B, I really don't want to get into this anti-semitism thing. I didn't bring it up. I'm not bringing it up. Please don't derail this thread.
Drowned...if you don't feel that you know enough about the issue then I of course wouldn't expect you to comment on it. But that just begs the same question driving this thread, only applied to what issues people commenting here choose to learn about.
As for condemnation of settlements, I kinda feel like you and B are Fox Newsing me here. I've repeatedly stated in other threads in no uncertain terms that I do not support the settlements at all, so for you two to claim otherwise here is simply disingenuous.
I don't think it's self-serving for me to choose not to voice my outrage at Israeli actions on this particular forum. In my opinion this forum lacks balance on that issue, so, given what I find to often be an overstatement of the charge against Israel I try to counter what I feel are unjustified criticisms. If I found a discussion of that topic here that I felt was actually balanced and reasonable I would have no issues whatsoever in voicing my own very strong criticisms.
Fox newsing you? Them's fightin' words!
Im not really calling on you to denounce the settlement expansion, I've seen you state that you're against them in the past.
It's just a double standard from my perspective:...you called those of us who criticize Israel morally selfish for not criticizing Syria. Then you turn around and say 'it's not self-serving' to criticize Israel. That's twice. I understand WHY, but think you're doing the same thing you accuse us of.
And again, in regards to 'what's driving this thread'....a double standard in that you don't want to turn this into a discussion of Israel when we use it to defend ourselves from your accusations, yet you repeatedly bring up the occupation/conflict as an example of us focusing too much on self-centric topics.
...to which I have to agree with what Idris has been saying: we tend to be more involved in issues we are directly involved in. And it's not just our tax dollars, it's having our governments steered by a foreign interest. Taking an interest in that is common sense, not selfishness. Toss in a massive disinformation campaign in regards to Israel/Palestine that is nearly impossible to ignore, and needs to be countered....and the micro/macro symbolism (esp in Muslim countries) of the occupation of Palestine/the middle east, and I don't think it's inappropriate for us to focus a great deal of energy on peace between Israel, and a sovereign Palestinian state.
No need to turn the Syrian uprising into a Israel/US debate. The Syrians are not demonstrating against the US and they are not demonstrating against Israel. They are demonstrating for freedom and democracy. The death toll from the violence in Syria has surpassed 5,000, while thousands more Syrians have been detained or are unaccounted for.
Tell the world Bashar is without legitimacy and let the Syrians know you stand with them against the brutal regime of Assad.
Drowned, I don't think it's inappropriate to focus attention on Israel/Palestine, Iraq (perhaps less so now, we'll see), Afghanistan, etc. It's certainly appropriate to focus attention there. My discomfort is with the fact that those issues seem to monopolize attention, and my question is aimed at the possibility that the reason for that monopolization is a preoccupation with the actions of western countries/a strain of third-worldism. I think that the responses of many people here actually tend to prove my point.
Now, that in itself isn't really problematic for me. I recognize, of course, that people will have a greater concern for their own county and its actions. That's fine. If discussions tended to be something along the lines of "I'm American-I don't like what's going on in Iraq-I'm angry that my tax dollars are being used this way-let's all help inform each other about this issue" then I'd have no problem.
But I often find myself feeling that certain issues get a more negative sort of attention, where the dynamic is more rigidly ideological, and the underlying narrative is "western countries are inherently evil, the third-world is inherently good, and to the extent that anyone in the third-world does anything wrong it's really the fault of some western country." This sort of thing really bothers me, especially because the arguments are often made using extremely moralistic language, in the name of human rights, and international law, etc. etc. etc....Excuse me, but how is it not hypocritical to be constantly preaching about universal human rights and international law while having absolute tunnel vision that excludes mention of all atrocities not committed by a western country?!
If you talk the talk you should walk the walk (or in this case talk the talk more extensively ). If your thing is international law, then it's really inexcusable to ignore what's going on in Syria. The argument that you care more about your own country is fine, but then don't get all preachy about international law, cause that's obviously not really your concern.
I guess the reason that I don't think I'm imposing a double standard is as follows. I really have one primary issue on this board, which is Israel. In discussing that issue I believe that I've made clear that I share many of the criticisms voiced by others on the board, but I tend to argue what you might call the "pro-Israel" side rather than give full voice to my own criticisms for reasons I explained above. I generally act responsively and tend not to start threads where I'm flinging around criticisms of one country or another. In the meantime I see a lot of people doing exactly that; starting threads to bash this country or that, often invoking very high minded concepts of universal justice to do so. And yet those threads seem to always target the same very narrow set of actors. I'm simply pointing that out and asking why that is. Since I don't think I'm in the category of people starting these attacks I fail to see how I'm doing what I accuse others of.
I don't know...maybe I just need a better perspective on myself. :?
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
No need to turn the Syrian uprising into a Israel/US debate. The Syrians are not demonstrating against the US and they are not demonstrating against Israel. They are demonstrating for freedom and democracy. The death toll from the violence in Syria has surpassed 5,000, while thousands more Syrians have been detained or are unaccounted for.
