Should the US intervene in Syria?

Food for thought from CaspianReport:

12 Responses to “Should the US intervene in Syria?”

  1. Juggernaut Says:

    I held the opinion that the U.S. shouldn’t intervene before watching and this (insightful) video further reinforces the point. The U.S. should not get involved militarily at all, and should stop sending any money to the Syrian rebels.

    Both the Syrian government and the rebels have committed atrocities which make them both equally undeserving of the funds. The jihadist rebels kidnap innocent people’s families in exchange for ransom money to use for weapons. That and they are much more radically religious than the current dictatorship. The U.S. shouldn’t intervene at all, but I hope the Syrian government wins. The islamofascist rebels deserve every particle of gas that enters their lungs.

    Xanthippa says:

    I think it’s rather like picking between Hitler and Stalin: contrary to the popular opinion in ‘The West’ during the WWII, there is no correct choice!

    Just like before, backing either side will make us directly complicit in crimes against humanity.

    So, while not taking sides is horrible and, to most humanitarians ‘higly repulsive’ due to the undeniably terrible human suffering of ‘regular’ Syrians, if we cannot find a third side to this conflict which does not commit atrocities, we cannot, in good conscience, interfere for the real likelihood of making an already horrid situation even worse…

    All we can do is take the civilian refugees, put them into refugee camps where we investigate and vet them extremely thoroughty (and I say this as a refugee who was thoroughly vetted in a refugee camp – it is a JUST process which, while not ‘comfortable’, I considered a VERY CHEAP price to pay for ‘safe refuge’) to weed out any and all Sharia supporters, and then open our hearts and homes to the moderate civilians who had passed the thorough vetting process and were proved to be simply seeking to escape the conflict.

    These should then be separated into two distinct groups: one who wishes to assimilate into our culture, agrees to obey our laws and social conventions – who should be integrated into our society as soon and as best as possible, and the second group of those who wish to return to Syria once the armed conflict is over, to whom we should provide comfortable homes, with education for their children and full health care and all that, but who would be separated (by their own choice!) from the greater civilization until it is safe for them to return to Syria.

    Those we deem to be combattantans hiding among the civilians we should hand over to the UN for the UN to judge and to do with what UN deems best, with the understanding that if they ever enter our countries, they will summarily be held in jail as ‘enemy combattants’ (according to UN laws) and deported to Syria once the hostilities there cease.

    • Juggernaut Says:

      What do you mean by “we” and “our”. Do you suggest the west actually go to Syria to set up refugee camps and filter the moderates from the extremists. Especially, by force. If so, and I’m not misunderstanding you, then that would not be a good idea.

      It would be a logicistical nightmare, costing time and money. Blood as well, because if we set up camps in a volatile country we will also risk terrorist attacks on our soldiers and need more troops to protect the camps. So we are going to forcibly manage an entire country when our countries have enough problems in them already.

      IMO, the best thing we can do is keep our militaries strong, be vigiliant and send explicit warning that any impact the civil war has outside of the country, Syria will be directly held responsible for it. Then, we cut off all aid, declare that we are unafilliated and nuetral and keep out of the country entirely unless it is in our direct interest.

      The only thing WORSE than surgically striking Syria would be trying to manage it from the inside.

      Xanthippa says:

      Oh, I agree with you 100%!!!

      When I speak of refugees and refugee camps, I mean only those people who would flee Syria and make it into OUR respective countries.

      As in, we would not interfere in Syria in any way, militarily or through supplying one or both sides. All we would be doing is providing safe harbour for those people who would enter US, Canada, EU, etc – remember, I have gone through this process myself, though as a political refugee and not fleeing a war. That is why I was elaborating on how to treat the people inside the camps – to protect the genuine refugees from the militants who would certainly try to sneak in among them!

      • EatShitBigot Says:

        Agreed. We should also filter out any libertarians, conversatives and other bigots like you. Is there anyone else we should exclude via your thought-control procedures?

        Xanthippa says:
        Which refugee camp did you go through and experience?

        I went through the refugee camp in Traiskirchen – and the separation of militants is standard operating procedure in the UN operated refugee camps already. I am simply asserting that it ought to be continued.

        And it is not any kind of thought-control, but regular police work to see if there are outstanding warrants for a person’s arrest – and for what reason – registered with Interpol, if one is on a list of known terrorists, etc.

        This is a necessary step to protect the refugees from being exploited by these criminals: it is not unusual to threaten to harm their still-remaining family in their place of origin if they don’t turn over money etc.

        The only addition I am suggesting to the existing system is to make allowances for people who are fleeing the war, but do not wish to relocate to the new country permanently. By THEIR choice.

