Syria - where's the outrage on the train!!!

yosi

I'd just like to point out what I think is a glaring blind spot in the moral outrage expressed on the train, namely the almost complete silence over the Syrian regime's massacre of thousands of its own citizens over the last half year or so. News reports are estimating that nearly 300 people have been killed in the last two days alone...and yet I can't find a single thread discussing Syria on the first couple pages of the forum going back a good two/three weeks or so.

It's precisely this sort of silence/indifference that I think makes many people skeptical (certainly makes me skeptical) when it comes to what motivates much of the moral outrage on this forum. Criticism of US actions, or Israeli actions, or whichever other western country's actions are often justified, but it's interesting that many of the people hear don't seem equally upset by actions that are quite clearly as bad if not worse when the perpetrators are Syrian soldiers rather than Israeli soldiers, or when the president giving the orders is Assad rather than Bush or Obama.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

I'd just like to point out what I think is a glaring blind spot in the moral outrage expressed on the train, namely the almost complete silence over the Syrian regime's massacre of thousands of its own citizens over the last half year or so. News reports are estimating that nearly 300 people have been killed in the last two days alone...and yet I can't find a single thread discussing Syria on the first couple pages of the forum going back a good two/three weeks or so.

It's precisely this sort of silence/indifference that I think makes many people skeptical (certainly makes me skeptical) when it comes to what motivates much of the moral outrage on this forum. Criticism of US actions, or Israeli actions, or whichever other western country's actions are often justified, but it's interesting that many of the people hear don't seem equally upset by actions that are quite clearly as bad if not worse when the perpetrators are Syrian soldiers rather than Israeli soldiers, or when the president giving the orders is Assad rather than Bush or Obama.

I didn't notice any outrage from you, or any other supporter of Israel either, until you posted the above. I also noticed that you failed to voice one single criticism of Israel's latest round of illegal settlement expansion, yet you've claimed previously that you're opposed to the settlements. Funny that. :think:

gimmesometruth27

i am outraged by it.

but what are we gonna do about it? start another war there too??

as much as it hurts me to say this as people are dying in syria, but at some point we have to stop intervening in other countries' business. let those in the region help the people of syria. let israel intervene for once. let the russians intervene for once.

fact is, syria is going to have to have a civil war if they are going to get rid of this guy. this has been going on too long and the government is murdering it's people and the people are not strong enough to rise up and overthrow them.

can you imagine the outrage if obama launches airstrikes like in libya? or what if he commits troops there? what if he doesn't???

obama can not win in this situation.

yosi

That's because in this setting I feel that my outrage, which is motivated by a love of Israel, would do nothing other than lend support to those whose criticisms I very much mistrust. That doesn't mean I'm not outraged, just that I don't feel comfortable expressing that feeling on this particular forum.

But please, B, do tell why it is that you are always so quick to point out Israel's wrongs, but seem incapable of discussing those of Syria (or Iran for that matter, though Syria is, at least for now, the more blatant example)? Do you have other outlets where you freely express your outrage over Assad's butchery, or are Arabs killed by Arabs worth less to you than Arabs killed by Israelis or Americans? (and please don't try to turn this into a discussion of Israel...it's a very obvious evasion)

And gimme...really? Israel should intervene? As if that wouldn't have everyone on this board flying off the handle over murderous Israeli aggression! You're gonna argue that only things that directly affect the US should be discussed here? That seems a little weak to me, especially because Syria is a hugely important country in the region, affecting events in Lebanon, Israel/Palestine, Iraq, Iran, and Turkey. Like it or not the US has significant interests in the Middle East, so Syria should be a concern. As for intervention, it's still too early to tell, but Libya looks like it may turn out to be an argument in favor, and I'd say that Kosovo is already that, but I take the point nonetheless.

As for outrage at Obama were he to choose to intervene, even in a limited way, who cares? The president should lead, not be a puppet to to the latest opinion polling. If he decides that intervention is the right thing to do he should do it (I'm not saying that he should intervene, just to be clear). The voting public does not always know what's best. There was a strong isolationist strain in the American electorate that wanted to keep the US out of WWII. I'm very glad that FDR did everything he could to support Britain's war effort for the first two years of the war in spite of those isolationist voters, and I wish that he had had the balls to just get this country into the war even earlier.

Idris

yosi wrote:

I'd just like to point out what I think is a glaring blind spot in the moral outrage expressed on the train, namely the almost complete silence over the Syrian regime's massacre of thousands of its own citizens over the last half year or so. News reports are estimating that nearly 300 people have been killed in the last two days alone...and yet I can't find a single thread discussing Syria on the first couple pages of the forum going back a good two/three weeks or so.

