Your thoughts on Syria

[Marti]

I'm amazed so few americans understand the issue with the clarity Undead does. Worrying.

I'm amazed an american even sees this, tbh i'm pretty sure lot of ppl don't even know where syria is. (without googling it)

[Undead]

The Arab league should step in to fix up both Egypt and Syria imo

The exact same approach has been employed in Somalia by the African Union, and while it has been effective, the pace of their strategy has been extremely slow.

I like Russia's foreign policy more than America's..

Can't really disagree, but it is both difficult and lengthy to judge America's foreign policy at the moment.
However, i would definitely argue that Obama is far more concerned for the well-being of the Syrian people than Chairman Putin

Why should we go into Syria? They are battling Al-Qaeda which is also an enemy. Al-Qaeda is the rebels in Syria, and why should we go into THEIR civil war?

The Syrian rebels aren't wholly composed of Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups.
The Syrian opposition are currently in an uneasy alliance with each other, with the FSA and Al-Qaeda-affiliated Mujaheddin distinctly seperate, and their primary goal is to overthrow the Assad regime. You'd be pleased to know that your government is funding the alliance, with some of these funds passing onto the Mujaheddin.

Groups that support an intervention in Syria do so either on the basis that it would be best for both Syria and the world that the Assad regime is overthrown swiftly, or on the basis of Assad's alleged employment of chemical weapons.

Obama, like any other 'average' USA president so far, is going to do everything to move towards a war and therefore invade anything. So yeah, I would just let Syria destroy its fucking ass off with no external intervention and let the rest of the world live in peace.

Seriously, Middle East has always been called the terrorist, but fuck that, US sucks even more. If ME wouldn't exist at all and US presidents were not so faggot, imagine what a peaceful world.

like i've said in the past, you are so fucking stupid. Jg99 warranted a more thought provoking response than you'll ever warrant. i've been addressing some common misconceptions about the current crisis in Syria, but holy shit, you take the cake. i'm not even going to bother dissecting that, and i don't give two shits if you decide to "punish" me for experiencing outrage at your stupidity.

I'm amazed so few americans understand the issue with the clarity Undead does. Worrying.

This also concerns me extremely. I don't take a hobby-like interest in the Syrian conflict, i simply pay attention to the news and retrieve my news from reliable sources. Half the comments on this thread seem like they've been reading retarded /r/worldnews comments and basing one-dimensional opinions off them.

[ExodusS]

It was in the daily top views on DeviantArt lal

[Undead]

please stop

[Jg99]

Undead, the reason people mostly don't know about the information is because the USA has the mainstream media biased towards one side. If you watch say CNN or CBS, its biased towards the liberals, then fox news is bias towards republicans. Most news companies in the USA are biased, and also we now have a stupid(imo its stupid) channel called "Al Jazeera America" which i believe comes from Qatar

[Undead]

Undead, the reason people mostly don't know about the information is because the USA has the mainstream media biased towards one side. If you watch say CNN or CBS, its biased towards the liberals, then fox news is bias towards republicans. Most news companies in the USA are biased, and also we now have a stupid(imo its stupid) channel called "Al Jazeera America" which i believe comes from Qatar

You'll find that every news source around the globe has some kind of bias, differing in extent and swing. The issue isn't the bias inherent in the mainstream media, its the lack of depth and irrational statements made by the media that propagates views that aren't considerate of other view points, or flat out stupid, like Andrez'.

What is important is being able to recognize the extent of which a news source is biased and being able to digest the information while filtering out the bias.

I don't know if Al Jazeera's American channel is similar to or the exact same as its English service. However, i do know that the aforementioned channel, while slightly left wing biased, engages in strong and factual reporting, albeit the majority of their reporting revolves around the Middle East.

[Oracle]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinio...ml?hp&_r=1&

[jarhead2000]

obama isn't bad, its just that hes being so dumb right now.

