Terror Attacks threaten the human soul

[The Templar-Hospitaller Union]

And many UN nations are guilty of War Crimes. What has happened to them? NOTHING!

Assad is not a good man. The UN has found him guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity

US is on the Security Council. UN can't touch them

Many UN countries have committed countless atrocities (yeah US and China, were looking at you) yet what has happened to them? Nothing! They can do what they want because THEY CONTROL THE UN!

This is why the UN doesn't work! it is a corrupt, useless bureaucracy.

[Liberty and Linguistics]

Let's be realistic here, Assad ruled over a secular, relatively stable, albeit authoritarian state. He was a sociopath, but he was a competent sociopath, the lesser of evils.

I generally side with NATO and whatnot on foreign policy, but I simply can't agree with them on regards to Syria. If Assad was allowed to stabilize the country and fight ISIS, we wouldn't have a god damned refugee crisis threatening to completely polarize Europe, or millions of sorrow stricken Syrians who are torn apart by violence.

[New Chalcedon]

I personally think that yeah, these attacks end up causing unnecessary fear and xenophobia. I surely hope they'll stop soon.
I imagine a way where we could all stop these Daesh people from doing bad stuff.
Why don't we, all countries, help Assad and fight against the insurgency going on in Syria. We should by now know that Assad is a man with good intentions and does not intend to hurt anyone.

...Wow. Just wow. This cracks me up - thinking that someone like Assad, who responded to protests by ordering thousands of people killed, is "a man with good intentions".

And the rest of the UN should place sanctions and trade embargoes against the NATO members, and the Gulf States.

Ah, I see what's going on here. You decided to embark upon an anti-Western screed, nevermind the facts or realities.

So all other nations won't attempt what they did--they funded a civil war that ended up backfiring on all nations of the world.

...Because other nations have never done that, right? Right.

Let's be realistic here, Assad ruled over a secular, relatively stable, albeit authoritarian state. He was a sociopath, but he was a competent sociopath, the lesser of evils.

I generally side with NATO and whatnot on foreign policy, but I simply can't agree with them on regards to Syria. If Assad was allowed to stabilize the country and fight ISIS, we wouldn't have a god damned refugee crisis threatening to completely polarize Europe, or millions of sorrow stricken Syrians who are torn apart by violence.

If Assad's Syria had been a relatively stable state, I'd agree. However, it wasn't - absent convincing evidence to the contrary, I don't believe that the West started the revolts against the Assad regime. I personally think that getting involved after the fact - supplying equipment to "moderates" among the rebellion - was a mistake, but the rebellions started in Syria, not Washington D.C.

[Ganos Lao]

Assad may be a douchebag, but for me the problem is that I don't think his successors wouldn't be one themselves. I mean, just look at how Iraq turned out. Who do we know in Syria that could be an actual alternative?

[Imperium Sidhicum]

Doesn't make them one bit better than rabid dogs though.

A rabid dog at least hasn't become rabid by choice, and doesn't revel in the mayhem and misery it causes. It just does what it's disease drives it to do. People, on the other hand, choose to become mindless fanatics and depraved sadists.

Or are related to such a person, which is apparently also a death sentence.

Which I suppose is another difference between terrorists and dogs.

Indeed it is.

Targeting an enemy's relatives is a good way of breaking his will to fight, or enraging him and forcing him into making rash decisions that will lead to his downfall. It also prevents the possibility of those relatives providing him comfort and support, or trying to avenge him after his eventual destruction.

It is a time-tested method, really. When my homeland fell under Soviet occupation following WWII, many of my compatriots would take to the forests and wage a guerilla war on the occupation authorities. They might have been heroes to our people, but to the Soviet occupants they were just terrorists, much like these ISIS folks are just terrorists to us Westerners these days. Unlike ourselves, the Soviets didn't have moral qualms about using ruthless and underhanded methods to end this threat. Some guerilla outfits they destroyed from within, by infiltrating traitors who ratted out the rest in their ranks. Others that proved harder to get they dismantled by targeting the families of known partisans, and carrying out repressions against the general populace of the area these partisans were known to operate in. This would discourage the residents from aiding and associating with the partisans and encouraged them to turn them in to the authorities out of fear of reprisals against themselves and their families, should they elude the authorities themselves.