        This was actually suggested to me by some Tamil friends who were returning to Sri Lanka once the civil war there ended. They felt bad leaving Canada, which offered them refuge (and citizenship) but they had never wanted to make Canada their permanent home. I think that creating a special status for this type of a refugee, where they could accept help but not feel they are betraying their host country should they be able to return to their homeland would be a good idea.

        Any refugee who passes the background check could then choose if they wish to relocate to their country of refuge permanently, or not. The services could then be tailored to them.

        For example if there were teachers among those refugees who wish to return, they could be hired to instruct the other refugees children in their native tongue, and so on, so that re-integration once their home country is a safe place to return to would be as easy on the children as possible.

        Indeed, how very, very bigoted of me….

      • Juggernaut Says:

        ok, i understand

  2. EatShitBigot Says:

    “And it is not any kind of thought-control, but regular police work to see if there are outstanding warrants for a person’s arrest – and for what reason – registered with Interpol, if one is on a list of known terrorists, etc.”

    Yeah, except that isn’t at all what you wrote. I shouldn’t have to cut and paste it because it is on the same page, and because you wrote it (for fuck’s sake!), but anyway…. you wrote that the purpose of the vetting would be to “to weed out any and all Sharia supporters”. What you proposed was a thought-control process. Full stop. Which is not at all surprising, given your extreme hated of Muslims and your support for various types of political repression and control fo speech aimed at Muslims. But it takes a special kind of moronic and cowardly fucktard to write one thing and then try to pretend you didn’t write that thing that is still visible on the page. But it is extremely consistent of your behaviour to support political oppression of Muslims until you are confronted with your words, and then pretend you never did.

    • EatShitBigot Says:

      And just out of curiousity, when the trains of refugees come into the camp and the camp guards seperate them out into “good muslims” and “bad muslims”, what do you propose to do with the bad muslims?

      Also, as a refugee to Canada who obviously hates Canadian cultural values, how did you pass the vetting process and when are you going to get the fuck out of our country?

      • CodeSlinger Says:

        What the hell do you know about Canadian values?

        Real Canadians are hardy, down-to-earth, self-reliant people. We are friendly and helpful, but not at all submissive. And we have had it up to our gullets with this multi-culti, collectivist, politcally “correct” double talk, which you and your progressive cronies are trying to shove down our throats.

        Stick your nose off campus and out of your inner-city womb sometime, and find out just what real Canadians think of your incessant, cowardly bleating.

    • Juggernaut Says:

      you’re starting to become a regular around here. and i love you, shitface.

      Xanthippa says:

      Juggernaut, I do believe it is only appropriate to refer to our little fecophilliac bigot as ‘shitface’ only when he forgets to wash up after snacks…

  3. EatShitBigot Says:

    Dear Anders “Codeslinger” Brevik….. go fuck off and die. You don’t know shit about real Canadians or real Canadian values. If you recall, you are the one that has advertised your intent to amass a cache of military grade weaponry to eventually turn on your fellow Canadians. You are a sick, bigot fuck and a potential terrorist as far as I’m concerned.

    Xanthippa says:

    Now, now, no need to be so Alinsky!

    Of course, there is still the very real possibility that you are indeed a Poe and that this is your twisted way of saying that CodeSlinger is indeed the opposite of all you hurl in his general direction. If that is the case and you are not the brainless git you present yourself as, please, use your mental capacities a little more creatively!

    • CodeSlinger Says:

      It’s alright, Xanthippa, that’s the kind of language that comes spewing out every time a progressive loses an argument.

      No wonder progressives want laws restricting speech.

      They think the rest of us are as vile and as sore losers as they are.

  4. CodeSlinger Says:


    Your question presumes that the US is not already intervening in Syria.

    In fact, they are – just not openly.

    There would be no credible uprising in Syria without the clandestine support of the US, UK, Turkey, and Israel.

    Xanthippa says:

    Of course, you are correct – I named the post after the video.

    We know Christopher Stevens was running guns from Benghazi to Syria…

  5. CodeSlinger Says:


    Precisely. It’s amusing to watch how studiously this issue is being avoided by Congress, the media, and the “whistleblowers” alike.

    Well, it would be amusing if it weren’t so detrimental to peace in the Middle East.

    The only mainstream news outlet that has the pluck to touch the matter is Fox News, and even they only mentioned it once, six months ago: Was Syrian weapons shipment factor in ambassador’s Benghazi visit?

    See my posts here and here for more details.

    The logic behind it is simple. The Americans and British want to isolate Iran, the Turks want to curry favour with NATO, and the Israelis want to annex the rest of Syria; the Golan Heights aren’t enough for them.

    Meanwhile, Syrians who have come to Canada to escape the bloodshed tell me that the people of Syria are mostly behind Assad, and against the rebels – just as the people of Libya were mostly behind Gaddafi and against the rebels.

    Syria is the new Libya.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: