Fletch 27 Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) Do we trust the biased media on children killed (photos's faked) or do you trust the arab spring.... Photos's of children killed is Syria have been proved fake.. Yet the media blows over it... The Media has up till now pointed to the head of state for the killings... Who would fake it? Does killing children further their cause? Would the Syrian Gov fake this? Or would the minority rebels for sympathy in the global view? The syrian Gov Incriminating themselves or are the rebels to blame for the slaughter or children? Again, photos were proved FAKE! Hmmm Is the minority in Syria grabbing the lime-light? In Egypt, we now have the Muslim brotherhood as Mubarach was a "butcher".. Are we sure we have this right or is the media playing to our hearts? Again, how much do you trust your media? Do you think tje rebel cause is more worthy than the Syrian gov? http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=29153 We are killing ourselves through media... The images shown are brutal but 11 years old. The CBC, Global news, CNN and BBC showed these as last weeks news.. Yes, trust your media.. Edited June 13, 2012 by Fletch 27 Quote
Anti-Am Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 I don't trust the media as far as I can throw it. Quote
Fletch 27 Posted June 13, 2012 Author Report Posted June 13, 2012 Denmark is currently in emergency session over these pictures and evaluating the reply given what seems to be over 30 falsified images.... Yay the nasty rebels...(To whom we have been backing) Quote
Anti-Am Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 Denmark is currently in emergency session over these pictures and evaluating the reply given what seems to be over 30 falsified images.... Yay the nasty rebels...(To whom we have been backing) I want no part in liberation of any country unless there is an invasion. Who knows what the real truth is. Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 Do we trust the biased media on children killed (photos's photos faked) or do you trust the arab spring Arab Spring.... Photos's Photos of children killed is Syria have been proved proven fake.. Yet the media blows over it... The Media media has up till until now pointed to the head of state for the killings... Who would fake it? Does killing children further their cause? Would the Syrian Gov gov fake this? Or would the minority rebels for sympathy in the global view? (Huh?) The syrian Gov Incriminating themselves Is the Syrian gov incriminating itself or are the rebels to blame for the slaughter or of children? Again, photos were proved proven FAKE! Hmmm Is the minority in Syria grabbing the lime-light limelight? In Egypt, we now have the Muslim brotherhood Brotherhood as Mubarach Mubarak was a "butcher".. Are we sure we have this right or is the media playing to our hearts? Again, how much do you trust your media? Do you think tje the rebel cause is more worthy than the Syrian gov? http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=29153 We are killing ourselves through media... The images shown are brutal but 11 9 years old. The CBC, Global news News, CNN and BBC showed these as last weeks week's news.. Yes, trust your media.. Somewhat fixed. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Anti-Am Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 Denmark is currently in emergency session over these pictures and evaluating the reply given what seems to be over 30 falsified images.... Yay the nasty rebels...(To whom we have been backing) Can't find anything on google or twitter about this. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9293620/BBC-News-uses-Iraq-photo-to-illustrate-Syrian-massacre.html Are we saying that the massacres didn't happen though ? Are we saying that we should let Syria kill their people this way ? Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Guest Manny Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 I see, so now we're using photos of the dead bodies the west essentially created in Iraq, to incense the public and justify that we need to do same thing to people in Syria. Quote
Signals.Cpl Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9293620/BBC-News-uses-Iraq-photo-to-illustrate-Syrian-massacre.html Are we saying that the massacres didn't happen though ? Are we saying that we should let Syria kill their people this way ? We have so far, and I can't see that changing anytime soon. Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
Michael Hardner Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 So, Manny, are there any circumstances where military intervention is justified ? Signals.Cpl - you're ok with continuing as we have done ? Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Anti-Am Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9293620/BBC-News-uses-Iraq-photo-to-illustrate-Syrian-massacre.html Are we saying that the massacres didn't happen though ? Are we saying that we should let Syria kill their people this way ? It is civil war. Why are you suggesting we get involved in a civil war? We're not the worlds policemen. Quote
Signals.Cpl Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 Signals.Cpl - you're ok with continuing as we have done ? No I am not, but don't see anyone willing to act. There are few nations capable of acting, and the most likely and capable is the US, but no matter how sad it is or how horrible the situation is as soon as the US sets foot on Syrian soil there would be people crying about the oil and imperialism and all that... Besides as it is an election year I don't see the Us starting a war there. Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
Anti-Am Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 Syria is 74% Sunni. Why should we always come to the rescue of Muslim countries? They frickin' hate the west. There will not be peace over there for decades to come and that is being generous. Quote