The key difference here is that my compatriots back in the day were truly just freedom fighters, using whatever means they had available to resist a foreign invader. Unlike the likes of ISIS, they didn't seek to impose a theocratic tyranny in it's most extreme form upon the rest of the world and did not commit senseless atrocities and destruction on a massive scale, they were just struggling to drive out an oppressive foreign regime from their own country.

Which I think makes the use of such methods against ISIS and their ilk all the more justified.

[Iwassoclose]

Nothing shows love more than a barrel bomb.

Was it targeted a tcivillians?

Assad has indiscriminately been dropping barrel bombs over cities killing tens of thousands.

But, no I am sure the barrel bombs are created using sophisticated methods with highly advanced targeting technology.

[Ifreann]

Or are related to such a person, which is apparently also a death sentence.

Which I suppose is another difference between terrorists and dogs.

Indeed it is.

Targeting an enemy's relatives is a good way of breaking his will to fight, or enraging him and forcing him into making rash decisions that will lead to his downfall. It also prevents the possibility of those relatives providing him comfort and support, or trying to avenge him after his eventual destruction.

It is a time-tested method, really. When my homeland fell under Soviet occupation following WWII, many of my compatriots would take to the forests and wage a guerilla war on the occupation authorities. They might have been heroes to our people, but to the Soviet occupants they were just terrorists, much like these ISIS folks are just terrorists to us Westerners these days. Unlike ourselves, the Soviets didn't have moral qualms about using ruthless and underhanded methods to end this threat. Some guerilla outfits they destroyed from within, by infiltrating traitors who ratted out the rest in their ranks. Others that proved harder to get they dismantled by targeting the families of known partisans, and carrying out repressions against the general populace of the area these partisans were known to operate in. This would discourage the residents from aiding and associating with the partisans and encouraged them to turn them in to the authorities out of fear of reprisals against themselves and their families, should they elude the authorities themselves.

The key difference here is that my compatriots back in the day were truly just freedom fighters, using whatever means they had available to resist a foreign invader. Unlike the likes of ISIS, they didn't seek to impose a theocratic tyranny in it's most extreme form upon the rest of the world and did not commit senseless atrocities and destruction on a massive scale, they were just struggling to drive out an oppressive foreign regime from their own country.

Which I think makes the use of such methods against ISIS and their ilk all the more justified.

So are you saying now that you want the West to be like ISIS or that you want the West to be like the Soviet Union?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Yeah, lets go support the man that uses biological weapons against his own people. That's totally the best idea we've ever had.

Nobody has used biological weapons.

[New Chalcedon]

Yeah, lets go support the man that uses biological weapons against his own people. That's totally the best idea we've ever had.

Nobody has used biological weapons.

Many people confuse biological with chemical weapons - and chemical weapons were used repeatedly, probably by the Assad forces.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Nobody has used biological weapons.

Many people confuse biological with chemical weapons - and chemical weapons were used repeatedly, probably by the Assad forces.

There's also a fair bit of evidence that a number of chemical attacks were carried out by al-Nusra and not Government forces.

Either way, I'm not quite sure what this thread is supposed to be about.

[Gauthier]

Support Assad after he shot up demonstrators, set off a civil war and paved the way for Daesh to grab territory in Syria.

We should have also elected George W. Bush to a third term in office.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

Indeed it is.

Targeting an enemy's relatives is a good way of breaking his will to fight, or enraging him and forcing him into making rash decisions that will lead to his downfall. It also prevents the possibility of those relatives providing him comfort and support, or trying to avenge him after his eventual destruction.

It is a time-tested method, really. When my homeland fell under Soviet occupation following WWII, many of my compatriots would take to the forests and wage a guerilla war on the occupation authorities. They might have been heroes to our people, but to the Soviet occupants they were just terrorists, much like these ISIS folks are just terrorists to us Westerners these days. Unlike ourselves, the Soviets didn't have moral qualms about using ruthless and underhanded methods to end this threat. Some guerilla outfits they destroyed from within, by infiltrating traitors who ratted out the rest in their ranks. Others that proved harder to get they dismantled by targeting the families of known partisans, and carrying out repressions against the general populace of the area these partisans were known to operate in. This would discourage the residents from aiding and associating with the partisans and encouraged them to turn them in to the authorities out of fear of reprisals against themselves and their families, should they elude the authorities themselves.