Tell the world Bashar is without legitimacy and let the Syrians know you stand with them against the brutal regime of Assad.
No need to turn the Syrian uprising into a Israel/US debate. The Syrians are not demonstrating against the US and they are not demonstrating against Israel. They are demonstrating for freedom and democracy. The death toll from the violence in Syria has surpassed 5,000, while thousands more Syrians have been detained or are unaccounted for.
Tell the world Bashar is without legitimacy and let the Syrians know you stand with them against the brutal regime of Assad.
And,its not our sandbox.
Peace.
+1
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
If you talk the talk you should walk the walk (or in this case talk the talk more extensively ). If your thing is international law, then it's really inexcusable to ignore what's going on in Syria. The argument that you care more about your own country is fine, but then don't get all preachy about international law, cause that's obviously not really your concern.
Really? Really? Where have you been for the 8 years of the Bush Administration? International law? We don't need no stinking Inter-national Law. Dick Cheney sold our nation's soul to the devil. International law? Ha! What a concept. League of Nations anyone? Seriously? Ask any citizen of a nation downtrodden by the "benevolence" of the USA and see what they say. Chile? Paraguay? Phillipines? El Salvador? Nicarauga? Vietnam? Cambodia? Laos? Panama? Argentina? Iran? Iraq? Mexico? Turkey? Greece? Old Europe? Lebanon? Seriously? The last time the USA had "moral clarity" was WW2, when doing the "right" thing was about moral fiber and not "economic opportunity." If Syria had oil, we'd be there by now. Hence, why not the outrage from the Republifucks on not supporting "democracy" in Syria. And hence, when Obama supported the overthrow of Ghaddify, it was criticism? Why? We Americans are only "benevolent" or interested in freedom or democracy when there is a "business" interest. As for Israel, time to man up and start solving their own problems. And Syria is not "our" problem. Oh, and maybe WAR fatigue has set in and we're sick and tired and out of money and see what is happening to our people and our democracy that we just frankly, don't give a shit. Tough. Figure it out. Pull yourself up by your boot straps and deal. Stand up, solve it yourself. You don't need nor want the US involved. Again, not our sandbox. Nothing personal but move to Israel, join the army and fight. Or send your dollars to support their government. But please stop asking me to defend and pay for a corrupt regime. On both sides, Syria and Israel.
MookiesLaw, this thread started out with a dual character.
This thread is not simply about the 'Syrian uprising', so it did not turn into anything MookiesLaw, rather remained on the exact course Yosi initially put it towards. I mean it's all in the thread title 'Syria-where's the outrage on the train!!!' So Yosi is asking and wondering about the physiological aspect of the M Train and it's focuses pertaining to issues that obviously to an extent Yosi in on slight opposites of.
and Yosi you said,
"But I often find myself feeling that certain issues get a more negative sort of attention, where the dynamic is more rigidly ideological, and the underlying narrative is "western countries are inherently evil, the third-world is inherently good, and to the extent that anyone in the third-world does anything wrong it's really the fault of some western country." This sort of thing really bothers me, especially because the arguments are often made using extremely moralistic language, in the name of human rights, and international law, etc. etc. etc...."
For that Yosi, perhaps it's better to provide more examples.
It's a feeling developed over a bunch of years, so I don't have an precise example that jumps to mind, but I'll go searching and let you know...it's also not really expressed quite so blatantly. I think it's more of a world-view that seeps through.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Syria opposition: Assad forces kill more than 250 in last 2 days
France denounces 'unprecedented massacre,' urges Russia, China to speed up negotiations on a draft resolution on Syria at United Nations Security Council.
A Syrian military operation in a stronghold of army deserters has killed a total of more than 250 people, activists and the opposition said Wednesday, ahead of an Arab League observer mission to monitor implementation of a peace plan.
France called the escalating violence an "unprecedented massacre" and urged Russia and China, Syria's traditional allies, to speed up negotiations on a draft resolution on Syria at the United Nations Security Council.
Anti-government protesters attending the funeral of protesters killed in earlier clashes in the Damascus suburb of Zabadani December 21, 2011.
The opposition Syrian National Council, which groups some 140 leaders, called on the Security Council and Arab League to hold emergency meetings to discuss the Syrian crisis and urged the international community to act to stop the violence.
"Everything must be put in motion to end this murderous spiral into which (Syrian President) Bashar Assad is dragging his people, deeper each day," French Foreign Ministry spokesperson Bernard Valero said.
Soldiers stormed a university campus in Syria's second largest city of Aleppo, which has been largely quiet, after students held a demonstration in support of the protesters in flashpoint cities like Homs, Idlib and Hama. Some 22 students were arrested.
Opposition members and activists said more than 250 people were killed over the last two days in Idlib, a stronghold of army deserters near the border with Turkey where the Syrian army is trying to stamp out protests and attacks on government targets.
Forty people died on Wednesday in Idlib and Homs, at least half of deserters, activists said.
"There must be an immediate cessation of acts of violence, and the Syrian government has to shoulder its responsibility for providing protection to the Syrian civilians in view of its commitments under an Arab plan," Arab League chief Nabil al-Arabi said in a statement.