bleeding heart Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 No I am not, but don't see anyone willing to act. There are few nations capable of acting, and the most likely and capable is the US, but no matter how sad it is or how horrible the situation is as soon as the US sets foot on Syrian soil there would be people crying about the oil and imperialism and all that... Besides as it is an election year I don't see the Us starting a war there. So let me get this straight...you think that if the US intervened, it would automatically be for good, humanitarian reasons...reasons of principle. As it always is, such as....um...... And yet they'd meet with all sorts of crazy protests....however, they also can't undergo this principled stance...because it's an election year. So...it's not about principle, is what you're saying. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Signals.Cpl Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 So let me get this straight...you think that if the US intervened, it would automatically be for good, humanitarian reasons...reasons of principle. As it always is, such as....um...... And yet they'd meet with all sorts of crazy protests....however, they also can't undergo this principled stance...because it's an election year. So...it's not about principle, is what you're saying. If there is pressure for someone to intervene, lets be honest and say who that nation will be, it will be the US. Whatever reasons they might have to go to Syria are irrelevant. Why you ask? Because people are dying, and then there are westerners who cry for action at which point the only nation that is capable of mounting any action might be forced to act, but as soon as they act they become aggressive. Regardless of how noble the cause is they will be the bad guy. If you are about to die, and I save your life, does it matter why I did that? If my actions save your life, and I am doing so for a monetary reward so be it, wouldn't you agree? Quote Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst
Anti-Am Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 If there is pressure for someone to intervene, lets be honest and say who that nation will be, it will be the US. Whatever reasons they might have to go to Syria are irrelevant. U.S won't intervene because they don't want a confrontation with Russia & China. Quote
GostHacked Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 U.S won't intervene because they don't want a confrontation with Russia & China. Also gives the US and NATO a chance to take the 'high road', and let Russia or China look like the bad guys for supporting Assad. But we have seen it before where pictures were doctored or used to show something else. The dead Iraqi's provided a nice backdrop claiming they were pictures of dead Syrians. Same method used to make two Iranian missile launchers to look like four. http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/in-an-iranian-image-a-missile-too-many/ Quote
bleeding heart Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) If there is pressure for someone to intervene, lets be honest and say who that nation will be, it will be the US. Whatever reasons they might have to go to Syria are irrelevant. Why you ask? Because people are dying, and then there are westerners who cry for action at which point the only nation that is capable of mounting any action might be forced to act, but as soon as they act they become aggressive. Regardless of how noble the cause is they will be the bad guy. If you are about to die, and I save your life, does it matter why I did that? If my actions save your life, and I am doing so for a monetary reward so be it, wouldn't you agree? 1. You said (correctly, by the way, in my opinion) that if the US were to intervene, they would receive criticism "about oil and imperialism and all that." Well, first of all, these are legtimiate complaints and concerns. But more to the point, you imply that you disagree with them..meaning you think it would be for humanitarian motives. (An extreme rarity, despite the numerous interventions and attacks, so I don't know why you'd believe that). 2. If a country attacks another for reasons that aren't humanitarian, then there is less chance of a humanitarian success. Since it's not the goal, it will not be forefront of the policy. Therefore it's unlikely to happen. Look at the catastrophe in Iraq: hundreds of thousands dead, sectarian violence, and the biggest refugee problem on Earth. (Mostly unreported, but a massive tragedy.) Now, it could well be true that a selfish intervention could achieve good results, or ones preferable to the status quo; but the chances decrease along with a lack of genuine goodwill, since that will be part of policy's focus, should humanitarianism exist. And just to clarify, I'm not even talking about the United States, who are perfectly ordinary, and whose evils are, like ours, a matter of institutional lunacy, not a peculiar evil. So it extrapolates generally to everybody. Edited June 13, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
DogOnPorch Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) Same method used to make two Iranian missile launchers to look like four. http://thelede.blogs...ssile-too-many/ Yeah...a bunch misfired. Can't have that. Edited June 13, 2012 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Michael Hardner Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 It is civil war. Why are you suggesting we get involved in a civil war? We're not the worlds policemen. Yes, I'm suggesting that. Why are you even asking that question, given our history of doing this ? Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Anti-Am Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) given our history of doing this ? Which is why we need to stop. We were in a war against the Taliban for the last decade. I think Canadians are all warred out. If it turns into a world war then of course we should be in. But this is small time. Edited June 13, 2012 by Anti-Am Quote
GostHacked Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 Maybe we need to intervene in Iraq again... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18420488 A wave of bombings across Iraq has killed 84 people and injured nearly 300 in the deadliest day in the country since US troops withdrew last year.Ten locations in Baghdad were hit. Many of the dead were Shia pilgrims gathering for a religious festival. Two blasts near a restaurant in Hilla, south of Baghdad, are thought to have targeted police and security forces. There has been an upsurge in sectarian violence across Iraq in recent months as political tensions increase. The death toll in Iraq weekly is not far behind Syria. Quote
Guest Manny Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 Maybe we need to intervene in Iraq again... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18420488 The death toll in Iraq weekly is not far behind Syria. "Iraq is better off now, without Saddam." Quote
Wild Bill Posted June 13, 2012 Report Posted June 13, 2012 Now, it could well be true that a selfish intervention could achieve good results, or ones preferable to the status quo; but the chances decrease along with a lack of genuine goodwill, since that will be part of policy's focus, should humanitarianism exist. So since you don't approve of America's motives, what DO you suggest? A lot of people, including women and children are dying. Are you suggesting they should just continue to be killed until someone you approve of comes along to save them? You realize that in order for you to take your moral high ground innocents must die? Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.