Syria: This is not a revolution. Stop this nonsense.

[Regulus]

[Azdgari]

Sadly, repressive regimes and civilian casualties are something of a commonplace in 'gap' countries. Use of chemical weapons, however, starkly violates international law, and allowing it to go unpunished creates a precedent that the world can't afford.

[Regulus]

That doesn't seem to be what every other country in the western world thinks.

[DGFone]

Except that a very quick Google search reveals that the rest of the Western World is just as divided about Syria as Americans are?

France wants to go in. Britain will not go in, which was decided by a very narrow vote. America still hasn't decided. Haven't read about Germany yet.

Also, Regulus: Chemical weapons have basically since WWI had such a horrible stigma placed with them, that their usage is almost akin to genocide. This is the weapons that even the Nazis didn't dare to use on external enemies out of fear of it being used on themselves.

Genocide is one of those things that should the UN decide that Assad is committing, then there will be no debate about intervening or not. By international law, if you are a big player in the UN, and it recognized genocide, you have to do something about it.

[Regulus]

[quote="DGFone"]Also, Regulus: Chemical weapons have basically since WWI had such a horrible stigma placed with them, that their usage is almost akin to genocide. This is the weapons that even the Nazis didn't dare to use on external enemies out of fear of it being used on themselves.[/quote]

Don't you remember the gas chambers? Oh, and what about napalm? Is that not a chemical weapon?

[quote="DGFone"]Genocide is one of those things that should the UN decide that Assad is committing, then there will be no debate about intervening or not. By international law, if you are a big player in the UN, and it recognized genocide, you have to do something about it.[/quote]

That's the problem. No one trusts our intelligence, and can you really blame them?

[Azdgari]

Alright, let's have a productive discussion of alternatives. Do we allow chemical weapons use against civilians? What do we think the consequences of that will be, in terms of short term (civilian lives) and long term (creating a precedent that use of chemical weapons will not have consequences)?

Hi Regulus and DG, by the way! I hope you've been well?

[Baya]

I love this comic.

[Woeler]

Germany is not going.

Do we allow the use of chemical weapons against civilians? No.
Should we be finding out who used them? Yes.
Who carried out the last three chemical attacks in Syria? The rebels.
Is there any concrete evidence Assad is behind the attacks? No.
Did the UN finish their research? No.
Who is already concluding things while not possessing any real evidence at all? Surprise, surprise: The US!

Who will eventually suffer the most? The Syrian people (You know, the only people not rebelling in this war). Why? Because not everyone hates Assad

And besides all that, there are two words that are complete opposites: ''Islam'' and ''peace''.

''The girls recalled attending the funeral of a friend who had died from cancer in the provincial capital of Idlib. They said that as journalists approached the scene, the crowd began to chant “as if she had been killed by government forces.”''

By supporting the rebels the west funds religious and ethnic cleansing, the execution of children and the burning of all knowledge that does not agree with Islam (Yeah, that's basically everything).

[SlayerOfLight]

[quote="Azdgari"] And in response Nicholas, yes, the rebellion does have troubling ties to Al-Nasru. But those are still pocketed and certainly not dominant--classifying the entire rebellion as "bloodthirsty jihadists" is inaccurate and unbecoming.[/quote]

Those rebels are not even true Syrians, but religious extremists that only want to get rid of Assad because he's too secular. They're even willing to commit genocide themselves, as they've already done alot. But even despite that, only Assad gets blamed by the (forgive me) stupid U.S. A missile attack on Syria by the U.S would mean that alot more innocent lives are lost, so don't try to tell me that the reason the U.S is about to start a war is because they're ''concerned'' about the civilians. It's probably their oil addiction again.

[DGFone]

[quote="Regulus"][quote="DGFone"]Also, Regulus: Chemical weapons have basically since WWI had such a horrible stigma placed with them, that their usage is almost akin to genocide. This is the weapons that even the Nazis didn't dare to use on external enemies out of fear of it being used on themselves.[/quote]

Don't you remember the gas chambers? Oh, and what about napalm? Is that not a chemical weapon?[/quote]

The Nazis weren't afraid of using poison gas on their own internal enemies. However even when they were being pounded to death on both sides, they refused to unleash their stocks of poison gas on the Western front and even the Russians, which they had ideological hate against, out of fear of international law and even chemical retribution. Try reading a little bit slower first.
[quote="Regulus"]
[quote="DGFone"]Genocide is one of those things that should the UN decide that Assad is committing, then there will be no debate about intervening or not. By international law, if you are a big player in the UN, and it recognized genocide, you have to do something about it.[/quote]

That's the problem. No one trusts our intelligence, and can you really blame them?[/quote]

Which is why we should let the UN researchers reach their own conclusion first. To make it clear: I am not behind Obama in this. I am against going in, invading, whatever. But I also think that Hassad is not the innocent little Oil Head of State that you guys make him out to be. He did loads of wrong, and he should be punished. By international laws, acts, and agreements if possible. But he is not innocent.

I am really dumbfounded here by how much people here are supporting Hassad for what seems to be the silliest of reasons: because for some reason, it's either support Obama, or support Hassad. Here's an idea: support neither. Not even the rebels (aka supporting Obama).

Remember that he still committed war crimes against his people, and his human rights record is very shaky. Did he commit the chemical attacks yet? I don't know. Woeler: Did the rebels commit the chemical attacks? I've read theories, but no solid proof. You yourself admitted that the UN has not yet reached a conclusion about who committed which attack, etc. Here's a surprising hint: Let them decide first before finger pointing.

Regulus: You clearly told me that you voted for Obama because he would get us out of all current wars and not create any new ones. I told you he's no different than any other politician. Looking at his gung-ho, un-informed plans and speeches for action, what can I say? I told you so.