by SlayerOfLight » September 5th, 2013, 12:57 am
[quote]Nicholas, I feel like you don't quite understand the severity of chemical weapons use. You care about children getting murdered? Take your pick around the world. Nobody intervened when two or three million people were slaughtered in the Congo/Rwanda/Burundi. Somalia? Angola? Darfur? These are massacres that make what's happening in Syria look pretty tame. But when you use chemical weapons, you change the game. And if you fail to react to their use you create a precedent that's okay.
Say two adults are fistfighting. A bunch of people are watching. They think, "This is awful, but these are grown people and they can do what they like (sovereignty within Syria's borders)." Then one of them pulls out a gun. This, on the other hand, is not at all legal, and goes against the laws we all obey. Furthermore, it's opening the door to a whole new level of violence. Say you let the person use the gun, and still think "gee, I don't want to get involved...". Now, anyone who wants to bring a gun to a fistfight knows that the laws against guns are meaningless, because they already used a gun with no reprecussions. It's like if police didn't enforce laws. There are international laws that define what we can and can't do even as sovereign states, and using chemical weapons is breaking those laws.[/quote]
I think that you are the one who doesn't quite understand me instead of vice versa. I meant that everything what the rebels do (be it killing innocent people, their ties with terrorist groups, and even the fact that Assad might not be responsible for the chemical weapon attack) are ignored by the U.S because it seems they're too busy focussing all the blame towards Assad whitout even paying freaking attention to something else, or thinking about the concequences of starting a new war. So you don't have to lecture me about illegal ways of fighting, I'm 21 years old and I know by now how stuff works.
[quote]The UN investigation is stagnant and won't be done for at least a month. Classic. And I could be wrong (I don't have time right now to check it out) but I believe US and France (and maybe Britain?) are the only ones actually performed investigations. Which came to the same conclusion, supported by Assad's human rights record, refusal to ratify anti-chemical weapons treaties, and blatantly continuing a chemical weapons program, probably in response to the Israeli threat. Is it possible that rebels are responsible? Sure. I'm not going to say I'm certain because I'm a college student and not a boots on the ground reporter. But boots on the ground reporters from my and another country have what they call proof that Assad is responsible. So, to me, there's a clear course of action. Intervention.[/quote]
But then again Russia claims to have found evidence that the chemical weapons were first in possession of the rebels before the chemical attack occured. I agree there should be an intervension though, but not in the form of a military offense against Assad's regime. By doing that, the U.S are basically helping terrorists (which is a huge punch in the face to people who had loved ones dying at 9/11) and giving power to radical islamic jihadists that wish for nothing more then to persecute and murder non-muslims, atheists, christians, or even some of their own kind who they concider to be too ''secular''. I think you are actually clueless about what kind of people jihadists really are... They're the kind of scum striving for world conquest with their religion. You should know that all the protection against innocent people in Syria will be blown to hell if a military intervension against Assad is going to take place.