An Arab League delegation headed by Al-Arabi's deputy will arrive in Syria on Thursday for talks with Syrian officials on implementation of the peace deal, which Syria accepted the deal last week after weeks of footdragging.
It calls on Syria to allow in an Arab observer mission, pull troops from residential areas, and open dialogue with the opposition, which on Wednesday called on the international community to act to the bloodshed.
Syria security forces also arrested Abdul-Aziz al-Khair, a prominent member of the opposition Syrian National Coordination Committee when he tried to board a flight to Cairo, activists said.
Syrian state media reported that an explosive device exploded in car belonging to an army colonel in Homs and blamed the attack on "terrorists."
It is difficult to independently verify reports from Syria, where most foreign journalists are barred entry. The United Nations says more than 5,000 people have been killed in the violence.
Russia and China, Syria's traditional allies, last week submitted a draft resolution to the UN Security Council, condemning both the and the demonstrators for the violence
.
European countries rejected the draft resolution as being too soft on the al-Assad regime.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Assad losing control as 10,000 soldiers desert Syrian military
Scores killed in Tuesday's clashes, including 14 troops ambushed by opposition.
By Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel
More than 10,000 soldiers have deserted the Syrian army, sources say, with as many as half the conscripts not reporting in the last three call-ups.
Want to receive up-to-date information on the Syria crisis? Join the discussion on Haaretz.com's Facebook page
A demonstrator protests against Syria's President Bashar Assad in Damascus, earlier this week.
Photo by: Reuters
According to Western intelligence agencies, even though the top brass is still loyal to President Bashar Assad, lower-level officers are deserting in large numbers, and in some cases, whole units have deserted en masse.
The army is considered the main factor safeguarding Assad's regime, after mass protests began in the south in March and spread throughout the country, inspired by the demonstrations elsewhere in the Arab world.
On Tuesday, at least 73 people were killed in Syria in clashes between the army and opposition, most of them in Homs in the west and Idlib in the northwest. The 73 dead added to the 100 who were killed on Monday, among them 14 soldiers ambushed by opposition forces, human rights groups said.
The groups added that Assad's forces were transferring wounded opposition activists from hospitals to army bases to prevent them from testifying to Arab League observers expected to arrive under a deal struck on Monday.
The observers would ensure that the army and opposition adhere to a cease-fire and end the violence.
A new law imposes the death penalty on anyone "smuggling arms to be used in terrorist activity."
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak predicted this month that the Syrian regime would collapse within weeks. Barak said it was impossible to know who would rule Syria in the future, but in any case it would be a blow to the alliance between Iran and Lebanese Shi'ite group Hezbollah.
Another sign of the Syrian regime's frailty is Hamas' decision to move its headquarters from Damascus, as the Palestinian group that runs the Gaza Strip prepares for a possible post-Assad era.
More than 5,000 people have been killed in the unrest in Syria, most of them anti-Assad activists; in recent days dozens have been killed every day, on average. Still, the army has suffered many losses, mainly from ambushes by opposition forces and ex-soldiers. In some remote districts the opposition groups are getting stronger and the army is having problems operating.
The opposition is still weak in the two large cities, Damascus in the south and Aleppo in the north. The Syrian Republican Guard, concentrated mostly in Damascus, is well armed and considered loyal to Assad, making it more difficult to organize demonstrations in the capital.
Still, even in Damascus, rockets have been launched at army vehicles.
One of the main worries in the West is the fate of the army's rocket and missiles caches, as well as its chemical weapons. According to several media reports, Hezbollah has transferred several long-range missiles from Syria to Lebanon.
In the 2006 Second Lebanon War, Hezbollah fired more than 4,000 rockets into Israel.
At this stage there is no proof that Hezbollah has transferred chemical weapons. Chemical weapons are not easy to maintain and handle, and as far as is known, Hezbollah does not have such expertise.
Israeli Military Intelligence recently presented the government with a report stating that unrest in Arab states will continue into next year. Military Intelligence says the unrest might topple the regimes in Syria and Yemen; in Yemen, outgoing President Ali Abdullah Saleh still has not relinquished all his powers despite the uprising in that Arabian Peninsula country.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
It's a feeling developed over a bunch of years, so I don't have an precise example that jumps to mind, but I'll go searching and let you know...it's also not really expressed quite so blatantly. I think it's more of a world-view that seeps through.
Fair enough,
-
And you feel that the "world-view" is what? incoherent? Or lacking in some way?
