Syria Is An Attack Justified?

[B_underguy1]

A.) How do you propose the western powers 'stop the slaughter'?
B.) And given humans have been slaughtering each other since the dawn of time A is impossible.

a) the answer is contained with in the comment. Stop arming, funding and directing the insurgents. Call it off.

b) absurd reductionism.

 

[ActionBuddy]

OK, guys... So, let's all blow our own brains out.

I mean, we would look naive if we tried to think positively, so let's all just give up and let history repeat itself.

 

[deleted15807]

a) the answer is contained with in the comment. Stop arming, funding and directing the insurgents. Call it off.

b) absurd reductionism.

The absurdity is that this will end. History repeats itself over and over again. The human history is a history of war.

 

[B_underguy1]

The absurdity is that this will end. History repeats itself over and over again. The human history is a history of war.

The history we are taught is a series of wars. In reality, the vast majority of humans over the aeons never experienced war.

The way we are taught history lacks any study of peaceful societies over time. It contributes to our warmongering ways.

White man's burden, exceptionalism and all that racist shit.

 

[deleted15807]

The history we are taught is a series of wars. In reality, the vast majority of humans over the aeons never experienced war.

The way we are taught history lacks any study of peaceful societies over time. It contributes to our warmongering.

Perhaps but the very foundation of war, the desire to use force to get what you want is as old as mankind and dramatically older than that. You're in an unwinnable battle against biology.

 

[rbkwp]

​related

Grimshaw

Ministry of Social Security & Development .. better if i called you ..


punctuality & curiosity often go together ..​

edits ..
for nonsensical afterthoughts, in fashion as well!!!



Sent from my 2¤ phone.

 

[B_underguy1]

Perhaps but the very foundation of war, the desire to use force to get what you want is as old as mankind and dramatically older than that. You're in an unwinnable battle against biology.

That's a amathematical assertion with no basis in history. It's common but fallacious.

Even if you were right, it would be no excuse for cynicism and defeatism.

Aren't we supposed to be progressing and evolving?

There's no biology involved. It's power. Democracy would solve the problem of unequal power.

 

[jujube]

Just wondering... Are you texting in from a phone, or just unable to construct complete sentences? With most of your posts, I'm unable to figure out what you are talking about and wonder if you are a teenager or drunk?

As far as I can tell, he is just a Māori. You can put him on ignore if you are annoyed by his incomprehensible comments, anyway.

 

[Klingsor]

Are you texting in from a phone, or just unable to construct complete sentences?

As far as I can tell, he is just a Māori.

Maybe I'm missing some cultural context here, but is that as racist as it sounds?

 

[Jason]

Perhaps but the very foundation of war, the desire to use force to get what you want is as old as mankind and dramatically older than that. You're in an unwinnable battle against biology.

Agreed. Within the British Isles every age of prehistory and history has shown war as a core human activity. Only since the 1960s has the UK not required all or almost all men to do national service or be on some sort of militia reserve list. The norm for men has been to experience the battlefield and to be willing to kill.

The military changes in British society (and most first world) have been enormous and linked with changing perceptions of gender roles. Neither military nor gender expectations have changed much in most Islamic countries. In Egypt, Libya, Syria and elsewhere almost every young man has played a part in the conflict.

 

[rbkwp]

As far as I can tell, he is just a Māori.








jujube, that could be deemed more offensive than anything i have posted on this thread, shame on you
just as Action waited for my next post to respond in the negative you have felt the need also for such a derogatory comment,
never ceases to amaze me what some of us humans are capable of
others of my race would defintitely be highly offended, but i take pure solace in knowing of the posters true colours showing thru for an entire LPSG eternity
Thanks Klingsor for pointing this out ..

bemuses me the need for these guys to make comments about me ..
cant be as important as the topic saga huh or is it to them ..

 

[jujube]

As far as I can tell, he is just a Māori.








jujube, that could be deemed more offensive than anything i have posted on this thread, shame on you
just as Action waited for my next post to respond in the negative you have felt the need also for such a derogatory comment,
never ceases to amaze me what some of us humans are capable of
others of my race would defintitely be highly offended, but i take pure solace in knowing of the posters true colours showing thru for an entire LPSG eternity
Thanks Klingsor for pointing this out ..

bemuses me the need for these guys to make comments about me ..
cant be as important as the topic saga huh or is it to them ..