The key difference here is that my compatriots back in the day were truly just freedom fighters, using whatever means they had available to resist a foreign invader. Unlike the likes of ISIS, they didn't seek to impose a theocratic tyranny in it's most extreme form upon the rest of the world and did not commit senseless atrocities and destruction on a massive scale, they were just struggling to drive out an oppressive foreign regime from their own country.

Which I think makes the use of such methods against ISIS and their ilk all the more justified.

So are you saying now that you want the West to be like ISIS or that you want the West to be like the Soviet Union?

I want the West to do whatever it takes to get the job done and win this conflict. Even if it involves adopting every cruel, oppressive and underhanded trick and tactic used by the ISIS and historical totalitarian regimes.

There is no moral high ground in war, no good guys and bad guys, only winners and losers, and I sure as hell don't want my side to be the losers.

It took multiple cities burnt to the ground along with much of their populations and two nuclear bombardments with hundreds of thousands of casualties to end WWII. The Western nations are equally guilty in the destruction of innocent civilians as any of their historical enemies and so has no claim on moral superiority compared to their foes.

[Kraylandia]

Yeah, lets go support the man that uses biological weapons against his own people. That's totally the best idea we've ever had.

To be fair Jello, he's a complete fucking psycho and all but he's kept Syria relatively stable until now, I don't think his successors will be that good either.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Good luck with that, those countries practically rule the UN.

That's a problem.... Maybe the rest of the countries would just do the sanctions and embargoes to the NATO and GS themselve? Seems like a plausible ides

I don't anyone would risk tanking the global economy by embargoing some of the biggest economic powers in the world.

[Alvecia]

An eye for a thousand eyes will leave the world a barren wasteland.

Wouldn't it be a thousand eyes for an eye?

At least it'll encourage faster development of deus ex artificial eyes.

Oops
People seemed to get my point anyhow

[New Chalcedon]

Assad may be a douchebag, but for me the problem is that I don't think his successors wouldn't be one themselves. I mean, just look at how Iraq turned out. Who do we know in Syria that could be an actual alternative?

Iraq was (and still is) an artificial country with almost zero national identity, divided between three ethnic/religious groupings - the Sunni in the west, the Shi'ites in the South and the Kurds in the north. The Kurds already want out right now - mind you, they never wanted into Iraq in the first place, being forced in by the British under their "divide and rule" colonial policies. The Sunnis maintain that they can hold onto their historical dominance, while the Shi'ites alternate between terror of more Sunni oppression and seeking revenge for past oppression.

Iraq's politics (such as they are) are best demonstrated by what happened the day after American forces left: the (Shi'ite) Prime Minister immediately issued an arrest warrant for the (Sunni) Vice-President on terrorism charges later described by INTERPOL as "lacking justification" - in other words, a pretext to purge the highest-ranking Sunni from the government. The Iraqi judiciary went on to try the Vice-President in absentia and, after a farcical trial, found him guilty and pronounced five separate death sentences upon him.

Iraq is basically unsalvageable as a nation; it's time the rest of the world admitted it.

Syria's not so finely divided. Yes, there are ethnic and religious minorities, but there is also one cohesive, dominant group - the Syrian Arabs, making up nearly 90% of the population. A post-Assad Syria could build a cohesive identity in a way that post-Saddam Iraq could not.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

That's a problem.... Maybe the rest of the countries would just do the sanctions and embargoes to the NATO and GS themselve? Seems like a plausible ides

I don't anyone would risk tanking the global economy by embargoing some of the biggest economic powers in the world.

Also, the world's biggest producers of medicine.

[Hersuria]

So in response to the OP, you want an embargo against the west

The same west that controls most of the worlds economy, military spending, and, while not the largest, still has a significant population

<sarcasm> Ya, sure, this'll totally work out <sarcasm>

[Ganos Lao]

Assad may be a douchebag, but for me the problem is that I don't think his successors wouldn't be one themselves. I mean, just look at how Iraq turned out. Who do we know in Syria that could be an actual alternative?