Both. The west has its faults, to be sure. But I think its patronizing and historically inaccurate to attribute all the faults of the world to western action; patronizing because it treats people in the third-world as objects in the story of our western world rather than subjects in their own right who can be held responsible for their own actions; historically inaccurate because...it just is. Shias and Sunnis have been fighting each other for almost 1500 years. That's not America's fault. Afghanistan hasn't been a stable country ever, and its faults certainly aren't the creation of the west since the only western country to ever successfully invade Afghanistan was the US, and the country was fucked up long before we got there (and frankly I'm really not sure that the US has made it any worse than it would have been otherwise). Even where western action (imperialism/colonialism) did play a role I find it altogether too convenient to excuse everything that has happened since then. It's very easy, and altogether true, to say that the British royally fucked up the whole middle east and south asia to boot. But Britain hasn't been a player in those regions for over 60 years now. At some point you have to stop pointing at imperialism as the root cause of every problem and recognize that people have agency and can change things.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Both. The west has its faults, to be sure. But I think its patronizing and historically inaccurate to attribute all the faults of the world to western action; patronizing because it treats people in the third-world as objects in the story of our western world rather than subjects in their own right who can be held responsible for their own actions; historically inaccurate because...it just is. Shias and Sunnis have been fighting each other for almost 1500 years. That's not America's fault. Afghanistan hasn't been a stable country ever, and its faults certainly aren't the creation of the west since the only western country to ever successfully invade Afghanistan was the US, and the country was fucked up long before we got there (and frankly I'm really not sure that the US has made it any worse than it would have been otherwise). Even where western action (imperialism/colonialism) did play a role I find it altogether too convenient to excuse everything that has happened since then. It's very easy, and altogether true, to say that the British royally fucked up the whole middle east and south asia to boot. But Britain hasn't been a player in those regions for over 60 years now. At some point you have to stop pointing at imperialism as the root cause of every problem and recognize that people have agency and can change things.
Who is attributing all the faults of the world on western action? and As far as problems in that area, I said myself in an earlier posts that the region had issues before the United States was around. But so? Does that now excuse what the US is doing? 'well the land was already messed up before we got here'. Makes no difference. It's what's going on now.
Also we went over that the US is the current empire that's why the focus is on them. The US is currently deeply involved on many levels in the mid-east. They care about what happens in most? countries on that side. They care because of greed, monetary interests, expansion and of the maintenance of the empire.
Again, what are you really trying to prove or say that we have not already gone through?
You point to troubles in that region before Western involvement, But some how you are using that as some sorta preponderance to your cause which you have really yet to share.
Probably goes back down to finding those old examples we spoke about earlier causing your feelings.
Now to say that at some point you have to stop pointing the finger at imperialism. Does that really make sense to you? Listen When the knife is in your back, you point to the knife in your back. As long as American Imperialism is around, the finger in many cases should be pointed towards it (at least based on the countries we are talking about).
In many places from Bahrain to Saudi Arabia, the US is supporting the suppression of human rights. Now try telling those protesters not to point the finger at Imperialism, rather look at themselves. You see how illogical your argument is?
I mean I agree, people have the agency to change things, but again.You must put that into the proper perspective.
btw you said that "the only western country to ever successfully invade Afghanistan was the US"..What is your definition of a successful invasion? Because I'm wondering how you came to the conclusion that the US has successfully invaded Afghanistan. The war is still going on, people are still dying.
I'm not trying to say that the US should not be held accountable for its actions, only that it is overly simplistic to look at the current state of Afghanistan (to take one example) and to lay the fault for all of its current problems at the feet of the US.
As for successful invasions, sure, I suppose that you're right. The US invasion should perhaps be described as the most successful so far, more so than Russia's (which I actually don't really consider part of the west, but that's a separate issue) or Imperial England's.
I also find your example interesting in itself. You write:
"In many places from Bahrain to Saudi Arabia, the US is supporting the suppression of human rights. Now try telling those protesters not to point the finger at Imperialism, rather look at themselves. You see how illogical your argument is?"
I agree with you that the US is supporting the suppression of human rights in these places, and I wish they would stop doing so. But their support can only be described as tacit. It isn't as if the US ambassador in Saudi Arabia is telling the Saudis not to let women drive, or that they should behead women for being witches (that happened last week, by the way). In fact I'm sure that the US administration would be overjoyed if the Saudis stopped doing these things. Their support for the Saudis consists of looking the other way when the Saudis do these things. What's interesting to me is that you look at this situation and say that the ultimate fault for the state of human rights should lie with the US, that it is Imperialism that is the root cause of Saudi human rights abuses. I think the ultimate fault should lie with the Saudis. The Saudis are the ones choosing to abuse human rights, and their choice to do so doesn't have anything to do with US imperialism, which isn't to say that the US shouldn't try to do more to improve the situation, only that they aren't the root cause of the problem. I don't think that argument is illogical at all.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
One of the main worries in the West is the fate of the army's rocket and missiles caches, as well as its chemical weapons. According to several media reports, Hezbollah has transferred several long-range missiles from Syria to Lebanon.
In the 2006 Second Lebanon War, Hezbollah fired more than 4,000 rockets into Israel.
At this stage there is no proof that Hezbollah has transferred chemical weapons. Chemical weapons are not easy to maintain and handle, and as far as is known, Hezbollah does not have such expertise.
So, is this really your motivation? The potential for rockets to be fired into Israel? Why the red highlight? Your focus gives you away. Sorry, but the US doesn't want to be sucked into another war. We're tired, we're broke and goddammit, we've had enough. Time for Israel and the other players in the region to grow up. Not our sandbox. And, I can't wait for us to get out of Afghanistan. Bring 'em home. NOW!
Peace.