[Andrez]

Half the comments on this thread seem like they've been reading retarded /r/worldnews comments and basing one-dimensional opinions off them.

You may have been reading the wrong news, boy. You actually made a copy/paste of some kind of bullshit written somewhere. Some of them may be right, but this doesn't mean mine are wrong, read again, fucktard.

And anyway, CNN/CBS/Teletubbies/Retard channel *aren't* reliable sources, pay attention.

[MykeGregory]

[pkkiller]

It's not our/my concern ~Canada

[Cemer]

Syria is a clusterfuck

Why not help Jordan and other neighbouring nations accommodate the thousands of refugees from Syria?

[Undead]

Half the comments on this thread seem like they've been reading retarded /r/worldnews comments and basing one-dimensional opinions off them.

You may have been reading the wrong news, boy. You actually made a copy/paste of some kind of bullshit written somewhere. Some of them may be right, but this doesn't mean mine are wrong, read again, fucktard.

Just because i'm able to compose a coherent argument doesn't mean i copy/pasted "some kind of bullshit". Perhaps you think i'm plagiarizing because i'm using capitals? The only reason i'm using formal grammar is because it is more appropriate for a conducive discussion.

If you're doubting that the comments in this thread aren't just as fucking stupid as the lower-spectrum of reddit comments i invite you to head over to that website and analyze the comments made. Only if you're capable of doing so.

Since i feel the need to make the world aware of your stupidity, and i have the time, i'll address your views on the Syrian conflict.

Obama, like any other 'average' USA president so far, is going to do everything to move towards a war and therefore invade anything.

First of all, it is extremely childish to assume that the motive of every US president is to "invade anything" and continue war. You're presenting him in your poorly thought out argument as exactly the same as every other president without any evidence or proof-of-concept. You act as if every president in the history of the United States who did not fit your definition of "extraordinary" as exactly the same as Bush.

Obama may have ulterior motives, such as the continuing of the war to sell weapons or the installation of a pro-USA government to sell off oil, but as far as i'm concerned, unless something can evidence this its just conspiritard talk. I'm sure there is something to evidence this, and if someone here can produce an argument for it (not likely) i'd love to hear it.

So yeah, I would just let Syria destroy its fucking ass off with no external intervention and let the rest of the world live in peace.

So if you were the president of the United States, you would gladly allow the proliferation of chemical weapons in Syria, thereby setting a precedent for the use in other conflicts (possibly a future one in your home country?), a massive refugee crisis causing the suffering of millions of people, the unrestricted spreading of the conflict into other neighboring nations such as Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and even Israel, and allow Russia, who would be glad to take over the United States' hegemony in the Middle East, to support repressive dictatorships such as the Assad regime, causing untold sufferings and even more future conflicts

You're a fucking psychopath.

Seriously, Middle East has always been called the terrorist, but fuck that, US sucks even more. If ME wouldn't exist at all and US presidents were not so faggot, imagine what a peaceful world.

You're actually serious?
Conflicts of differing nature persist through South America, Asia and Africa. Africa is in a position far more dire than the Middle East and needing far more humanitarian aide.

Of course, all suffering in the world is down to those faggot US presidents and Islam existing. Not only are you a fucking retard, you're also an islamophobe.

[Nightmare]

ka-pow!

[#M|A#Wolf]

why so srs undy

[Undead]

why so srs undy

while it is easier to reply with an insult, i found it much more satisfying to engage in a length response.

[pweaks]

Well history has shown that the U.S. presidents in the 20th century have used false motives to start a war. (Vietnam, Iraq) USA needs to come up with these "bad guys" to justify their massive defense budget to U.S. citizens.

Also, I think it's absurd to think that Assad would gas those rebels. He might be crazy but he is highly educated and not dumb. He knows the consequences. I believe his little brother is responsible for that.

Now it looks like Russia and USA have come into a mutual understanding of the amount of chemical weapons. This is hilarious because none of them actually know how many weapons Syria has. So basically they will come up with a number that looks good and makes it look like they have done something.

