Syria

[Kevyne-Shandris]

Generally speaking, when you buy someone off, you expect them to remain bought.

Fund the worst, don't be surprised the worst won't come back and not bite the hand that feeds them.

Afterall, they got away will murdering millions of their own countrymen under the very eye of the bribers, who turned away from the atrocities for THEIR national interests.

[Cottonmouth]

The west is the reason they still stone people to death and beat women. Yep the west caused that and wont let them change

[nixcookies]

I'm sick of these conflicts in the middle east now, in a way I'm kind of happy that China and Russia vetoed the proposition for a military intervention.

I am sympathetic towards the people there I just don't think it's our job to sort their governments out all the time.

[Clevername]

The Perisan empire is anachronous with islam, but no empire was build without, not even the empires of today keep themselves in their position without.

So you wouldn't consider the Persian empire to be in the middle east, which the first comment was originally made about?

[Kevyne-Shandris]

No, not really. People with temporal power will always want more, and occasionally you have a religious person who really does want to share their religion with everyone, even if it means doing so at swordpoint (or gunpoint these days.)

Thinking war will ever stop being a "thing" is about as naive as you can get.

And not trying to prevent it, is as criminal as it can get.

[PizzaSHARK]

The Perisan empire is anachronous with islam

You don't need to go far back to see Muslims waging war on other Muslims. Sectarian violence between the various interpretations of Islam has been commonplace for decades, as is the oppression of the Kurds and the seemingly universal hatred of the Jewish state of Israel.

Islam is definitely a religion which teaches peace between all men. Christianity teaches that as well, and I believe Judaism does, too; which makes sense, since all three religions essentially copied bits and pieces from each other when it came time to commit their holy texts to paper.

That doesn't mean that everyone interprets that "peace between all men" thing to mean the same thing. Some people take their religion and twist its words so that it can read "god says you should rule all men" and then go on a warpath to make it happen. No religion is exempt from it. I'm pretty sure I could find examples of sectarian violence in the Hindu religion as well, if I took the time.

---------- Post added 2012-02-26 at 08:15 AM ----------

Fund the worst, don't be surprised the worst won't come back and not bite the hand that feeds them.

Afterall, they got away will murdering millions of their own countrymen under the very eye of the bribers, who turned away from the atrocities for THEIR national interests.

It's simply business. I don't really see the issues at hand. The weak are there to be taken advantage of by the strong, that's always been the way of things, from monocelluar organisms all the way up to us. If you don't want to be taken advantage of, become strong.

---------- Post added 2012-02-26 at 08:15 AM ----------

And not trying to prevent it, is as criminal as it can get.

Why is it suddenly our job to police these states? Don't they have their own governments and police forces to handle that?

[Mirko]

So you wouldn't consider the Persian empire to be in the middle east, which the first comment was originally made about?

i'm just saying it to avoid anyone confusing the period i mention with the one you did.
Also the collective memory of the people does not reach that far back, while mentioning crusaders or mongols will trigger more response among the people.

[NineSpine]

Ok, I'm sure when the Persian Empire was at it's peak it never once committed an act of violence.

The Muslim empires in general were notoriously peaceful, IN CONTEXT. For example, the Ottomans were able to grow so large so quickly because refugee Christians were pouring in from the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantines would slaughter anyone who didn't agree with their particular brand of Christianity, so large numbers of Christians had nowhere else to go. The Ottoman's welcomed them.

During most periods, the Muslim empires allowed what was, at the time, a fairly radical degree of religious freedom. Again, this has to be taken in context. Europe was almost always a far more dangerous place to have religious disagreements with the leadership than the Middle East or North Africa was. In those places, at the very least, monotheistic religions were allowed to practice in peace the vast majority of the time as long as they paid the jizya (a small tax for not being Muslim). Forcing converts was generally frowned upon. There are black marks where these principles go out the window, of course, but taken in context, there's really no comparison.