Wow, I am sorry for upsetting you. I did not have any malicious intent. I merely intended to indicate to ActionBuddy that some of his difficulty in understanding your comments might be due to your particular cultural background.

In the same way, I would point out to anyone who would go so far as to actually make a post simply for the purpose of commenting on being unable to comprehend amadordelsexo's writing that the man in question is a Hispanic (despite his location being indicated as Australia), and therefore you have one of two options: try to be understanding of the difficulty of intercultural communication, or else ignore his posts so that they do not trouble you anymore. It's that simple.

 

[eurotop40]

Perhaps but the very foundation of war, the desire to use force to get what you want is as old as mankind and dramatically older than that. You're in an unwinnable battle against biology.

Tell me, have YOU ever been at war? Have YOU ever served in an army?Has your house or your parent's house ever been bombed? Have YOU ever been abroad (and no, Wyoming does not count)?

Just wondering...

 

[eurotop40]

As far as I can tell, he is just a Māori.
...

Lots of respect for the Māori, since they are one of the few people that did not believe in British divinity...

 

[deleted15807]

Aren't we supposed to be progressing and evolving?

Progressing? Evolving? To what? The thin veneer that is wrapped around this concept of 'civilization' gives us the illusion we are progressing and evolving. To the other inhabitants of the planets surely we must resemble a virus.

This thin veneer exists because right now we have the ability to bend the planet to produce a plethora of goodies we love to consume. The very moment when that ceases to happen the will to survive and flourish is evident in it's most beautiful rawest form...aggression. Is there in that truth no beauty?

There's no biology involved. It's power. Democracy would solve the problem of unequal power.

The nature vs. nurture topic has been a continuing debate regarding aggression. There have been many studies indicating that chemical relationships between serotonin, testosterone, and frontal lobe brain chemistry may play a key role in determining aggressive behavior, while other studies have explored environmental and societal factors that have been said to control patterns in human aggression.

Nevertheless aggression does have some biological basis. How much or how little seems to vary.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q...a=X&ei=K_U1UoznM8P_4APkwYCYCg&ved=0CCoQgQMwAAYou suggested I once try Google.

Aggression in humans: what is its biological foundation?

Democracy isn't a panacea as democracy needs to be policed and maintained for it work. It's not like you check a box for political system 'democracy' and all is well.

Agreed. Within the British Isles every age of prehistory and history has shown war as a core human activity. Only since the 1960s has the UK not required all or almost all men to do national service or be on some sort of militia reserve list. The norm for men has been to experience the battlefield and to be willing to kill.

The military changes in British society (and most first world) have been enormous and linked with changing perceptions of gender roles. Neither military nor gender expectations have changed much in most Islamic countries. In Egypt, Libya, Syria and elsewhere almost every young man has played a part in the conflict.

Unless you have the 'will to kill' from a strictly Darwinian point of view your chances for survival is limited. That is really how humans got to the top of the chain.

 

[B_underguy1]

Progressing? Evolving? To what? The thin veneer that is wrapped around this concept of 'civilization' gives us the illusion we are progressing and evolving. To the other inhabitants of the planets surely we must resemble a virus.

This thin veneer exists because right now we have the ability to bend the planet to produce a plethora of goodies we love to consume. The very moment when that ceases to happen the will to survive and flourish is evident in it's most beautiful rawest form...aggression. Is there in that truth no beauty?



The nature vs. nurture topic has been a continuing debate regarding aggression. There have been many studies indicating that chemical relationships between serotonin, testosterone, and frontal lobe brain chemistry may play a key role in determining aggressive behavior, while other studies have explored environmental and societal factors that have been said to control patterns in human aggression.

Nevertheless aggression does have some biological basis. How much or how little seems to vary.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q...a=X&ei=K_U1UoznM8P_4APkwYCYCg&ved=0CCoQgQMwAAYou suggested I once try Google.

Aggression in humans: what is its biological foundation?

Democracy isn't a panacea as democracy needs to be policed and maintained for it work. It's not like you check a box for political system 'democracy' and all is well.