It's precisely this sort of silence/indifference that I think makes many people skeptical (certainly makes me skeptical) when it comes to what motivates much of the moral outrage on this forum. Criticism of US actions, or Israeli actions, or whichever other western country's actions are often justified, but it's interesting that many of the people hear don't seem equally upset by actions that are quite clearly as bad if not worse when the perpetrators are Syrian soldiers rather than Israeli soldiers, or when the president giving the orders is Assad rather than Bush or Obama.

What Assad is doing in Syria, not just now, but really has been for years, and his father before him too did, and the current brutal increase of Violence and disgusting suppression of Speech and the taking away of human rights is heartbreaking, the really dark side of people, killing kids, torture. I personally would love to help, do more right now.

But personally, I have to be realistic myself, I have more control over Canada/US politics directly and it's influence and actions. Vis`-a-vis´my tax dollars and my vote which (for example) directly are connected to the Occupation of Palestine, or the war in Iraq etc. Like most people here, which is why you see more of certain subjects. Which is more directly relative to our daily life/lives.

and I would for sure not say that what Assad is doing is worse than what Israel and the US are and have been also responsible for. It's all the same in that sense.

But We have the ability to directly change the position we are in, as we still have freedom of speech and our right to vote and elect better people here in North America. But we don't, we elect the worst people too often. Which is just very sad.

If the US or Canada was supporting Assad, I'm sure you would see more outrage, as it is, they are supporting other brutal regimes and criminal governments. Which is why (to my mind) you see more threads and talk about these subjects or direct topics over another.

Silent/Indifference? Hardly, rather energy spent putting our time into the things we can change now. Debate and bringing attention to the issues we are directly capable of changing for the better.

I mean, that's just my reasoning on it.

yosi

Idris, I hear what you're saying, but my feeling is that the US is in a position to have a direct effect (and I'm not talking only or even primarily about military intervention) on everything that occurs in the region. Besides that, discussion on this board very often doesn't center around US involvement in particular issues, but takes a much more moralistic tone, so I think it's perfectly justified to ask why certain issues elicit outrage while others seemingly do not.

7RayZ

Ive been saying for months there are mass graves there - the killings continue.

gimmesometruth27

yosi wrote:

And gimme...really? Israel should intervene? As if that wouldn't have everyone on this board flying off the handle over murderous Israeli aggression! You're gonna argue that only things that directly affect the US should be discussed here? That seems a little weak to me, especially because Syria is a hugely important country in the region, affecting events in Lebanon, Israel/Palestine, Iraq, Iran, and Turkey. Like it or not the US has significant interests in the Middle East, so Syria should be a concern. As for intervention, it's still too early to tell, but Libya looks like it may turn out to be an argument in favor, and I'd say that Kosovo is already that, but I take the point nonetheless.

no, you can discuss whatever you want to here. it just seems odd to me that you show up after months just to get a hornet's nest going...

absolutely israel should intervene. but they are too preoccupied drawing up plans to attack iran. if israel is the humanitarian state that it claims to be, why have they done nothing? what about the saudis, who are just across the red sea from sudan? israel and egypt are right there. but i guess they can't team up now can they since mubarek has died and the egyptians are not in favor of any treaties with israel anymore..

what are you asking yosi? are you trying to ask the us to go from afghanistan, through iran, through saudi arabia to go and depose another dictator?

as far as preserving our interests in the region, i say we do that by getting the hell out of someplace where we are not wanted...

yosi

Stirring up a hornets nest? Yeah, I suppose that's right. Still, I think the point is valid. As for intervention, I'm undecided on the issue in general, but if someone was going to intervene the logical country to do it (other than the US, which has the greatest capacity to do so) is Turkey, since they actually share a long border with Syria, and since they are a Muslim country that, unlike Israel, wouldn't be immediately thrashed by the world at large for taking military action. Israel has issues enough without intervening in the affairs of its neighbors, especially when those affairs are not a security threat to the country. If circumstances were different (if Israel didn't have other issues to deal with, if world opinion wouldn't come down like a sledgehammer on Israel for intervening) I might feel differently.

You might want to check your geography with regard to Saudi Arabia. It's not located between Afghanistan and Syria.

gimmesometruth27

yosi wrote:

You might want to check your geography with regard to Saudi Arabia. It's not located between Afghanistan and Syria.

