - The Far East



Image
User avatar
TheBrunswickian
Data Collector, Community Ambassador
 
First name: Jesse
Posts: 2924
Likes received: 361
Joined: 30th January, 2014, 11:49 pm
Location: Melbourne
Country: Australia (au)

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby TheBrunswickian » 22nd December, 2016, 7:00 am

Also, if you want an accurate picture of the hell Syria has gone through the last few years, I highly recommend that you read "The Morning They Came For Us: Dispatches from Syria" by Janine di Giovanni.
House Cup 2016 - Team Westeros
House Cup 2017 - Team Lion King
Year Cup 2017/18 - The Far East



Image
User avatar
TheBrunswickian
Data Collector, Community Ambassador
 
First name: Jesse
Posts: 2924
Likes received: 361
Joined: 30th January, 2014, 11:49 pm
Location: Melbourne
Country: Australia (au)

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby Dmitzi » 29th December, 2016, 12:53 pm

Strider wrote:Assad is the only option for Syria at the moment, end of discussion.

I don't like any of them at all.
Assad is an Iran (the #1 state sponsor of international terror) backed brutal dictator who is in cahoots with Hezbollah; a terrorist organization with the blood of Americans, Britons and Israelis on their hands.
The Kurdish groups are communistic terrorists who routinely make a habit of murdering Turkish civilians (not in favour of the way Turkey treats Kurds - but deliberate attacks on innocent civilians is absolutely abhorrent).
The 'Free' Syrian army were the lesser of all the evils (still ultimately, an evil, however) at one point, but now they are no longer relevant. In my opinion, they just a new military junta and would've been no different to Assad.
Al-Nusra are simply Al-Qaeda's hand in Syria.
ISIS; need I say anything?
They're all pure evil, so I say best of luck to all sides!!!
It's not a football match; one doesn't simply 'pick a side'. It's not as simplistic as this and choosing 'the lesser of two evils' can never lead to good things.
We should only get involved in this when it directly affects us (e.g. ISIS, Iranian nuclear program), otherwise we should just leave them alone to fight it out. Let's face it; had we intervened people on the left would've been the first to complain (there's just no pleasing some people).
Why is it our responsibility to deal with all the worlds' problems?
The only people in this I feel any sympathy for are the genuinely innocent (non-aligned etc) Syrian civilians which have been caught up in the fighting.
Image
Dmitzi
Member
 
Posts: 124
Likes received: 35
Joined: 25th September, 2016, 1:24 pm
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby Dmitzi » 29th December, 2016, 1:48 pm

Strider wrote:Russia and Iran are doing a fine job

I find it particularly hilarious how on one minute you're all anti-Islamic terrorism; and the other you're praising IRAN; which just happens to be the #1 state sponsor of Islamic terrorism in the world as well as carrying out many blatant violations of human rights.

If you follow the money-trail of terrorist groups throughout the world; such as Houthis, Hamas, Hezbollah; you'll find it all goes back to Iran.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis [52 American DIPLOMATS held hostage for 444 days with the blessing of the Iranian government]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Unit ... sy_bombing [Hezbollah attack - chain of command runs back to Iran - which killed 63 people, including 17 Americans]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beir ... s_bombings [Hezbollah attack - chain of command runs back to Iran - which killed 241 U.S. peacekeepers, 58 French peacekeepers, and six civilians]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_atta ... enos_Aires [Hezbollah attack - chain of command runs back to Iran - 29 killed]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah ... Activities [All backed and funded by Iran]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Vio ... _terrorism [All backed and funded by Iran]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_ ... _terrorism [Read it for yourself]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Iran

You just don't care too much for consistency, do you?

You'd rather state the least mainstream, and most offensive/controversial view possible just for dramatic effect? Even if it means being completely inconsistent in and contradictory in your viewpoints?

At this point I think there's two options;

1. You do it for the attention.
2. You're just really really stupid.
(3. Both)
Image
Dmitzi
Member
 
Posts: 124
Likes received: 35
Joined: 25th September, 2016, 1:24 pm
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby Dmitzi » 29th December, 2016, 2:03 pm

Pity wrote:I do not hate transgender people nor do I believe the white race is supreme

Image
Image
Dmitzi
Member
 
Posts: 124
Likes received: 35
Joined: 25th September, 2016, 1:24 pm
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby Strider » 7th January, 2017, 9:59 am

Dmitzi wrote:
Strider wrote:Russia and Iran are doing a fine job

I find it particularly hilarious how on one minute you're all anti-Islamic terrorism; and the other you're praising IRAN; which just happens to be the #1 state sponsor of Islamic terrorism in the world as well as carrying out many blatant violations of human rights.

If you follow the money-trail of terrorist groups throughout the world; such as Houthis, Hamas, Hezbollah; you'll find it all goes back to Iran.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis [52 American DIPLOMATS held hostage for 444 days with the blessing of the Iranian government]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Unit ... sy_bombing [Hezbollah attack - chain of command runs back to Iran - which killed 63 people, including 17 Americans]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beir ... s_bombings [Hezbollah attack - chain of command runs back to Iran - which killed 241 U.S. peacekeepers, 58 French peacekeepers, and six civilians]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_atta ... enos_Aires [Hezbollah attack - chain of command runs back to Iran - 29 killed]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah ... Activities [All backed and funded by Iran]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Vio ... _terrorism [All backed and funded by Iran]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_ ... _terrorism [Read it for yourself]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Iran

You just don't care too much for consistency, do you?

You'd rather state the least mainstream, and most offensive/controversial view possible just for dramatic effect? Even if it means being completely inconsistent in and contradictory in your viewpoints?

At this point I think there's two options;

1. You do it for the attention.
2. You're just really really stupid.
(3. Both)


I think you'll find that the #1 state sponsor of terrorism is Saudi Arabia. I don't consider Hamas or Hezbollah to be terrorist organisations either. And the Kurds definitely aren't. It's the Saudi's who fund the building of the extremist Wahabbi mosques here in Britain and Europe. Iran is a much more democratic and free country than Saudi Arabia.

You're the stupid one mate.
Last edited by Strider on 7th January, 2017, 10:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Strider
Veritas vos liberabit
 
Posts: 205
Likes received: 6
Joined: 30th August, 2016, 3:50 pm
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: The West's (lack of) Intervention in Syria - Was it right?

Unread postby George » 7th January, 2017, 10:34 am

You see Callum that was going so well until the "Your [sic] the stupid one mate", but hey, you tried.

Interestingly, yes, the Saudi's do sponsor a significant amount of terrorism. They do, yes, build mosques. However.... Iran poses a far greater threat to the world considering its lack of diplomacy, nuclear program, and funding to various organisations. And whilst you might not consider Hamas and Hezbollah to be terorrists, they are.
Image
Image Hi, I'm George. Never met Me before? Image
User avatar
George
Diaper Rash
 
First name: George
Posts: 1950
Likes received: 124
Joined: 11th December, 2012, 11:56 am
Location: Essex
Country: Belgium (be)

Next

Recently active
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], Togetik, Twitter [Bot] and 32 guests