Unless you have the 'will to kill' from a strictly Darwinian point of view your chances for survival is limited. That is really how humans got to the top of the chain.

Lol, going to war takes an intense powerful top down organisational structure. That ain't biology buddy. The fact that every war is started by lies and propaganda should tell you that it isn't a popular thing.

Democracy would remove the unequal power that the ruling class has gained to shape public perception.

Your views are cynical, defeatist, authoritarian and I suspect a little Malthusian.

 

[B_underguy1]

Syria's "Rebels" Threaten UN - Will Use US Weapons
Terrorists operating in Syria have threatened to "block" UN inspectors, any bloodshed will be on the hands of the US who is now openly arming them.

September 15, 2013 (Tony Cartalucci) - In Reuters' "Syrian Rebels Slam U.S.-Russia Deal, Say Assad Is Moving Chemical Weapons To Lebanon And Iraq," Qassim Saadeddine of the so-called "Free Syrian Army" rejected the recent Syrian-Russian proposal to turn over Syria's chemical weapons for independent verification and destruction, vowing to block UN inspectors should they enter Syria to carry out the task.

Reuters reported:
Qassim Saadeddine, said: "Let the Kerry-Lavrov plan go to hell. We reject it and we will not protect the inspectors or let them enter Syria."
In carrying out these overt threats, the terrorist front will be using US-provided arms, equipment and vehicles, as admitted by US officials in recent weeks. The Washington Post's article, "U.S. weapons reaching Syrian rebels," reported:
The CIA has begun delivering weapons to rebels in Syria, ending months of delay in lethal aid that had been promised by the Obama administration, according to U.S. officials and Syrian figures. The shipments began streaming into the country over the past two weeks, along with separate deliveries by the State Department of vehicles and other gear — a flow of material that marks a major escalation of the U.S. role in Syria’s civil war.
Of course, while this is the first openly admitted, direct military aid the US has provided terrorists operating within and along Syria's borders, the US and its axis partners have been pouring fighters, weapons, and cash into Syria via Lebanon, NATO-member Turkey, Al Qaeda-saturated northern Iraq, and Jordan for over two years - intentionally into the hands of Al Qaeda and other sectarian extremists.

Not only is the US now openly admitting its role in purposefully perpetuating a clearly sectarian-driven conflict the US is documented to have itself engineered as early as 2007, it is also now responsible for the crimes carried out by these terrorists they are admittedly arming, including the harassment, obstruction, injury, capture, or death of UN inspectors and those charged with their protection.

Reports of sniper fire targeting UN inspectors attempting to investigate an alleged August 2013 chemical weapons attack in Damascus, Syria already give a troubling indication of the dangers future inspectors face amongst a landscape plagued with dangerous, lawless terrorists the West has purposefully empowered and is currently perpetuating in Syria.

Exposing America's culpability in any attack upon UN weapon inspectors inoculates the public from fabricated justifications for future US military intervention based on the UN's "failure," including plans to use US troops to "secure" Syrian chemical weapons. Realizing that the Syrian-Russian plan is already in the process of being purposely sabotaged by US support for terrorists within Syria ensures that America is excluded entirely from participating in any future solution to the Syrian crisis, or any other crisis for that matter.

Land Destroyer: Syria's "Rebels" Threaten UN - Will Use US Weapons

 

[Fuzzy_]

Madeleine Albright: U.S. threat worked - CNN.com Video

"You use the threat of the use of force to get some action in diplomacy and then diplomacy to figure out what you do about the threat of the use of force." -- Madeleine Albright.

She says that the threat of force by the US is the reason diplomacy is now an option.

 

[B_underguy1]

Madeleine Albright: U.S. threat worked - CNN.com Video

"You use the threat of the use of force to get some action in diplomacy and then diplomacy to figure out what you do about the threat of the use of force." -- Madeleine Albright.

She says that the threat of force by the US is the reason diplomacy is now an option.

The warmongering demoness that thought the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children was "worth it".

Madeleine Albright - 60 Minutes - YouTube

 

[ActionBuddy]

Those were "nicer" words for her than I've had roll off my tongue...