For people to bring up Muslim attitudes towards the Jews is just so divorced from history and reality that it's bizarre. It would be funny if people weren't serious. NOBODY has hurt the Jews as much as Europeans have. Ever hear of the Holocaust? Ever hear of Martin Luther's book "On The Jews and Their Lies"? Hatred of Jews in no other part of the world has been as virulent, as violent, as oppressive, and as disgusting as it has in Europe.

---------- Post added 2012-02-26 at 02:27 PM ----------

Why doesn't Africa have a competent military presence to defend their own interests?

The West wouldn't want it, but every country on the planet has the right to defend itself, as they can't rely on another country to do it for them. Vietnam is a classic example, when the US pulled out in 1975, letting the country fall and all that helped the US faced the NVA. To me that's a national disgrace, to interfere in another country for our self-interests, then leaving them behind when it became to unpopular and letting them rot.

A lot of painful history in all of this about Empire building.

And that's exactly why the Middle East is in the shape it's in.

[Kevyne-Shandris]

It's simply business. I don't really see the issues at hand.

It's not "business" it's called murder.

Why is it suddenly our job to police these states?

It isn't.

[NineSpine]

It's not "business" it's called murder.



It isn't.

I think it's more complicated than that. The West got the Middle East into this situation.

[Kevyne-Shandris]

I think it's more complicated than that. The West got the Middle East into this situation.

If we go in, it's not like rushing into Iraq.

China and Russia now are involved.

Is it worth WWIV?

[Deleted]

Leave them to work it out internally, this way none of our troops get hurt.

You cry when we help

You cry when we don't

I say F*** them

[PizzaSHARK]

It's not "business" it's called murder.

Semantics.

[NineSpine]

If we go in, it's not like rushing into Iraq.

China and Russia now are involved.

Is it worth WWIV?

I think that's overdramatic. The U.S. has vetoed the interests of THOSE countries dozens of times. Did that cause WWIV? It's just ridiculous to even consider that possibility.

I'm not saying we should go into Syria, or even how we should help in any way if at all. What I am saying is that the attitude of pretending it doesn't exist is silly and non-constructive. We need to accept responsibility for the state of things in the Middle East and work to rectify it. That doesn't mean military solutions at every turn, nor does it mean ignoring reality.

---------- Post added 2012-02-26 at 02:38 PM ----------

Leave them to work it out internally, this way none of our troops get hurt.

You cry when we help

You cry when we don't

I say F*** them

It's easy to say that *after* we screwed them so bad. We go in, mess everything up, and then when they don't say "Thankyou sir, may I have another" you get a booboo on your pride and act like you are now.

[Deleted]

I think that's overdramatic. The U.S. has vetoed the interests of THOSE countries dozens of times. Did that cause WWIV? It's just ridiculous to even consider that possibility.

I'm not saying we should go into Syria, or even how we should help in any way if at all. What I am saying is that the attitude of pretending it doesn't exist is silly and non-constructive. We need to accept responsibility for the state of things in the Middle East and work to rectify it. That doesn't mean military solutions at every turn, nor does it mean ignoring reality.

---------- Post added 2012-02-26 at 02:38 PM ----------



It's easy to say that *after* we screwed them so bad. We go in, mess everything up, and then when they don't say "Thankyou sir, may I have another" you get a booboo on your pride and act like you are now.

When did we screw them?

[NineSpine]

When did we screw them?

Well, define "them" first and I will, to make sure we are on the same page.

[PizzaSHARK]

Well, define "them" first and I will, to make sure we are on the same page.

Syria.

10chars

[nixcookies]

Well, define "them" first and I will, to make sure we are on the same page.

Syria

/10charas

[Kevyne-Shandris]

I think that's overdramatic. The U.S. has vetoed the interests of THOSE countries dozens of times. Did that cause WWIV? It's just ridiculous to even consider that possibility.

These are Cold War allies of Syria. It's no longer "just ignore".

Remember how the first world war started, again?

[Deleted]

Well, define "them" first and I will, to make sure we are on the same page.

The topic is about syria