[Nightmare]

Slap on the wrist for using chemical weapons and slaughtering thousands.

[Krayce]

OMG, where is the 0:13 of this vid?... kkk!

/ontopic:
Sign this petition now!

[Furios]

Spoiler

Dayum Sheeerif, get your ass back on AssaultCube <3

[Andrez]

MASSIVE BULLSHIT IN A POST.

I'll reply in sunto to your attempt to look somehow intelligent, copy/pasting bullshit heard somwhere (reveal sources the next time):

1) It is no secret that Petrol:USA=USA:Petrol for ages, so yes, they fucking invade everything that contains petrol. And not only. I, living in Sicily, have partecipated myself to massive strikes where people who don't want MUOS to be installed in here were smashed the fuck out by repressive forces. They are still invading our land with that system, although no petrol things are involved.

And don't tell me USA isn't invasive, after this.

2) I'm no Islamophobe or however it's called, I don't give a shit of anyone. But seriously, how hard is to notice that Islam-based countries are those ones where repression and dictatorship are radical and omnipresent?

Do you know what is the Arab Spring? And don't you know that top causes for this are human rights violations and corruption above all? How many of them aren't Islam-based?

3) Although US presidents and Islam are not the main causes of this world being total shit, I don't see how both of these have done something good so far.

4) You're quite annoying to be honest, you can use leeeessss words to describe it. Using much words doesn't make you look smarter. Fag.

[Undead]

1) It is no secret that Petrol:USA=USA:Petrol for ages, so yes, they fucking invade everything that contains petrol.

...

And don't tell me USA isn't invasive, after this.

I don't deny that the USA is invasive, and never have. I really don't care if you've participated in some superficial protest, you need to consider the wider picture. Every country seeks to extend their sphere of influence in one way or another if possible. This especially applies to the United States.

However,

1) It is no secret that Petrol:USA=USA:Petrol for ages, so yes, they fucking invade everything that contains petrol.

As i said before, i'm still awaiting proof that the Obama administration's stance on Syria is entirely concerned with oil profits and funding of the weapons industry. The Bush administration is a different story altogether, and i agree with that, but there has been change within the American government and the attitude of the American people towards unnecessary conflict.

I don't understand how you can lack understanding in the way power works when you've held positions of power before.

2) I'm no Islamophobe or however it's called, I don't give a shit of anyone. But seriously, how hard is to notice that Islam-based countries are those ones where repression and dictatorship are radical and omnipresent?

Do you know what is the Arab Spring? And don't you know that top causes for this are human rights violations and corruption above all? How many of them aren't Islam-based?

3) Although US presidents and Islam are not the main causes of this world being total shit, I don't see how both of these have done something good so far.

The causes of the Arab Spring aren't Islamic-based, they're based off the political, social, and cultural conditions present in the country. Like in Libya's case, the corruption and the tyranny of a dictatorship.
Absolutely nothing to do with Islam.

People are unhappy with the current state of their society, it interferes with their quality of life, so they revolt. This pattern isn't just limited to countries with an Islamic majority. How the hell do you go from human-rights violations and corruption and relate it to Islam? Does this mean that my boy Berlusconi is an Imam?

For someone who i assume has completed their high school education, i would assume you know the difference between correlation and causation. It doesn't seem like you do.

You've completely missed all the points in my posts, probably because you can't be bothered applying your English skills, so let me outline what you need to do to understand what i'm trying to say.

Firstly, re-read my post.

Very carefully.

Don't automatically assume i'm an idiot before you read my post.
You need to look at it objectively.
It thoroughly breaks down the logical faults within your arguments and rhetoric.
There isn't any point in continuing this argument until you do so.

Secondly, you're just making yourself look like a massive idiot. This isn't meant to be personal, your posts just give off completely uneducated and retarded viewpoints that aren't considerate of anyone else's.