PS: And I for one ain't buying the flavor of the day, "The Palestinian people are 'invented.' For crying out loud the US and "western" world dealt with the original Evil Empire, the USSR, for 50 years and they had nukes. Grow up.
I just thought that was an interesting part of the article. It was the first time I've seen discussion of that particular possible regional fallout. Thought it was particularly interesting so I highlighted it.
I'd also love to get out of Afghanistan. I don't think it's really possible to get to any real state of victory there. They should stand up the Afghani army as fast as possible and peace out.
I don't really get what you're trying to say with that last bit, but...not a Newt fan. Palestinians exist. They're certainly a newer vintage in terms of nations, but so is the US.
I'm very much like Peter Pan. Really don't wanna grow up.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
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'm very much like Peter Pan. Really don't wanna grow up.
and that's not a bad thing at all my friend.
Too many times in my own life, people have told me to "grow up"...What that tends to mean is, 'let go and let in apathy'. Apathy often is a sign of being mature in our world.
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.
+1
I'd find this less humorous, if it weren't for the fact that Zionists are only using Syria for their own benefit, i.e. "Why does every one just single out Israel? Boo hoo!"
There's a few reasons Syria is harder to discuss: 1. U.S. involvement there is FAR less than in Israel, for obvious reasons that I hope I don't have to get into. Thus, it's less relevant from a viewpoint of 'what can we do about it?' 2. It's hard to discern what is really happening there. In fact, I would go so far as to say the coverage of Syria is probably the worst conflict coverage I've ever seen, based solely on the fact that no one even knows what is happening there! I mean, one second, a news station says the rebels have conquered a city, the next second, another news station says the army has taken control and massacred every one. It's so hard to actually figure out what's happening, that discussing it on a forum, much less, this one, is near impossible! There is no doubt in my mind at least that every one on this forum opposes the regime's treatment of protestors, but other than that, it's hard to know who these protestors really are, who they represent, etc. Much less so than Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, and even Libya. Further, I find humor in the fact that the OP did not start this thread to actually discuss Syria, since he probably has no clue what is going on there, but instead just to complain that people use some other moral compass (discrete anti-semitism accusation, perhaps?) when it comes to Israel. This is nonsense, and most rational people know it as such.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go read something worthwhile. This forum is filled with trash.
Massive human rights violations are occurring and thousands are being killed in Syria. The R2P (Responsibility To Protect) applied in Libya, so why does that not apply now in Syria?
Massive human rights violations are occurring and thousands are being killed in Syria. The R2P (Responsibility To Protect) applied in Libya, so why does that not apply now in Syria?
Like many wars...Maybe we should just follow the money? "follow the gold". The system cares little about 'human rights'. They care about power, control etc.
Before we help Syria, can we help stop the genocides in Africa?
Yes! And everywhere that needless killing is taking place. I feel outrage at all the injustices and hate crimes and wars and killing and torture everywhere in the world. As long as we keep thinking like "countries" do those atrocities will continue. Imagine there's no country? Sure- easily. What is a country or a state anyway? Lines on a map- many of which make no geographical sense what so ever. Imagine a world with diverse communities and a world where people accept regional cultural differences? Easily.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I think that anybody on this board wouldn't be able to name a country where any kind of protest hasn't led to arrests, beatings and too the n'th, killing. I'm sure that most people are disgusted with the actions of the Syrian government, or whatever the country hotspot is d'jour. But we also all know that deep down inside the working man ain't going to win unless they bring arms to the protest. No government is just going to step aside, especially if they are going to be tried for anything.
The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08
right, make more violence just like they want you to do, people running things in this world purpose is to divide and conquer people, invest in both sides because it doesnt matter theyve paid for your war and now you still owe them. cia actions are full of that crap. where do you think all these weapons are coming from? Look at Koch Brothers funded the Iraq with weapons against our own troops. Who are the terrorists?
Comments
Right on.
The ability to manipulate reality to their own selfish means.
You hit the nail right on the head.
here it is....>>>
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Im not really calling on you to denounce the settlement expansion, I've seen you state that you're against them in the past.
It's just a double standard from my perspective:...you called those of us who criticize Israel morally selfish for not criticizing Syria. Then you turn around and say 'it's not self-serving' to criticize Israel. That's twice. I understand WHY, but think you're doing the same thing you accuse us of.
And again, in regards to 'what's driving this thread'....a double standard in that you don't want to turn this into a discussion of Israel when we use it to defend ourselves from your accusations, yet you repeatedly bring up the occupation/conflict as an example of us focusing too much on self-centric topics.
...to which I have to agree with what Idris has been saying: we tend to be more involved in issues we are directly involved in.
Tell the world Bashar is without legitimacy and let the Syrians know you stand with them against the brutal regime of Assad.
Now, that in itself isn't really problematic for me. I recognize, of course, that people will have a greater concern for their own county and its actions. That's fine. If discussions tended to be something along the lines of "I'm American-I don't like what's going on in Iraq-I'm angry that my tax dollars are being used this way-let's all help inform each other about this issue" then I'd have no problem.
