Yes, I do support a military strike.
No, I do not support a military strike due to a lack of evidence.
No, I do not support a military strike regardless of the evidence.
I did exactly what you asked. I copy and pasted the phrase into YouTube. Only two results that were in the last 2 months came up. That may have been my lack of experience searching youtube. But I don't give a . The onus is on you to give me the sources, your lucky I'm even looking for them myself. Most other members on this forum would have a fit if I tried making them looking for the sources that show them wrong.Yup that's my fault. Though obviously you didn't follow my instructions via Youtube. Plenty of brand new videos showing what has happened to Homs.
No ing considering you told me it was calm. You also told me operations hadn't been carried out for a while there. Sue me for listening to what you said.Yeah no ****. That wasn't the point. For someone that keeps claiming to only "want the sources" you sure do a lot of handwaiving and ignoring of what's going on.
I'm sick of trying to find your sources for you.Tell you what, copy-paste اشتباكات حمص into Youtube and then under filter select "this week." Then you'll see videos of fighting that is, oh my, this week.
Finally. We actually get the source I asked for. Thank you. That will be all. I accept fighting has resumed in Homs. Next time, just post the written source first. It'll save you writing out paragraphs shouting at me for some imaginary slight.This website is the the site of the large rebel formation which has its headquarters in Homs, the Farouq Brigades. In this post they are detailing events in the city today (the bombardment of civilians homes by 240mm mortars and a meeting conducted by officers to formulate a new military strategy for Homs after the influx of reinforcements).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdumNo, instead you could post entire cities, seeing they are intact, and see that nothing is going on. Seriously? Really now? Showing some fortress and showing a recently bombed city are two entirely different things.
Yes. Possibly childish, but honestly I don't care. I exaggerated. But I also gave a reasonable argument. The city has been decimated for months. There was no evidence that this was a recent building collapse. And the reply I got was a long line of 'hahahaha' repeating at me. Focusing on the clear exaggeration just demonstrates people have no position. It is the supplement to the argument. Not the argument itself. It shows what the argument is in effect saying by making it much easier to understand by taking it to extremes.
Yeah and replying to posts with 'hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha' is reasonable.Logic and reason are being thrown out the door here. Not reasonable at all.
Nobody have negate destructions and crimes made by the heterogeneous rebel group. But to play to "who is worst" is utterly rubbish when you try to justify the Assad's action.
But I guess you are a true man and everyone else is weak nature.
Last edited by Anna_Gein; February 28, 2013 at 01:33 PM.
Actually the rebels have planes now. And I would have assumed that they've captured some artillery. Though it's still 99% likely it's Assad.
Any word on that Syrian flying squadron? Is it operational yet? Or was it merely a propaganda stunt and they don't intend to get it running?
I've written "hahaha" in response to your post exactly once, so I'm not sure where the "over and over" thing comes from. And I never said I gave you a source, either. Because I don't find it necessary to source something so easily found.
You want to be objective. I get it. But when you keep finding excuses to discount such widely publicized facts, facts that don't necessarily even support the rebels, but are posted by people who do, it looks less like objectivity and more like insisting on being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. That or desperate to portray Assad as something different than the media portrays him as, a brutal dictator. Maybe you don't trust the media, I don't know. But I know that at a certain point the mental gymnastics make it seem like you've got an agenda of some sort.
I was told by Motiv that the place was calm and that operations hadn't been conducted recently. See my post above for the relevant quote. So no. This was not a clear cut issue, and as I've said before, I don't have much time to go trawling through endless sites for information. I use the sites I frequent most. Which don't often post the day to day occurrences of the war. And I'm an ancient historian, it's been drummed into me to trust no sources. So I'm naturally critical of them. A picture is hardly enough evidence for me.You want to be objective. I get it. But when you keep finding excuses to discount such widely publicized facts, facts that don't necessarily even support the rebels, but are posted by people who do, it looks less like objectivity and more like insisting on being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. That or desperate to portray Assad as something different than the media portrays him as, a brutal dictator. Maybe you don't trust the media, I don't know. But I know that at a certain point the mental gymnastics make it seem like you've got an agenda of some sort.
And everyone has an agenda. I try to be objective. But I'm contrarian by nature. This seeps through apparently.
Just saw this. Replying now. Sorry I didn't notice it.
No. The onus is on you (or in this case the person I was arguing with) to provide the sources that prove me wrong. I don't use youtube. I do not really understand how it works. That is not my fault. This is the standard practice in the mudpit. I went pretty drastic by even looking for videos in the first place, despite not understanding the language of the videos I was looking for, or being knowledgeable about the search engine I was using.Copy your research then once you had your first page of result click on filter. There are dozens of results from the last weak and even from today. Learn how to use your tool.
Syrian regime did make some concessions in the beginning and maybe if a better dialogue was reached the concessions would have been made even more to suit the needs of the rebels. Of course the regime made some fatal mistakes in these beginning stages that set the stage for more violence. As for all the bloodshed/violence being worth it or no, we can only say after we see what type of regime the rebels institute if they take power.
[ Lord Mov = Armenum | Under Patronage of Jom | Llorandole debajo del agua ][ "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Matthew 6:21 ]
[ "If you've never eaten while crying, you don't know what life tastes like." Goethe ]
House of Caesars: Under the Patronage of Inkie Pie: Patron of Dante von Hespburg
Duchara Total War
I'm pretty sure America saw the cleansing of Tories at a rate per capita that is higher than Alawites are being removed from areas of Syria specifically because of their connection to the regime. Interestingly the amount of loyalists during the American Revolution has been estimated to about the same as what might constitute loyalist elements in Syria as well, some 15-20 percent. The fleeing of those loyalists whether by force or at the invitation of the British Crown or because they did not want to be a part of the new republic, as well as the confiscation of their properties, was an issue still being resolved in the 1790s.
However it's getting pretty tiring hearing Alawites being singled out when the nearly one million refugees outside of the country (not even counting the internally-displaced) are overwhelmingly Sunni Muslims. In nearly two years of revolution, over one year of fighting, the mass-slaughter of Alawites hasn't materialized yet. Instead its the majority population that is suffering monstrously.
Last edited by motiv-8; February 28, 2013 at 09:49 PM.
قرطاج يجب ان تدمر