Thread: Syria

Yeah, clearly the US were behind all the uprisings against autocratic and corrupt leaders right across the Arab world last year. I bet they even persuaded Mohamed Bouazizi to set himself on fire in Tunisia knowing that the resulting protests would set the whole thing off and allow them to topple all those wise, progressive leaders so beloved of their people. The various tribal, religious and ethnic tensions in play in each of those countries are clearly an invention of NATO's propaganda arm - the BBC (not to mention every other media organisation or newspaper in the world that enjoys even a semblance of press freedom). And thank God there are no other countries in the general area with political or ideological motivations to interfere. Of course, if there were they'd simply be working on behalf of the US anyway. QED.

And now, finally, as if we needed any more proof, we have a badly photocopied map of unknown origin and age showing an oil pipeline of unknown capacity or significance uploaded to the internet. If that's not a slam-dunk case I don't know what is.

Originally Posted by zedeeyen

If that's not a slam-dunk case I don't know what is.

A double-power dunk shot is obviously the existence of the evil green paper. It was shaped and coloured by the best psychologists and human-mind manipulators so that the specific shade of green instills destruction and havoc over those who dare to contemplate not to enslave their minds for the paper. The specific shape, on it turn, was designed to make the slaves believe they are free, which, obviously, is the slaviest slavery of the slavehood.

Originally Posted by zedeeyen

Yeah, clearly the US were behind all the uprisings against autocratic and corrupt leaders right across the Arab world last year. I bet they even persuaded Mohamed Bouazizi to set himself on fire in Tunisia knowing that the resulting protests would set the whole thing off and allow them to topple all those wise, progressive leaders so beloved of their people. The various tribal, religious and ethnic tensions in play in each of those countries are clearly an invention of NATO's propaganda arm - the BBC (not to mention every other media organisation or newspaper in the world that enjoys even a semblance of press freedom). And thank God there are no other countries in the general area with political or ideological motivations to interfere. Of course, if there were they'd simply be working on behalf of the US anyway. QED.

And now, finally, as if we needed any more proof, we have a badly photocopied map of unknown origin and age showing an oil pipeline of unknown capacity or significance uploaded to the internet. If that's not a slam-dunk case I don't know what is.

Ok since you have some many "clever" answers: How come the USA did everything to CRUSH the popular uprising in Bahrain, which is an Arab dictatorship that happens to be hosting a major US naval base and already has a pro US government. Hundreds died, thousands have been imprisoned etc, etc.

And how do you explain the statements by General Wesley Clark? Is your five star general a liar?
Most of the countries on the 2002 roadmap for taking down governments that he is referring to have already had a "revolution". Syria is left, and so is Sudan, where surprise, surprise - the uprising just started.

If there ever was a case of "the proof is in the pudding", this is it.
The USA is not even particularly secretive about it - they want those concerned to know what's coming.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Ok since you have some many "clever" answers: How come the USA did everything to CRUSH the popular uprising in Bahrain, which is an Arab dictatorship that happens to be hosting a major US naval base and already has a pro US government. Hundreds died, thousands have been imprisoned etc, etc.

Yeah, you're right, it is a pro-U.S. goverment, that's true. The U.S. was not vocal about regime change there. I don't understand what that has to do with all the other countries. You also have to consider that Bahrain was not nearly as violent as in Libya and Syria. Why would the U.S. have caused problems in Egypt? The Egyptian goverment was very friendly with the U.S., why change?

Originally Posted by Hanna

Ok since you have some many "clever" answers: How come the USA did everything to CRUSH the popular uprising in Bahrain, which is an Arab dictatorship that happens to be hosting a major US naval base and already has a pro US government. Hundreds died, thousands have been imprisoned etc, etc.

Firstly, go on then. What, precisely, did the US government do to "CRUSH" the uprising in Bahrain? As far as I remember it was put down by the Bahraini police with some help from the Saudis, and the very worst charge against the US and other NATO countries was that they didn't condemn the violence strongly enough. Do you have any evidence that they actively helped the royal family maintain control? And in either case you'll then need to explain how US involvement or lack thereof in Bahrain proves or even suggests US involvement in Syria.

It seems to me that it's you who needs to "explain" Bahrain, not me. If the US was behind the Arab Spring uprisings then why they occur in countries like Bahrain and Egypt who were allied to the US and where there was no desire amongst western governments for regime change? And if those uprisings were spontaneous and triggered by internal tensions, why not the others?

And how do you explain the statements by General Wesley Clark? Is your five star general a liar?
Most of the countries on the 2002 roadmap for taking down governments that he is referring to have already had a "revolution". Syria is left, and so is Sudan, where surprise, surprise - the uprising just started.

If there ever was a case of "the proof is in the pudding", this is it.
The USA is not even particularly secretive about it - they want those concerned to know what's coming.

There's nothing to explain. If I want something to happen and then it happens it doesn't automatically follow that I caused it to happen. I didn't like Gordon Brown and wanted him to lose the last general election and I voted against him, but it doesn't follow that I am therefore responsible for his subsequent election defeat.

<< If I want something to happen and then it happens it doesn't automatically follow that I caused it to happen.>>

The Stay-Puf Marshmallow Man Logical Fallacy

Originally Posted by kidkboom

<< If I want something to happen and then it happens it doesn't automatically follow that I caused it to happen.>>

The Stay-Puf Marshmallow Man Logical Fallacy

No, but there are an awful lot of countries in the world, so isn't it a very interesting co-incidence that precisely those regimes that the US wanted to take down, are taken down or struggling for survival?

As for Brits and others who are enamoured by the Land of the Free etc..
I suppose you also support extradition of Brits who never put their foot in the US, to the USA, for copyright crimes, terrorism charges and hacking as well? Not to mention people like Julian Assange, right? US bases in your country are a good thing, and drone strikes to target "terrorists" (and wipe the out together with their families and neighbours) is fair game...

I can not relate to your world view in that case, so there is no point having a discussion with you, it would be a waste of everyones time.