Thirdly, whoever insults the most doesn't automatically win an argument. You need to have some kind of logical basis to your arguments. It feels like you came to your conclusions through emotion not reason. There is little point holding an argument with someone who came to their conclusions via emotion, unless it is to prove a point to other people.

Lastly, if you are of substandard intelligent you should not hold a moderator position or any position of similar responsibility. I'd also advise you to keep your mouth shut tight, or else you'll make a fool out of yourself.

I doubt there is anyone to back you up against that presumption.

4) You're quite annoying to be honest, you can use leeeessss words to describe it. Using much words doesn't make you look smarter. Fag.

I don't give a shit of anyone

I believe a man's words are reflective of his intelligence.

Andrez, ladies and gents.

[Fate]

[snip]

boom

[pweaks]

Those who are living by the Sharia law are indeed violating the human rights. Or what do you think about women circumcision?

@Andrez: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[Undead]

Those who are living by the Sharia law are indeed violating the human rights. Or what do you think about women circumcision?

and if you're a Christian fundamentalist who adheres to the strictest moral principles outlined in the Bible, you're probably violating human rights in some way or another too.

fundamentalism is bred by culture, not religion, and exists completely independently of religion.

people following the "religion is bad" train of thought need to evaluate what exactly would occur if all forms of religion ceased to exist today.
the simple answer is that fundamentalism would continue in other forms, such as political ideology or nationalism.

[pweaks]

Yes fundamentalism exists in politics and other ideologies but that's not a reason not to criticize religions. If religions would not exist there would be less oppression and inequality. I guess it's useless to mention war since it's quite obvious.

I suggest you to read the Quran. The main problem with Islam is al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh which is a major doctrine. Look it up. This doctrine means basically that if there's two verses that are in contradict the newer one overrides the older one. So when Muhammad moved to Medina the older peaceful verses were wiped. Most modern day muslims, at least those who live in western societies don't even know about this doctrine. Usually when they do they are in shock and want to turn away from their faith. But oh well you know what happens to those who do so.

Now you may say that "well that's just fundamentalism and it's the same thing with Christianity". You can criticize Christianity, make jokes about it and no one gives a damn. But if you criticize Islam you will get death threats and people call you a racist. Muslims here in Finland are trying to get a permission to build a mosque. You know what happens if you try to build a church in Saudi Arabia? You will be killed. As mr Salman Rushdie has said "Islamic societies are based on honour & shame and women oppression".

[Undead]

I believe you have come to your argument through emotion, rather than reason and logic, considering the crux of your argument is vested in petty personal anecdotes that are aimed at shocking me rather than logically outlying a contention. Try to avoid it, as it makes for poorly developed arguments that are completely devoid of contention.

Now you may say that "well that's just fundamentalism and it's the same thing with Christianity". You can criticize Christianity, make jokes about it and no one gives a damn. But if you criticize Islam you will get death threats and people call you a racist.

If a time machine existed, i would have the ability to test your hypothesis by criticizing the divine word of God in the 16th century. I think someone already did that, wasn't his name Copernicus? Or was it Galileo?

Western society has evolved to the point where radical Christianity isn't a serious threat to its sanctity. Would you say that Russia's treatment of gays is indicative of the flaws of Christianity, or Russia's terrible anti-gay culture?

Most Islamic nations still have backward views on gender equality, corruption etc.
Backwards cultural views are not restricted to religion, and in Islamic nations with secular governments such as Turkey, and even in the past, in pre-1979 Iran, woman are treated with respect to the advancement of those nation's cultures.

The same people who send "death-threats" when Islam is criticized are likely to have grown up in a culture strongly influenced by the culture of Islamic nations, or within the aforementioned nations themselves.

If religions would not exist there would be less oppression and inequality.

No, not really. Consider the following thought experiment:
Considering that it would be impossible to remove the thought of religion from one's head, lets try this.

Let us assume that all people alive today were born into a world devoid of religion, but the same culture, regardless of whether it was influenced by religion, is existent.