But I often find myself feeling that certain issues get a more negative sort of attention, where the dynamic is more rigidly ideological, and the underlying narrative is "western countries are inherently evil, the third-world is inherently good, and to the extent that anyone in the third-world does anything wrong it's really the fault of some western country." This sort of thing really bothers me, especially because the arguments are often made using extremely moralistic language, in the name of human rights, and international law, etc. etc. etc....Excuse me, but how is it not hypocritical to be constantly preaching about universal human rights and international law while having absolute tunnel vision that excludes mention of all atrocities not committed by a western country?!
If you talk the talk you should walk the walk (or in this case talk the talk more extensively
I guess the reason that I don't think I'm imposing a double standard is as follows. I really have one primary issue on this board, which is Israel. In discussing that issue I believe that I've made clear that I share many of the criticisms voiced by others on the board, but I tend to argue what you might call the "pro-Israel" side rather than give full voice to my own criticisms for reasons I explained above. I generally act responsively and tend not to start threads where I'm flinging around criticisms of one country or another. In the meantime I see a lot of people doing exactly that; starting threads to bash this country or that, often invoking very high minded concepts of universal justice to do so. And yet those threads seem to always target the same very narrow set of actors. I'm simply pointing that out and asking why that is. Since I don't think I'm in the category of people starting these attacks I fail to see how I'm doing what I accuse others of.
I don't know...maybe I just need a better perspective on myself. :?
And,its not our sandbox.
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
+1
Really? Really? Where have you been for the 8 years of the Bush Administration? International law? We don't need no stinking Inter-national Law. Dick Cheney sold our nation's soul to the devil. International law? Ha! What a concept. League of Nations anyone? Seriously? Ask any citizen of a nation downtrodden by the "benevolence" of the USA and see what they say. Chile? Paraguay? Phillipines? El Salvador? Nicarauga? Vietnam? Cambodia? Laos? Panama? Argentina? Iran? Iraq? Mexico? Turkey? Greece? Old Europe? Lebanon? Seriously? The last time the USA had "moral clarity" was WW2, when doing the "right" thing was about moral fiber and not "economic opportunity." If Syria had oil, we'd be there by now. Hence, why not the outrage from the Republifucks on not supporting "democracy" in Syria. And hence, when Obama supported the overthrow of Ghaddify, it was criticism? Why? We Americans are only "benevolent" or interested in freedom or democracy when there is a "business" interest. As for Israel, time to man up and start solving their own problems. And Syria is not "our" problem. Oh, and maybe WAR fatigue has set in and we're sick and tired and out of money and see what is happening to our people and our democracy that we just frankly, don't give a shit. Tough. Figure it out. Pull yourself up by your boot straps and deal. Stand up, solve it yourself. You don't need nor want the US involved. Again, not our sandbox. Nothing personal but move to Israel, join the army and fight. Or send your dollars to support their government. But please stop asking me to defend and pay for a corrupt regime. On both sides, Syria and Israel.
Peace.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
This thread is not simply about the 'Syrian uprising', so it did not turn into anything MookiesLaw, rather remained on the exact course Yosi initially put it towards. I mean it's all in the thread title 'Syria-where's the outrage on the train!!!' So Yosi is asking and wondering about the physiological aspect of the M Train and it's focuses pertaining to issues that obviously to an extent Yosi in on slight opposites of.
and Yosi you said,
"But I often find myself feeling that certain issues get a more negative sort of attention, where the dynamic is more rigidly ideological, and the underlying narrative is "western countries are inherently evil, the third-world is inherently good, and to the extent that anyone in the third-world does anything wrong it's really the fault of some western country." This sort of thing really bothers me, especially because the arguments are often made using extremely moralistic language, in the name of human rights, and international law, etc. etc. etc...."
For that Yosi, perhaps it's better to provide more examples.
Like I'm really curious about this,
France denounces 'unprecedented massacre,' urges Russia, China to speed up negotiations on a draft resolution on Syria at United Nations Security Council.
A Syrian military operation in a stronghold of army deserters has killed a total of more than 250 people, activists and the opposition said Wednesday, ahead of an Arab League observer mission to monitor implementation of a peace plan.
France called the escalating violence an "unprecedented massacre" and urged Russia and China, Syria's traditional allies, to speed up negotiations on a draft resolution on Syria at the United Nations Security Council.
Anti-government protesters attending the funeral of protesters killed in earlier clashes in the Damascus suburb of Zabadani December 21, 2011.
The opposition Syrian National Council, which groups some 140 leaders, called on the Security Council and Arab League to hold emergency meetings to discuss the Syrian crisis and urged the international community to act to stop the violence.
"Everything must be put in motion to end this murderous spiral into which (Syrian President) Bashar Assad is dragging his people, deeper each day," French Foreign Ministry spokesperson Bernard Valero said.
Soldiers stormed a university campus in Syria's second largest city of Aleppo, which has been largely quiet, after students held a demonstration in support of the protesters in flashpoint cities like Homs, Idlib and Hama. Some 22 students were arrested.
Opposition members and activists said more than 250 people were killed over the last two days in Idlib, a stronghold of army deserters near the border with Turkey where the Syrian army is trying to stamp out protests and attacks on government targets.