:oops: :oops: :oops:

i looked at sudan when i meant syria...

even so, israel is closer to syria than sudan...so it would be much more convenient for israel and turkey to intervene than having the us go through iran and iraq to get there.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

But please, B, do tell why it is that you are always so quick to point out Israel's wrongs, but seem incapable of discussing those of Syria (or Iran for that matter, though Syria is, at least for now, the more blatant example)? Do you have other outlets where you freely express your outrage over Assad's butchery, or are Arabs killed by Arabs worth less to you than Arabs killed by Israelis or Americans? (and please don't try to turn this into a discussion of Israel...it's a very obvious evasion)

Sorry, I must have missed all of the threads you created calling for discussion of the crimes of Syria and other countries.
I'll have a look on page two and see if I can find them.

Or was your real motivation for creating this thread just another attempt to exonerate Israel?

7RayZ

Arab league as well as others have intervened. Its not stopping. AL waited a week while a reported 70 people were killed in the meantime.

Byrnzie

yosi wrote:

But please, B, do tell why it is that you are always so quick to point out Israel's wrongs, but seem incapable of discussing those of Syria (or Iran for that matter, though Syria is, at least for now, the more blatant example)? Do you have other outlets where you freely express your outrage over Assad's butchery, or are Arabs killed by Arabs worth less to you than Arabs killed by Israelis or Americans? (and please don't try to turn this into a discussion of Israel...it's a very obvious evasion)

Sorry, I couldn't find all of the threads you created expressing outrage at the events in Syria or elsewhere.

Anyway, in answer to your question, I prefer to voice criticism of the crimes committed by Western countries, or by those who they support and fund with my taxes, and/or in my name.
As far as I'm aware, neither Britain or the U.S support or fund the Syrian or Iranian regimes.

yosi

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

yosi wrote:

You might want to check your geography with regard to Saudi Arabia. It's not located between Afghanistan and Syria.

:oops: :oops: :oops:

i looked at sudan when i meant syria...

even so, israel is closer to syria than sudan...so it would be much more convenient for israel and turkey to intervene than having the us go through iran and iraq to get there.

Well, I'd just point out that the US has bases all over the place (including in Saudi Arabia) from which aircraft could reach Syria, plus they could just park an aircraft carrier or two off the Syrian coast.

gimmesometruth27

yosi wrote:

Stirring up a hornets nest? Yeah, I suppose that's right. Still, I think the point is valid. As for intervention, I'm undecided on the issue in general, but if someone was going to intervene the logical country to do it (other than the US, which has the greatest capacity to do so) is Turkey, since they actually share a long border with Syria, and since they are a Muslim country that, unlike Israel, wouldn't be immediately thrashed by the world at large for taking military action. Israel has issues enough without intervening in the affairs of its neighbors, especially when those affairs are not a security threat to the country. If circumstances were different (if Israel didn't have other issues to deal with, if world opinion wouldn't come down like a sledgehammer on Israel for intervening) I might feel differently.

You might want to check your geography with regard to Saudi Arabia. It's not located between Afghanistan and Syria.

to be honest, i can not have equal outrage for all of the world's injustices. i am one dude and i have issues i am passionate about. unfortunately, i am so fucking over wars and military intervention that i can not have the united states military intervene yet again. who would be next? turkey, lebanon? where does it end? someone else needs to step up.

to me it seems like you are more concerned with israel's image in the eyes of the world if they were to invade syria instead of the humaintarian aspect of any mission there. just like bibi is with regard to the palestinian conflict. just like bibi is with regard to invading iran. since when has world opinion and UN influenced the actions that israel has taken? israel has thumbed it's nose at the rest of the world on several occasions because their brother the US allows them to.

israel should intervene and get their hands dirty. we have enough middle eastern blood on our hands..

yosi

The Arab League intervention is indirect. As far as i know there is no current plan for military intervention. But I actually give the AL props for doing what little they are doing. It's more than they've ever done in the past when one of their members has decided it's time to butcher some people.

gimmesometruth27

yosi wrote:

The Arab League intervention is indirect. As far as i know there is no current plan for military intervention. But I actually give the AL props for doing what little they are doing. It's more than they've ever done in the past when one of their members has decided it's time to butcher some people.

they are waiting for the united states to intervene.

where the hell is nato??