You still can't criticize Kim Jong Un in North Korea, just as you can't defile the Quran in Saudi Arabia.

People in Islamic nations will still be heavily authoritarian and have a backwards attitude towards woman's rights, censorship in some cases, and other human rights issues.

Woman in these nations would still be oppressed simply because of uneducated values ingrained into them out of convenience. Poor treatment of woman in non-advanced cultures is prevalent throughout the world, completely independent of religion.

The reason is culture, not religion. It seems as if you haven't evolved to the point where you can discern between the two.

[pweaks]

The examples I took are valid and concluded by research. I have nothing against individual muslims if that's what you are trying to imply.

Islamic societies are build upon to the teachings of the Quran so of course the reason is religion. They justify their actions with religion. Religion is a part of a culture so in that way you are right. After all it's all culture.

You still can't criticize Kim Jong Un in North Korea, just as you can't defile the Quran in Saudi Arabia.

If you use this type logic you can pretty much get away with everything. Kim Jon Un's dictatorship is a small fragment compared to what is done in the name of religion. Of course there would be crazy people even without religion but you need to look at the bigger picture.

With just little changes in our history the present day could be a lot different. Your points are basically assumptions. Religion is tied with culture so one's culture would be completely different without religion.

[Undead]

The examples I took are valid and concluded by research. I have nothing against individual muslims if that's what you are trying to imply.

for Allah's sake please re-read my argument. I'm not sure how else i can make it more obvious. It feels like you've picked and chosen whatever you feel like without addressing the crux of my argument.

With just little changes in our history the present day could be a lot different. Your points are basically assumptions. Religion is tied with culture so one's culture would be completely different without religion.

no, it would not. do you think it is necessary for me to go and research the full extent of Russia's cultural issues and cite it with evidence from experts when it isn't necessary for my argument? if you're going to be pedantic about it you aren't even using evidence correctly. cited evidence is only meant to be used to support and expand upon an already strong argument. you're not providing one.

as i have fucking said before and explained through logical examples, culture is completely independent of religion.
just because a culture is influenced by religion does not mean that religion is why that culture is terrible. THOROUGHLY read through my posts, you clearly aren't. i'm so goddamn sorry if it is too difficult to critically analyze a post that is spelled out as simple as i could permit without jeopardizing the structure of my argument.

don't think i'm entirely pro-religion; in fact i'm quite opposed to religion. i'm an atheist. i recognize the effects of which religion have on the development of a culture. this is an unavoidable fact of history. however, the Middle East is in the process of breaking from the backwards ethical considerations promoted by their religion. the West is, for the most part, past this stage. until you recognize this, there is little point in elevating the discussion, as you will simply be blinded and unable to discern the positive effects of religion.

for gods sake don't address this post until you've re-read through the aforementioned post, or else we'll be travelling in circles.

[pweaks]

If a time machine existed, i would have the ability to test your hypothesis by criticizing the divine word of God in the 16th century. I think someone already did that, wasn't his name Copernicus? Or was it Galileo?

Both Copernicus and Galileo were catholic even thought at their time both were called heretic because of their work. I guess you didn't get my point. What I mean is that now days you can make fun of Jesus without the fear of getting killed.

The same people who send "death-threats" when Islam is criticized are likely to have grown up in a culture strongly influenced by the culture of Islamic nations, or within the aforementioned nations themselves.

I am just repeating myself but I say it again. They send death-threats because what they have read from the Quran tells them to do so. The Quran, the base of Islam.

in Turkey

People in Turkey are reading the minutes of wise men of Zion and Mein Kampf. Their school books have anti-Semitic writings.

throughout the world, completely independent of religion.

The amount of religious people is parallel to amount of prisoners. This can be easily seen in Western countries.

I think religion divides us. Humans are emphatic and want to help one another by nature. But society makes us think in a certain way and we are expected to react that way. Religion has a part in that. The good things done in the name of religion can be done in a rational world.