Syrian dictatorship continues slaughtering children

[Humodour]

This time they've killed another 32 children, all under ten, as well as at least another 60 people, many of whom were also teenagers and young adults.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18224

 

I guess these children were 'lucky'. Unlike the hundreds of children before them that Bashar's regime has slaughtered so far, most of these ones seem to have avoided being tortured and raped first.

 

****, I think I feel sick. Does the Syrian regime think that they can fix their country's problems by murdering people by the thousands until only loyalists are left? The sad thing is, we'll probably let them do that, won't we?

[Walsingham]

I got all excited, because I thought maybe we'd have another one of those thrilling million person marches against intervention, and I could get all middle class about how the way to peace is peace. You know, how me sitting in a park with face paint on is going to stop bombing. Plus, when else do you get to meet crusties and smoke first rate draw?

[Morgoth]

Such a vile crime. Now they're targeting children. There have been 51 kids been murdered by targeted sniping.

Edited May 27, 2012 by Pidesco
Inappropriate content

[Gorgon]

Don't click that, it's babies with their brains busted open.

[Morgoth]

Don't click that

It's not that bad. Let the viewers decide instead.

[Gorgon]

Brains are literally oozing out on the floor

[Morgoth]

Only one boy had his skull ripped open, and another had an exit wound through the mouth/chin.

 

But whatever.

[Pidesco]

Better judgment when posting, please.

[Morgoth]

Better judgment when posting, please.

...you mean, by taking away the link and thus declining people of judging the content on their own?

 

Well, at least then delete all affiliated posts as well since none of these posts now make any sense.

[Malcador]

Should give a heads up about the content. Still, Syria's doing it the whole heavy handed approach rather nicely, if reports are true. Heh, while the nature differs, funny to think that body count wise this is par for course in Mexico.

[Hurlshort]

I'd say the nature is pretty important when comparing Mexico to Syria. A large majority of the deaths in Mexico are people involved in the drug trade, a smaller part is law enforcement, and innocent civilians have not been targeted much at all. The opposite seems to be happening in Syria.

[Krookie]

but the rest of the world still doesn't want the USA to just deal with this stuff right? Even though no one else is going to? no, no...those stupid Americans get involved in to much, let the other people fix their problems!

[Malcador]

I'd say the nature is pretty important when comparing Mexico to Syria. A large majority of the deaths in Mexico are people involved in the drug trade, a smaller part is law enforcement, and innocent civilians have not been targeted much at all. The opposite seems to be happening in Syria.

 

Well, in Mexico they're just shooting or maybe decapitating them, rather than killing via sniper, artillery, etc which is what I meant. Given that one side are not in a uniform, hard to say if the dead are fighters or civilians. The US shouldn't get involved, too much headache strategically (not to mention the cost), hope they don't get sucked into it like Libya.

[Walsingham]

I simply can't justify - to myself - worrying about this. What would be the point? There's isn't the slightest chance of armed intervention after Iraq and Afghan. And sanctions would be laughable so long as Russia and China are against them.

 

Having said that, I'm fully in favour of rubbing people's noses in the raw bloody mess.

[Monte Carlo]

Where are the loony-tune pro-Russian posters when you need them?

 

Your government is supporting Assad, let's hear why.

[Zoraptor]

The Russians and Chinese don't want another US proxy in the area, Russia doesn't want to lose its military base, and the west utterly asterisked the pooch for intervention by its treatment of Libya where it turned a theoretically even handed protect civilians mandate into "Regime change here we go- we'll protect civilians on one side, other side please feel free to level Sirte while we help you out because those civilians don't count!". Might as well ask why the west doesn't knock over the government in Bahrain despite it being a despotic dictatorship that likes to imprison and torture doctors for treating injured protesters and relies on foreign mercenaries (Saudi army) to prop itself up- it's against their national interests, would likely result in a more pro Iran country right on SA's doorstep and bye bye large US naval base in Manama; human rights/ freeeeeeedom considerations are secondary, end of story.

[Malcador]

The Russians and Chinese don't want another US proxy in the area, Russia doesn't want to lose its military base, and the west utterly asterisked the pooch for intervention by its treatment of Libya where it turned a theoretically even handed protect civilians mandate into "Regime change here we go- we'll protect civilians on one side, other side please feel free to level Sirte while we help you out because those civilians don't count!". Might as well ask why the west doesn't knock over the government in Bahrain despite it being a despotic dictatorship that likes to imprison and torture doctors for treating injured protesters and relies on foreign mercenaries (Saudi army) to prop itself up- it's against their national interests, would likely result in a more pro Iran country right on SA's doorstep and bye bye large US naval base in Manama; human rights/ freeeeeeedom considerations are secondary, end of story.

 

Well, minus a new line here and there, pretty much it.