Forty people died on Wednesday in Idlib and Homs, at least half of deserters, activists said.
"There must be an immediate cessation of acts of violence, and the Syrian government has to shoulder its responsibility for providing protection to the Syrian civilians in view of its commitments under an Arab plan," Arab League chief Nabil al-Arabi said in a statement.
An Arab League delegation headed by Al-Arabi's deputy will arrive in Syria on Thursday for talks with Syrian officials on implementation of the peace deal, which Syria accepted the deal last week after weeks of footdragging.
It calls on Syria to allow in an Arab observer mission, pull troops from residential areas, and open dialogue with the opposition, which on Wednesday called on the international community to act to the bloodshed.
Syria security forces also arrested Abdul-Aziz al-Khair, a prominent member of the opposition Syrian National Coordination Committee when he tried to board a flight to Cairo, activists said.
Syrian state media reported that an explosive device exploded in car belonging to an army colonel in Homs and blamed the attack on "terrorists."
It is difficult to independently verify reports from Syria, where most foreign journalists are barred entry. The United Nations says more than 5,000 people have been killed in the violence.
Russia and China, Syria's traditional allies, last week submitted a draft resolution to the UN Security Council, condemning both the and the demonstrators for the violence
.
European countries rejected the draft resolution as being too soft on the al-Assad regime.
Scores killed in Tuesday's clashes, including 14 troops ambushed by opposition.
By Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel
More than 10,000 soldiers have deserted the Syrian army, sources say, with as many as half the conscripts not reporting in the last three call-ups.
Want to receive up-to-date information on the Syria crisis? Join the discussion on Haaretz.com's Facebook page
A demonstrator protests against Syria's President Bashar Assad in Damascus, earlier this week.
Photo by: Reuters
According to Western intelligence agencies, even though the top brass is still loyal to President Bashar Assad, lower-level officers are deserting in large numbers, and in some cases, whole units have deserted en masse.
The army is considered the main factor safeguarding Assad's regime, after mass protests began in the south in March and spread throughout the country, inspired by the demonstrations elsewhere in the Arab world.
On Tuesday, at least 73 people were killed in Syria in clashes between the army and opposition, most of them in Homs in the west and Idlib in the northwest. The 73 dead added to the 100 who were killed on Monday, among them 14 soldiers ambushed by opposition forces, human rights groups said.
The groups added that Assad's forces were transferring wounded opposition activists from hospitals to army bases to prevent them from testifying to Arab League observers expected to arrive under a deal struck on Monday.
The observers would ensure that the army and opposition adhere to a cease-fire and end the violence.
A new law imposes the death penalty on anyone "smuggling arms to be used in terrorist activity."
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak predicted this month that the Syrian regime would collapse within weeks. Barak said it was impossible to know who would rule Syria in the future, but in any case it would be a blow to the alliance between Iran and Lebanese Shi'ite group Hezbollah.
Another sign of the Syrian regime's frailty is Hamas' decision to move its headquarters from Damascus, as the Palestinian group that runs the Gaza Strip prepares for a possible post-Assad era.
More than 5,000 people have been killed in the unrest in Syria, most of them anti-Assad activists; in recent days dozens have been killed every day, on average. Still, the army has suffered many losses, mainly from ambushes by opposition forces and ex-soldiers. In some remote districts the opposition groups are getting stronger and the army is having problems operating.
The opposition is still weak in the two large cities, Damascus in the south and Aleppo in the north. The Syrian Republican Guard, concentrated mostly in Damascus, is well armed and considered loyal to Assad, making it more difficult to organize demonstrations in the capital.
Still, even in Damascus, rockets have been launched at army vehicles.
One of the main worries in the West is the fate of the army's rocket and missiles caches, as well as its chemical weapons. According to several media reports, Hezbollah has transferred several long-range missiles from Syria to Lebanon.
In the 2006 Second Lebanon War, Hezbollah fired more than 4,000 rockets into Israel.
At this stage there is no proof that Hezbollah has transferred chemical weapons. Chemical weapons are not easy to maintain and handle, and as far as is known, Hezbollah does not have such expertise.
Israeli Military Intelligence recently presented the government with a report stating that unrest in Arab states will continue into next year. Military Intelligence says the unrest might topple the regimes in Syria and Yemen; in Yemen, outgoing President Ali Abdullah Saleh still has not relinquished all his powers despite the uprising in that Arabian Peninsula country.
Fair enough,
-
And you feel that the "world-view" is what? incoherent? Or lacking in some way?
Who is attributing all the faults of the world on western action? and As far as problems in that area, I said myself in an earlier posts that the region had issues before the United States was around. But so? Does that now excuse what the US is doing? 'well the land was already messed up before we got here'. Makes no difference. It's what's going on now.
Also we went over that the US is the current empire that's why the focus is on them. The US is currently deeply involved on many levels in the mid-east. They care about what happens in most? countries on that side. They care because of greed, monetary interests, expansion and of the maintenance of the empire.
Again, what are you really trying to prove or say that we have not already gone through?
