Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Syria or Another Rwanda??

Posted 1 year ago on Aug. 9, 2012, 7:25 p.m. EST by mjbento (74)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The bloodshed in Syria must stop. The Assad Regime is killing day by day thousands of civilians by air bombardments, tank shelling and mortar fire. Assisting this opressive regime are Iran, Hezbollah and Russia - providing aid in the form of weapons, MIG fighters, artillery shells and helicopters used to bomb civilians. The Syrian people are crying for help: Homs, Aleppo, Daraa, Latakia, Deir-Ezzor, Damascus, Hama... More than 21,000 syrians have been killed; most of them by Assad's militia of "shabiha", masters of torture and professionals at slaughtering women and children. The constant shelling has made 1,5 million people refugees. The only way to stop these DAILY massacres is full military intervention, with or without the "united nations". ALL NATIONS WHO STAND FOR FREEDOM, JUSTICE, LIBERTY and FIGHT OPRESSORS WHO MURDER THEIR OWN PEOPLE CANNOT BE LIKE BY-STANDERS. So president of the US, don't pretend it's not your business! Get that ass movin!

I therefore make an appeal for such intervention and I extend my appeal to OWS supportes, as brothers fighting tyranny. I pray to God that he helps the syrian people to liberate from such a tyrant and that the responsibles for the attrocities we see on TV every day are brought to face JUSTICE!

Right now, I see the only way is to make demonstrations in Western cities. Washington, London, Paris, New York, Berlin. Mr. Obama needs to be reminded that it's in HIS power to STOP THE KILLINGS IN SYRIA!

8 Comments

8 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

We won't support the rebels in Syria because they have lots of Al Qaeda and Hamas forces among their ranks.

We don't want to repeat Reagan era policies and accidentally create another Taliban like they did when they supported the Mujahideen and the Afghan Arabs - Hilary Clinton explains it well here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17170775

The last thing we need right now is to be involved in another war. We're still in Afghanistan fighting people the government funded in the 1980's.

We need to stop trying to be the world police. Obviously it hasn't worked over the years.

Or should we invade them like they did in Iraq? Saddam killed his own people too. The sad thing about US intervention is the high levels of civilian casualties.

Should we attack Russia for supplying weapons?

[-] 1 points by mjbento (74) 1 year ago

Al Qaeda? Just let me explain you: Al Qaeda is the one HAVING BENEFITS because of US inaction. The longer the conflict rages without decisive US action, the more likely Syrian people will turn for extremism, because the western world is FAILING to help them in their time of need. For your information, it's in Bashar's interests to depict Free Syria Army as "terrorists", when in fact Bashar is the only terrorist in Syria ordering every moment - like now - that civilians, women, children, elderly be slaughtered by regime militia "shabiha". These are the real terrorists.

The paradox of US intervention in the 1980's is not the same today. In Afghanistan, when CIA supplied weapons to the taliban to fight the soviets, the US knew perfectly well that the taliban just wanted to implant a radical interpretation of islamic law. TODAY, 2012, it is not the taliban that started the fight against Bashar's blood-stained regime, it is the free syria army. A group which - unlike the taliban - intends to implant in Syria a free, democratic regime with free&fair elections, abiding by moderate islam, and praising for peace and social equality. If that is terrorism, you seriously need to study more about Middle East, the Arab spring motivations and Arab countries.

Vietnam was a mistake. Afghanistan was a mistake. But there's a LOT MORE TO TALK ABOUT: Not having helped Rwanda was a mistake, not having helped Bosnia was a mistake not moving an inch to help Syrian people is a mistake.

War is hateful but see a war and pretend it's no business with them when thousands are being daily slaughtered like cattle is DISGUSTING! Shame on you mr. president. Where is the opportunity you talked about in 2008?? Looks like the Syrian people where not part of it. Tell them!

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

warmongers everywhere

Do you have any idea how many civilians die when the USA invades a country? Look at Iraq. Look at Afghanistan. Those aren't the 1980's anymore. That's today.

Invasion and more war is not a solution. It's part of the problem. How should we pay for another war? Pretty sure we're out trillions from the previous wars that have accomplished nothing. Iraq is still in turmoil. Afghanistan is going nowhere and the problem just jumped the border into Yemen.

shame on you for preaching wars that solve nothing.

[-] 1 points by mjbento (74) 1 year ago

I agree but read my post please.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

I did and in your post you preach for a full on invasion

"The only way to stop these DAILY massacres is full military intervention, with or without the "united nations". "

the quote is from your post that I read

[-] 1 points by mjbento (74) 1 year ago

I probably was not clear, I meant you read my 2nd post not the 1st (obviously you read that one..). I actually tried to answer some problems and questions you pointed out on my 2nd post. The quote is from the first post of mine, yes.