Iraq was (and still is) an artificial country with almost zero national identity, divided between three ethnic/religious groupings - the Sunni in the west, the Shi'ites in the South and the Kurds in the north. The Kurds already want out right now - mind you, they never wanted into Iraq in the first place, being forced in by the British under their "divide and rule" colonial policies. The Sunnis maintain that they can hold onto their historical dominance, while the Shi'ites alternate between terror of more Sunni oppression and seeking revenge for past oppression.

Iraq's politics (such as they are) are best demonstrated by what happened the day after American forces left: the (Shi'ite) Prime Minister immediately issued an arrest warrant for the (Sunni) Vice-President on terrorism charges later described by INTERPOL as "lacking justification" - in other words, a pretext to purge the highest-ranking Sunni from the government. The Iraqi judiciary went on to try the Vice-President in absentia and, after a farcical trial, found him guilty and pronounced five separate death sentences upon him.

Iraq is basically unsalvageable as a nation; it's time the rest of the world admitted it.

Syria's not so finely divided. Yes, there are ethnic and religious minorities, but there is also one cohesive, dominant group - the Syrian Arabs, making up nearly 90% of the population. A post-Assad Syria could build a cohesive identity in a way that post-Saddam Iraq could not.

Oh, I already know how screwed up Iraq is. The very incident you've told me is one I've talked about myself on other threads. I've always said that Nouri al-Maliki was one of the chief instigators of the current crisis, and him being Vice President instead of rotting in a jail cell only confirms how screwed up Iraq is. But we both know the West, and specifically the United States, will never let Iraq be divided:

The US Embassy in Baghdad issued a statement Sunday saying recent reports suggesting that the Congress would be voting on the partition of Iraq were “simply untrue.”

“The U.S. government has consistently supported and remains committed to the unity of Iraq, and has regularly spoken out against foreign interference in Iraq’s sovereign affairs,” the statement said.

Russia has also rejected partition, and Iran's Ayatollah Khameini told Iraq not to let the Americans divide his country.

But my point wasn't about this. My point was that I don't trust any successors of Assad to be any better than Assad.

[Hirota]

We should by now know that Assad is a man with good intentions and does not intend to hurt anyone.

Well obviously. He is practically a living saint who loves his people and is a paragon of good in this world of darkness.

And the rest of the UN should place sanctions and trade embargoes against the NATO members, and the Gulf States.

Damn, if only those pesky western imperialists didn't have three vetoes in the security council! Why can't we have peaceful visionaries like Assad, Gadaffi, Hussein, Pol Pot and Satan himself leading the UN!

[Ganos Lao]

It took multiple cities burnt to the ground along with much of their populations and two nuclear bombardments with hundreds of thousands of casualties to end WWII. The Western nations are equally guilty in the destruction of innocent civilians as any of their historical enemies and so has no claim on moral superiority compared to their foes.

They had no moral superiority to begin with because they all back up Saudi Arabia, the original Islamic State.

[Risottia]

We should by now know that Assad is a man with good intentions and does not intend to hurt anyone.

I've never supported ousting Assad - I'd prefer elections under UN supervision - but describing him as a sort of St.Francis of Assisi seems a bit too much.

And the rest of the UN should place sanctions and trade embargoes against the NATO members, and the Gulf States. So all other nations won't attempt what they did--they funded a civil war that ended up backfiring on all nations of the world.

The rest of the UN cannot place sanctions and trade embargoes against NATO members and Gulf States under UN authority because there's a thing called Security Council, where three NATO countries hold veto power.
Some of them (not all of them: Finland, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, Serbia have trade agreements with NATO countries as members of the EU or within the frame of European agreements) could choose to embargo the NATO countries and the Gulf States, as you say (forgetting, quite curiously, Saudi Arabia!). This would mean setting up two separate economy blocs... with the NATO + Gulf States being quite self-sufficient and being such a rich market that every other country would try to trade with them anyway. Do you really think that China and India would resist one year without trading with, let's say, America, Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Italy, Spain, Poland, Turkey and Saudi Arabia?

So, not gonna happen.

[Vashtanaraada]

The OP's a fascist that endorses a badly authoritarian "left-wing" government.

erm

wat