You point to troubles in that region before Western involvement, But some how you are using that as some sorta preponderance to your cause which you have really yet to share.
Probably goes back down to finding those old examples we spoke about earlier causing your feelings.
Now to say that at some point you have to stop pointing the finger at imperialism. Does that really make sense to you? Listen When the knife is in your back, you point to the knife in your back. As long as American Imperialism is around, the finger in many cases should be pointed towards it (at least based on the countries we are talking about).
In many places from Bahrain to Saudi Arabia, the US is supporting the suppression of human rights. Now try telling those protesters not to point the finger at Imperialism, rather look at themselves. You see how illogical your argument is?
I mean I agree, people have the agency to change things, but again.You must put that into the proper perspective.
btw you said that "the only western country to ever successfully invade Afghanistan was the US"..What is your definition of a successful invasion? Because I'm wondering how you came to the conclusion that the US has successfully invaded Afghanistan. The war is still going on, people are still dying.
As for successful invasions, sure, I suppose that you're right. The US invasion should perhaps be described as the most successful so far, more so than Russia's (which I actually don't really consider part of the west, but that's a separate issue) or Imperial England's.
I also find your example interesting in itself. You write:
"In many places from Bahrain to Saudi Arabia, the US is supporting the suppression of human rights. Now try telling those protesters not to point the finger at Imperialism, rather look at themselves. You see how illogical your argument is?"
I agree with you that the US is supporting the suppression of human rights in these places, and I wish they would stop doing so. But their support can only be described as tacit. It isn't as if the US ambassador in Saudi Arabia is telling the Saudis not to let women drive, or that they should behead women for being witches (that happened last week, by the way). In fact I'm sure that the US administration would be overjoyed if the Saudis stopped doing these things. Their support for the Saudis consists of looking the other way when the Saudis do these things. What's interesting to me is that you look at this situation and say that the ultimate fault for the state of human rights should lie with the US, that it is Imperialism that is the root cause of Saudi human rights abuses. I think the ultimate fault should lie with the Saudis. The Saudis are the ones choosing to abuse human rights, and their choice to do so doesn't have anything to do with US imperialism, which isn't to say that the US shouldn't try to do more to improve the situation, only that they aren't the root cause of the problem. I don't think that argument is illogical at all.
So, is this really your motivation? The potential for rockets to be fired into Israel? Why the red highlight? Your focus gives you away. Sorry, but the US doesn't want to be sucked into another war. We're tired, we're broke and goddammit, we've had enough. Time for Israel and the other players in the region to grow up. Not our sandbox. And, I can't wait for us to get out of Afghanistan. Bring 'em home. NOW!
Peace.
PS: And I for one ain't buying the flavor of the day, "The Palestinian people are 'invented.' For crying out loud the US and "western" world dealt with the original Evil Empire, the USSR, for 50 years and they had nukes. Grow up.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I'd also love to get out of Afghanistan. I don't think it's really possible to get to any real state of victory there. They should stand up the Afghani army as fast as possible and peace out.
I don't really get what you're trying to say with that last bit, but...not a Newt fan. Palestinians exist. They're certainly a newer vintage in terms of nations, but so is the US.
I'm very much like Peter Pan. Really don't wanna grow up.
+1
and that's not a bad thing at all my friend.
Too many times in my own life, people have told me to "grow up"...What that tends to mean is, 'let go and let in apathy'. Apathy often is a sign of being mature in our world.
There's a few reasons Syria is harder to discuss: 1. U.S. involvement there is FAR less than in Israel, for obvious reasons that I hope I don't have to get into. Thus, it's less relevant from a viewpoint of 'what can we do about it?' 2. It's hard to discern what is really happening there. In fact, I would go so far as to say the coverage of Syria is probably the worst conflict coverage I've ever seen, based solely on the fact that no one even knows what is happening there! I mean, one second, a news station says the rebels have conquered a city, the next second, another news station says the army has taken control and massacred every one. It's so hard to actually figure out what's happening, that discussing it on a forum, much less, this one, is near impossible! There is no doubt in my mind at least that every one on this forum opposes the regime's treatment of protestors, but other than that, it's hard to know who these protestors really are, who they represent, etc. Much less so than Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, and even Libya. Further, I find humor in the fact that the OP did not start this thread to actually discuss Syria, since he probably has no clue what is going on there, but instead just to complain that people use some other moral compass (discrete anti-semitism accusation, perhaps?) when it comes to Israel. This is nonsense, and most rational people know it as such.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go read something worthwhile. This forum is filled with trash.
I feel the "world forum" is full of trash. Anyway...
Like many wars...Maybe we should just follow the money? "follow the gold". The system cares little about 'human rights'. They care about power, control etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O35_Ai6EsMU&feature=youtube_gdata_player
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 96,00.html
"AlAtareb residents report that Assad's forces are ransacking every bakery and pharmacy they come across."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middle- ... CMP=twt_gu
Calls to arm Syrian Rebels McCain and Graham
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... llows.html
Strange bedfellows are occuring... hmmmm "it’s official Al Qaeda is Acknowledged as an Ally of Britain&America"