Thanks for posing the sensible questions. I do suppose it was a response to the recent deluge of a rather one-sided perspective on the Syrian conflict which has currently flooded the community.
I would start by suggesting that "support" includes the proposal that State sovereignty transcends universal human rights, and that people who engage in such abuses can do so with impunity within a particular State.
There are various definitions of "war criminal" but the purpose of this discussion I would certainly include Statist terrorism; the systematic use of violence against non-combatants for a political end.
With some consideration, it seems to me that the Assad regime is deserving of no protection, no support, and is deserving of being overthrown. I do share similar concerns with the recently essay by Samar Yazbek on the situation, but I also am sympathetic to the conclusion.
"Will you admit that the U.S. administration's interest in military action against Syria has nothing to do with political freedom or human rights, but is motivated by more imperial geopolitical concerns?
Are you aware of the conflicting reports and problematic bias surrounding the original premise of U.S. intervention, such as whether or not the Islamist insurgents themselves performed chemical weapons attacks?"
Thank you for this statement and all the rest. The recent activity to this (otherwise inactive) community from its newest member was attempting through articles and videos to convey just that. It would seem, information recently posted here goes on read or perhaps viewed with strong bias even to the point of ridiculously accusing its newest member of being a supporter of the Syrian government. From what I’ve read here, seems pretty outrageous. This coming from the moderator of this community shows lack of integrity and bullying..…IMHO .
Comments 6
(The comment has been removed)
I would start by suggesting that "support" includes the proposal that State sovereignty transcends universal human rights, and that people who engage in such abuses can do so with impunity within a particular State.
There are various definitions of "war criminal" but the purpose of this discussion I would certainly include Statist terrorism; the systematic use of violence against non-combatants for a political end.
With some consideration, it seems to me that the Assad regime is deserving of no protection, no support, and is deserving of being overthrown. I do share similar concerns with the recently essay by Samar Yazbek on the situation, but I also am sympathetic to the conclusion.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Are you aware of the conflicting reports and problematic bias surrounding the original premise of U.S. intervention, such as whether or not the Islamist insurgents themselves performed chemical weapons attacks?"
Thank you for this statement and all the rest. The recent activity to this (otherwise inactive) community from its newest member was attempting through articles and videos to convey just that. It would seem, information recently posted here goes on read or perhaps viewed with strong bias even to the point of ridiculously accusing its newest member of being a supporter of the Syrian government. From what I’ve read here, seems pretty outrageous. This coming from the moderator of this community shows lack of integrity and bullying..…IMHO .
Reply
Leave a comment