Invite Friends

Topic: War & Conflict

Results in this view: Y-must Punish 50% - Convince Me 0% - N-evidence First 17% - N-wrong Policy 33%
Picture?type=square
  • 4
Picture?type=square
  • 2
Picture?type=square
  • 1
Picture?type=square
  • 2
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
Picture?type=square
By Darren Honey No because there was no chemical attack. It was a setup staged by the terrorist rebels in a last ditch attempt to get the west to help them out with a free airstrike. It worked of course as they knew it would, just like it almost worked when the rebels did the same thing back in 2013. Why would the side who has won the war use chemical weapons on civilians?

Remember that one of those rebel groups is ISIS. Yeah that's right. While loads of idiots in the west condemn Assad for "killing his own people", the rebel groups get away with doing the same, except much worse. This is ISIS afterall. Yeah. Those are the guys we in the west are siding with.

What is it precisely that people don't understand about what a civil war is? How precisely can anyone fight a civil war without killing your own people? Just think about it. Give yourself all the time you need. Who is your opponent in a civil war? Why is it only bad when syrians with the government kill syrian rebels, but it's fine when syrian rebels kill syrians who are with the government? Both sides are "killing their own people" FFS!
Anonymous-user
by anon-a4e4 I must admit I've had the same thoughts, but you can't ignore that Assad began this whole mess by massacring peaceful protesters again and again in the beginning until they armed themselves and got outside help. If that narrative is true, plus the barrel bombs and at least some of the chemical attacks (there were many), do you really feel he's the person to continue leading Syria?
Picture?type=square
By Darren Honey Is that narrative actually true though? Were all of those protesters actually peaceful, or were a number of them in fact blowing up polling stations to prevent the syrian people from voting? You seem to be overlooking the fact that Syria at the time was being ocupied by multiple anti-government groups who were more than willing to hold onto what they had through extreme violence.

I live in the UK and I can guarantee that if large groups of people armed and mobilised themselves against the government, that government would respond with a show of force.......which would rapidly get out of hand very easily if those armed groups refused to back down. But then we all have the luxury of not having to deal with terrorist groups taking control of our country, so it's easy for us to condemn them, looking in from the outside.