Halifax2TheMax

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

yosi wrote:

And gimme...really? Israel should intervene? As if that wouldn't have everyone on this board flying off the handle over murderous Israeli aggression! You're gonna argue that only things that directly affect the US should be discussed here? That seems a little weak to me, especially because Syria is a hugely important country in the region, affecting events in Lebanon, Israel/Palestine, Iraq, Iran, and Turkey. Like it or not the US has significant interests in the Middle East, so Syria should be a concern. As for intervention, it's still too early to tell, but Libya looks like it may turn out to be an argument in favor, and I'd say that Kosovo is already that, but I take the point nonetheless.

no, you can discuss whatever you want to here. it just seems odd to me that you show up after months just to get a hornet's nest going...

absolutely israel should intervene. but they are too preoccupied drawing up plans to attack iran. if israel is the humanitarian state that it claims to be, why have they done nothing? what about the saudis, who are just across the red sea from sudan? israel and egypt are right there. but i guess they can't team up now can they since mubarek has died and the egyptians are not in favor of any treaties with israel anymore..

what are you asking yosi? are you trying to ask the us to go from afghanistan, through iran, through saudi arabia to go and depose another dictator?

as far as preserving our interests in the region, i say we do that by getting the hell out of someplace where we are not wanted...

AND take our money and arms sales with us. I'm sick of the US bailing everyone out while we have so many of our own issues here in the US to contend with. China has an aircraft carrier and a huge standing army. Let them stop the killing. And I'm outraged at the brutality going on in Syria but just because we got into a stupid war for nefarious reasons doesn't mean the US should be the world's policeman. And the only reason the US has an interest in the region is oil. Just look at Sudan and Somalia to figure that one out. Or Rwanda. Put everyone on notice, the US is cutting foreign aid 10% a year for 10 years. Time to grow up and play like adults. Its time we stop subsidizing conflict. Nations that trade together have peace and flourishing societies.

No more WAR.

Peace.

Drowned Out

hmmmm....yosi, you can't have it both ways, man...you made the comparison yourself.

yosi wrote:

(and please don't try to turn this into a discussion of Israel...it's a very obvious evasion)

From your OP:

yosi wrote:

It's precisely this sort of silence/indifference that I think makes many people skeptical (certainly makes me skeptical) when it comes to what motivates much of the moral outrage on this forum. Criticism of US actions, or Israeli actions, or whichever other western country's actions are often justified, but it's interesting that many of the people hear don't seem equally upset by actions that are quite clearly as bad if not worse when the perpetrators are Syrian soldiers rather than Israeli soldiers, or when the president giving the orders is Assad rather than Bush or Obama.

.....

Byrnzie wrote:

was your real motivation for creating this thread just another attempt to exonerate Israel?

Byrnzie

Halifax2TheMax wrote:

AND take our money and arms sales with us. I'm sick of the US bailing everyone out while we have so many of our own issues here in the US to contend with. China has an aircraft carrier and a huge standing army. Let them stop the killing. And I'm outraged at the brutality going on in Syria but just because we got into a stupid war for nefarious reasons doesn't mean the US should be the world's policeman. And the only reason the US has an interest in the region is oil. Just look at Sudan and Somalia to figure that one out. Or Rwanda. Put everyone on notice, the US is cutting foreign aid 10% a year for 10 years. Time to grow up and play like adults. Its time we stop subsidizing conflict. Nations that trade together have peace and flourishing societies.

No more WAR.

Peace.

+1

Idris

yosi wrote:

Idris, I hear what you're saying, but my feeling is that the US is in a position to have a direct effect (and I'm not talking only or even primarily about military intervention) on everything that occurs in the region. Besides that, discussion on this board very often doesn't center around US involvement in particular issues, but takes a much more moralistic tone, so I think it's perfectly justified to ask why certain issues elicit outrage while others seemingly do not.

Mr Yosi it's of course justified to ask 'why',
--
Fore sure the US is in a position to have direct effect on everything that occurs in the region, and they do..right now, the US has direct effect and influence in the region,

But first we need to keep something in mind, a large portion of the current troubles in those areas are caused from US and British involvement for the past whatever amount of years. From the overthrowing of the democratically elected Mosaddegh In Iran, the Blind support of Israel, the support of the oppressive corrupt Saudis..The list really just goes on and on.

Western imperialism and US hegemony is a root cause of much of the turmoil. Not to discount the natural nuts and criminals that have come around in that region for even before the existence of the United States. But we are speaking in general modern times of course.

We need to vote in better people who make better choices. Not continue to elect people with interests of greed and ignorance, rather we should elect people who have empathy and real knowledge with the capacity to simply. Do the right thing. Which is not to send troops out to die for oil or empire (for example).

Now others may stand on a side that feel that the choices the US often makes are the right ones, that's where the debate comes in. But really not too much debate, when you look at the facts.