Make sure you read that 2nd post of mine. On the sidelines, I will take the liberty to answer to some concerns you made out

I have no idea of how many civilians die when US invades a country. What I do know is that the US was ALONE in Iraq. ALONE in its claim of "weapons of mass destruction". They still are to be found in the present day..... It all started in the Azores summit where 4 "european countries" that stood with Bush tried to gather support for invading Iraq. These countries were not exactly representing the population: Aznar governent is Spain was defeated in pools, the Spanish people never wanted that war. He learnt it the hard way. UK's PM, Tony Blair was basically a "yes-man" for whatever bush would say, and still no proof until today of "weapons of mass destruction". He still faces inquiriries in London UK's parliament today because no mass destruction weapons were found. Barroso, in Portugal was just playing with Bush; his government was soon defeated in polls by Portuguese socialists, who quickly pulled away of his mess. The fact that public opinion was always against this war was the removal of troops starting from 2003 to 2008.

After all where were the mass destruction weapons??? The antrax, the nuclear weapons?? Where?? This goes for Iraq.

Now, Afghanistan. Afganistan was the scenario for a war after the September 11 2001 attacks. Since the responsibles for such attacks were suicide-pilot hijackers who received their training in al-qaeda camps located in Afghanistan - with the complicity of taliban rulers - the US declared war on the Afghan rulers. Unlike in the war of Iraq, the invasion of Afghanistan was a response to an attack on US soil, killing US civilians, by foreign enemies. It is the right of every country of the world to defend itself of foreign attacks, as long as it only targets comabattants with no mass destruction weapons. Otherwise would be committing war crimes. US initially ousted the taliban out of power and created a government friendlier to america. The problem is that this government was not sponsored by the afghan people but resulted in foreign imposition. The afghan people never asked for democracy, never uprised against the taliban tyranny, yet the US simply told them to be "like a democracy".

You also stated Yemen. Yemen is a small country located down Saudi Arabia in the Persian Gulf. It is not a vital key player in the region nor the typical rich petrol-dollar country; the regional main players are Saudi Arabia, Quatar, Bahrein, Emirates, Israel, Egypt, Iraq, Syria and Turkey. Yemen's case was that Ali Abdul Salleh - the then ruling president had been governing Yemen for FOURTY, FOURTY YEARS as absolute ruler, with no oposition at all. Salleh was neither a full ally nor an enemy of the US, but he cooperated in the fight against terror bases of Al-Qaeda located in his country; it is no new fact to say that Al-Qaeda has had presence over Yemen where it trains insurgents. Yet the Yemeni authorities had remained determined in fighting the terror groups who intend to seek shelter in Yemen.

Finally, you mentioned about the problems derived from war. War is indeed not the first solution for conflicts. Traiditionally, non-coercive methods are used frst. For instance, diplomacy, negotiations, mediator talks. If these fail to achieve however, regional discussion and robust diplomcy could be used, leading to the possibility of sanctions to parties that do not comply with international laws, and the rules of armed conflict. If these fail too and there is a pressing need in the world comunity to stop a conflitct, war, whether for the purpose of invasion, whether for the purpose of humitarian intervention is used.

In common language, invasion is connoted with killings, submission and opression yet this a grotesque technical distortion. Invading a country is the act of a country deploying his troops on onother country without his consent. That's it. Although since invasion is comonly associated with massive army depoyments in foreign countries without their consent, what usually happens is armed conflict between the foreign army and the local army/residents. The results of these encounters may lead to combattant or non-combattant casualties. Therefore, the perception that an invasion preceeds killings if not entirely accurate or necessarily truth has had some examples: the 1990's US bombardment of Iraq in the 1st Gulf War, Assisting the south vietnam government in the 1970's...

As for costs, war have costs naturally. But not going to war ALSO has costs. The fact the costs of not going to war don't have financial visibility doesn't mean they don't exist. They do. You also have to include political costs, not just monetary costs. Ultimately it's a balance between the two that decide the adequate type of solution for international armed conflicts.

I tried - in my best - answering your questions. Feel free to make questions.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

You can't call other countries a mistake just because it doesn't fit your agenda. You want military intervention in a country that kills it's own people. Saddam killed his own people too.

US military intervention is proven to kill large numbers of civilians. Estimates range from 200,000 to 1 million in Iraq. "Troops will be greeted as liberators" THEY said.

So how does this solve the problem of civilians being killed? It does not.

We can't pick and choose sides in a civil war. Assad also has a lot of citizens supporting him. Hilary Clinton even states that.

War is not a solution. It's part of the problem.

Syria is just part of the Bush agenda to take out 7 country's governments so the US government and oil companies can have more power in the middle east. General Wesley Clark broke the story in 2007.

Syria Libya Iraq Afghanistan Lebanon Somalia Sudan And Iran is the prize in the center

Video from 2007 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY2DKzastu8

Covert ops hard at work!

I don't think fulfilling Bush era prophecies is a good idea. That's my side of the story.

As for this situation of killing thousands of civilians... why aren't you preaching for US intervention in Congo? Does it have anything to do with biased media coverage?

Congo is one of the poorest, most chaotic nations on the planet, ruined by unrest that is estimated to have claimed millions of lives in the past 10 years. Mass rape has been epidemic, a tactic practiced both by government forces and the militias that dominate vast stretches of the country. - http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/congothedemocraticrepublicof/index.html

Why aren't you preaching to intervene in that? BECAUSE SYRIA IS PART OF THE WAR AGENDA AND THE MEDIA IS IN ON IT.

That's why Syria is on your nightly news but Congo is not.

[Removed]