Rand Paul: Syrian rebels are allied with Al Qaeda and should not be armed

So you are saying that everyone in the inner circle of the ruling family has exactly the same opinion with regard to how conservative a brand of Islam the ruling family should support and promote?

 

The Assad family has been ruling Syria for a long time. Sunni Muslims still make up the same percentage of the population. Islamists have already started massacres in which they murdered every Christian they could find, including women and children. That should answer your question, although you previously stated that you were raised to believe that the lives of people not sharing your beliefs are worth less.

 

I'll answer your question if you answer the question I asked. Otherwise, thanks for the chat.

 

Want to comment that it is sick that people are defending Assad here. The only thing he and his family have left on his list is complete genocide. Unleashing WMD? Check. Rampant torture? Check. Murder of civilians? Check. Murder of children? Check.

People may need to re-evaluate their moral compasses if they cannot see past their fears to the monster they are defending. lesser of two evils; seriously, what the f**k.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houla_massacre

 

Well, there are those who believe that the other side will in fact, commit complete genocide if they win given the ethnic tensions as well as the fact that Assad's groups are an ethnic minority, making such a task easier to carry out for the rebels. I don't support Assad myself ( though it's more to do with his relations with Iran as opposed to what his forces may or may not have done), but I don't support the rebels either insofar as they win.

 

right, and this belief, is it worth holding out on it based on the current reality?

I cannot believe that people are saying that the lesser of two evils is a hypotheized Islamic regime that would go competely genocidal.

Seriously. people need a grip on their fears. It's maybe why this region is so f**ked up.

Reprisal attacks are a possibility, of course, but I don't quite understand how allowing a monster free reign and justifying his actions in the vein of preventing Islamo-genocide will make that situation better.

 

Commence the killing of Christian women and children! Because it is the lesser of two evils.

You know Mussolini was the lesser of three evils in WWII but it was still important that he be taken out.

At least the Sunni population has a large enough number to fight back against this evil.

 

I'm not really cool with that either. But pumping more weapons into the situation is throwing gas on the fire. We need to take a different avenue for helping. I think the ultimate solution will be diplomatic, which will mean making concessions to Assad and to all the foreign interests with their hands in the pot. And, I don't know what all will need to be done to get there from here. It'll be dirty, but not as dirty as propping up yet another minority to use violence.

Some posters are afraid of the Islamists in power. I'm not worried about that. I'm worried that an injection of guns will not change the game enough to determine a clear winner -- it'll just prolong the fighting.

 

I'm not doubting the accuracy of this article as much as I think it needs to be read in context, considering it's from the Iranian press.

From this point of view, anyone that opposes Assad is a "terrorist" and it's somehows a nefarious plot from the US, Israel and all the Sunni regimes Iran's leadership doesn't like.

Israel, if anything, would prefer Assad to any government that would replace him.

 

What part of that context makes it okay to kill women and children?

 

The sad truth is Christians in the Middle East lived best under secular leaders like Assad, Nasser, and old Saddam Hussein. Even the PLO still has a significant Christian membership -- it's only in these Bathist-leaning movements they were ever welcome.

Where is Taraq Aziz these days?

 

Let me get this straight.

In the Obama is a weak president thread, Bob Marley is criticizing Obama for not helping the rebels in Syria (either with weapons or military support) and in this thread he's bashing the rebels for being islamists and attacking Christians.

 

I posted the article in that thread. But please feel free to say I said whatever you want.

 

Can we hear your opinion on this then?

While you technically didn't say anything, I made the assumption that you believe Obama is doing a bad job by not arming the rebels because of the article you posted.

 

Sorry to go Vonnegut on you but:

Welcome to the Middle East. The deaths of women and children are one of our most valuable commodities.

If we want Shiites to be sympathetic to our Shiite cause, we point at the Shiites killed in Bahrain, Iraq, or Syria by their own leadership, or by Israelis in Lebanon.

If we want Sunnis to be outraged by deaths of Sunni innocents, we point to Israelis bombing Gaza or Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If we want Christians to be sympathetic we've got them too in Lebanon, Egypt, Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon, and now Syria being killed by everyone.

Man, be glad you aren't a Kurd. Everyone hates them except Christopher Hitchens, and he's unfortunately dead.

Since being concerned about all of them would make you a pinko godless commie humanist leftie, our journalists understand and try to appeal to a wide variety of ecclesiastical and nationalistic exceptionalisms in order to gain a green light for whichever women and children we happen to be killing at the moment.

Thank you, and may the god of our choice judge you.

 

I found the piece to be interesting but a bit too overstated.

There are many other reasons the writer could have cited but chose not to, which made his case more emotional I believe.

 

So are saying he should run for office?

 

Why not develop guns that are chipped with hidden explosives, and once we decide we send a radio signal that blows up those guns?

DD

 

No need to dramatize. No one is saying anyone should commence killing anyone. Just that Christians are no more important than anyone else, and the entire population is 10% Christian. Everyone needs to be protected, and it is stupid to prioritize one minority when all but 15% of the population is being brutally attacked.

More importantly, there is only one small group that has the resources to protect anything. This small group is unfortunately extremely xenophobic and ideologically motivated. That group has to protect everyone since it is at war with a violent state that does not discriminate in its massacre of Syrians. Even if the FSA was entirely Christian, it would make logical sense for them to protect everyone and not prioritize the sfety of Christians. How many non-Christian towns have been demolished and anihilated as well? Why is this town more important?

This is about two politically ideological groups fighting to capture control of a state. They don't care about religion except as a marketing tool. A few weeks ago everyone was happy to call Hizbollah a terrorist Islamic group, today hizbollah is entirely dedicated to massacaring Muslims and Christians alike.

I suppose your characterization of WWII as having only 3 evils says it all.