[Monte Carlo]

'Regime Change?' don't make me laugh. The pejorative there is that the replacement is pro-Western right? Er, like the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt, right? Or the new not-very-pro-Western Libyan government?

 

The bottom line is that every whiff of anti-authoritarianism in hitherto one-party dictatorships is stymied by the usual suspects, sort-of-Communist China and corrupt one-party kleptocracy Russia.

 

The nuances are there if you zoom in, but it's arguably simpler once you zoom the lens out.

[Humodour]

The Russians and Chinese don't want another US proxy in the area, Russia doesn't want to lose its military base, and the west utterly asterisked the pooch for intervention by its treatment of Libya where it turned a theoretically even handed protect civilians mandate into "Regime change here we go- we'll protect civilians on one side, other side please feel free to level Sirte while we help you out because those civilians don't count!". Might as well ask why the west doesn't knock over the government in Bahrain despite it being a despotic dictatorship that likes to imprison and torture doctors for treating injured protesters and relies on foreign mercenaries (Saudi army) to prop itself up- it's against their national interests, would likely result in a more pro Iran country right on SA's doorstep and bye bye large US naval base in Manama; human rights/ freeeeeeedom considerations are secondary, end of story.

 

Yes, that is a good way to spin it so that Russia doesn't look as bad for actively supporting a regime that endorses large-scale rape, torture, and child murder.

[Zoraptor]

Oddly enough the 'West' didn't give a rat's secondary fundamental orifice about mass rape, murder and torture on a far greater scale in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Congo, Rwanda, Somalia etc etc. How many dead in Congo and hardly a peep for the whole time, let alone any action? Countries talk morality when it's in their best interests and to get their populations to go along with whatever their geopolitical aims are. That's true for China, Russia, the US and its proxies, everyone; the Chinese and Russians just dress it up in a different form of morality, that of the doctrine of non-intervention. Which isn't appealing to westerners who've been conditioned to respond to a different set of stimuli- but only in selected cases and situations of course.

 

The why was asked for, and got the answer. Don't like it? The only solution is to go back to 6372 BC, get yourself appointed God and redesign human nature so we're capable as a collective (or even as an individual in most cases) of putting moral considerations above economic, political or practical ones, that's the only thing that'll 'fix' it.

[Walsingham]

I hate to admit it, but Zor does have a point against Western populations. But I'd bundle that up with mine about how trendies lefty-liberals are the ones who have explaining to do. To argue you're in favour of something and within your philosophy absent any means of effecting your principles is definitively asterisked.

[Bos_hybrid]

All states/countries/superpowers support, what supports their interests.

[Junai]

[Rostere]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY2DKzastu8

 

That is a very interesting video. He makes very valid points. Although his own primary focus seems to be the lack of asking deeper questions ("Why?") about the Middle East military interventions, I find it interesting because of his inside information on the American foreign policy.

 

A lot of people who are critical of these wars seem to view their inception as more of a conspiracy, and even Clark sees the lack of critical discussion in the political environment as the primary problem, which essentially is the same perspective, although more moderate.

 

Especially the anecdote about "seven countries in five years" emphasizes the silly aspect of it all. So many of these "neo-con" foreign policy thoughts are really so mind-numbingly stupid. Hearing about Clark's inside experiences, I can see in front of myself Cheney, Wolfowitz and all the other good-for-nothing chicken hawks making up grand plans for invading every imaginable country on earth with all the glee (and responsibility) of five-year-olds playing with toy soldiers. Sometimes the reality is better than fiction, and in this case the internal Pentagon talk appears to be an exquisite cartoonish parody of the (already silly) outward image of the "neo-con" political groups.

 

I do hope that these ideas get buried in the sands of time. From a realistic perspective though, there probably won't be forever until these "sandbox militarists" resurface and wish for a "new Pearl Harbor". (see page 51 (63 in the pdf) of the most important foreign policy document of the last decade) Oh wait, they probably won't call it "new Pearl Harbor". They will probably say "new 9/11".

 

There are, however, different kinds of military intervention. Concerning Syria, I can possibly see the case for Syrian military artillery positions and tanks being destroyed from the air if possible (as a desperate NATO intervention), in order to prevent them from being used against civilians. Or rather, I could, if it wasn't for Libya and the fact that NATO's counterparts are more on their toes.

 

Ideally, a strong UN presence would of course be in order (just like in Israel/Palestine - but that's another story). I'm sad to say I don't see that happening soon, though, as Syria is currently an indirect battlefield for the big actors There are larger disputes waiting to be solved, and in the end it's far more important to play the long game and spread ideas of open society, pacifism and cooperation throughout the world. That is the only way we can keep these conflicts from happening in the future.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Rostere

[Meshugger]

Wait, that was the Wesley Clark? Those accussations suddenly carry a lot more weight.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Meshugger