RoccoR
Gold Member
toastman, Roudy, et al,
Nearly everyone has an agenda they promote. PF Tinmore and SherriMunnerlyn have one (pro-Palestinian) and there are others that are pro-Israeli. Once you add in the Syrian issue, the debate become even more complicated. Inserting the Iranians and Hezbollah into the equation, and it become extremely complex. With that come the Sunni-Shi'ite confrontation that adds another flammable mixture to the fire.
And, we haven't even begun to talk about the Quartet, the EU, and the Regional coalitions that have some finger in the pie.
A number of political entities have wanted to help the situation in Syria. You and "JROC" are correct, in that Syria is a client state of Russia; but, it also has a relationship of a similar sort with Iran. And Iran has a client non-state actor relationship to Hezbollah. No matter which side and external observer picks, there are elements involved that taint the choice.
This does not take into account that the Syrian debacle is truly an extension of the Arab Spring, a revolutionary wave of demonstrations, protests, and conflict to effect regime change by domestic edict (not external influences).
The external observers are very concerned that if they get involved in any way, the outcome will be such that the emerging new government will bite the hand that helped them. Caution is the order of the day.
The hard core pro-Palestinian movement is not really about being pro-Palestinian, as it is being anti-Israel. It is not about a clear and firm assessment about what is being done right and what is being done wrong. It is about the wrong that Israel does. In that respect, you have to understand that there is no ground on which a debate can be held in any informative way. Someone will be on the defensive and someone will be on the offensive. It is not a public question in an assembly or discussion forum, involving opposing viewpoints expressed through processes of critical thinking.
In this setting, the opposition will not objectively look at any action the opponent makes as a positive effort. So anything the Israeli does is a negative and based on some anti-Palestinian agenda.
Most Respectfully,
R
Nearly everyone has an agenda they promote. PF Tinmore and SherriMunnerlyn have one (pro-Palestinian) and there are others that are pro-Israeli. Once you add in the Syrian issue, the debate become even more complicated. Inserting the Iranians and Hezbollah into the equation, and it become extremely complex. With that come the Sunni-Shi'ite confrontation that adds another flammable mixture to the fire.
And, we haven't even begun to talk about the Quartet, the EU, and the Regional coalitions that have some finger in the pie.
(COMMENT)Since 2012 the US has tried to help the Syrian people. But after Libya, they are very hesitant. So this president is going to stand by while the Syrian leader commits genocide on his own people. And you guys are Assad's biggest supporters because he has been enemies with Israel.
That's what it comes down to in a nutshell. People like you don't give a shit about Syrians or Palestinians, or anybody. Your hatred of Jews and Israel is the prime motivating factor.
A number of political entities have wanted to help the situation in Syria. You and "JROC" are correct, in that Syria is a client state of Russia; but, it also has a relationship of a similar sort with Iran. And Iran has a client non-state actor relationship to Hezbollah. No matter which side and external observer picks, there are elements involved that taint the choice.
Example of the Trap
- If the US were to side with the Free Syrian Army (Rebel Forces), then by extension, there is a connection to al-Qaeda and Hamas; which have sided with the Rebels.
- If the US were to side with the Assad Regime (Government Forces), then by extension, they have established a connection with the Iranians (IRGC-QF), and Hezbollah.
This does not take into account that the Syrian debacle is truly an extension of the Arab Spring, a revolutionary wave of demonstrations, protests, and conflict to effect regime change by domestic edict (not external influences).
The external observers are very concerned that if they get involved in any way, the outcome will be such that the emerging new government will bite the hand that helped them. Caution is the order of the day.
(COMMENT)Sherri didn't shed a tear for any of the 80 000 slaughtered civilians in Syria. But the moment Israel bombed the so called 'research center' , she was all over the story and condemned Israel for killing the soldiers in the center.
Pro - Palestinian hypocrisy at its best !
The hard core pro-Palestinian movement is not really about being pro-Palestinian, as it is being anti-Israel. It is not about a clear and firm assessment about what is being done right and what is being done wrong. It is about the wrong that Israel does. In that respect, you have to understand that there is no ground on which a debate can be held in any informative way. Someone will be on the defensive and someone will be on the offensive. It is not a public question in an assembly or discussion forum, involving opposing viewpoints expressed through processes of critical thinking.
In this setting, the opposition will not objectively look at any action the opponent makes as a positive effort. So anything the Israeli does is a negative and based on some anti-Palestinian agenda.
Most Respectfully,
R