alpine_saint Posted 1 June, 2011 Share Posted 1 June, 2011 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1392684/Hamza-child-martyr-tortured-death-Syrian-soldiers.html Any objections ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 1 June, 2011 Share Posted 1 June, 2011 I was hoping you were going to say FIFA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 1 June, 2011 Author Share Posted 1 June, 2011 Well, whilst I share your sentiment, there is already a couple of threads on how revolting they are on General Sports. This news article turned me cold this morning, and I cant get it out of my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 1 June, 2011 Share Posted 1 June, 2011 Well, whilst I share your sentiment, there is already a couple of threads on how revolting they are on General Sports. This news article turned me cold this morning, and I cant get it out of my head. US supports many brutal regimes around the world that do similar things. Depends on commercial interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 1 June, 2011 Share Posted 1 June, 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/31/syria-unrest-teenage-victim-hamza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 1 June, 2011 Author Share Posted 1 June, 2011 US supports many brutal regimes around the world that do similar things. Depends on commercial interests. What the f**k is your point ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 1 June, 2011 Share Posted 1 June, 2011 What the f**k is your point ? I think he is referring to the fact that large western corporations have commercial interests in Syria and that any military 'intervention' would harm those business interests, therefore it is unlikely to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1976_Child Posted 1 June, 2011 Share Posted 1 June, 2011 If we bomb Syria then it is game over. Syria is the real tinderbox in the region. And it has precious little resources so not worth our while. In fact, if a kid has to be tortured to death to keep the status quo and the wider region peaceful and the oil flowing then c'est la vie. Naturally, I don't hold that opinion but it is what is called Real Politik. Real Politics. Libya was an easy target - militarily and politically. He had few friends but a whole bunch of delicious super-light sweet crude. The best oil in the world. 1.5 million barrels of the stuff each day. The poor kid came from a country which is the delinquent son of Iran and having nothing worth bothering about under its sand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 1 June, 2011 Share Posted 1 June, 2011 It's not our problem. And as far as i'm aware they have no oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 1 June, 2011 Share Posted 1 June, 2011 What the f**k is your point ? We'll only bomb such regimes if we don't have significant commercial interests to lose. (That's putting aside the strategic feasibility of it) It's like when the western world praises Aung San Suu Kyi and rightly so, whilst the French government props up the military junta through Total oil and opposes sanctions. If it wasn't so tragic it would be amusing. There's a lot of evil in the world, but it's money that ultimately decides if we turn a blind eye to it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1976_Child Posted 1 June, 2011 Share Posted 1 June, 2011 We'll only bomb such regimes if we don't have significant commercial interests to lose. (That's putting aside the strategic feasibility of it) It's like when the western world praises Aung San Suu Kyi and rightly so, whilst the French government props up the military junta through Total oil and opposes sanctions. If it wasn't so tragic it would be amusing. There's a lot of evil in the world, but it's money that ultimately decides if we turn a blind eye to it or not. No, it is not. It is the resources that the country has. You may think this is semantics but it is critical to distinguish between money and resources. If it was all about money then it would have been cheaper for the US Taxpayer to just write a cheque to Halliburton et al rather than spend the gazillions of dollars to prosecute the war in Iraq. It is always about the resources, which no matter how ingenious one's central bank is simply can not be wished into existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 1 June, 2011 Author Share Posted 1 June, 2011 Always amuses me how people can talk so dispassionately about realpolitik when its something happening to others in "nig-nog" land... A boy, not much older than my eldest son, was treated like a f**king lump of meat. I worry about a world where people can shrug their shoulders at this sort of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1976_Child Posted 1 June, 2011 Share Posted 1 June, 2011 Always amuses me how people can talk so dispassionately about realpolitik when its something happening to others in "nig-nog" land... A boy, not much older than my eldest son, was treated like a f**king lump of meat. I worry about a world where people can shrug their shoulders at this sort of thing. Not sure I shrugged my shoulders. In fact I said that it was not my opinion. I am horrified by this story. However, other than international pressure on the regime through diplomatic - and possibly economic - sanctions there is precious little we can do about it. There is absolutely no way that we can remove that regime by force. It would unleash Iran. And Iran is a massive supplier of gas.... to China. Who has a veto on the UN Security Council. Like I said, Libya was politically an easy ride. Gaddafy had no real support anywhere. Iran/Syria is a completely different kettle of fish. And never mind that Syria shares a pretty big border with a small country called Israel. The boy was tortured. Extremely sad. But other boys are tortured all over the world. Kids in the poorest parts of Asia and the Orient are paid 10p a day for a 14 hour shift to remove highly carcinogenic solder and rare-earth metals from discarded electronic goods that us rich western consumers chuck away just as soon as the newest version comes out. For many, the world is not a very pleasant place but everyone of us in the west is at fault. Our actions, more than anything else - our collective purchasing decisions - are just as 'evil' as the torturers who killed that little boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumuah Posted 1 June, 2011 Share Posted 1 June, 2011 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1392684/Hamza-child-martyr-tortured-death-Syrian-soldiers.html Any objections ? We should, but we can't. We can't really afford the two wars we are currently fighting. Most of the ships we could have used to do this have just been scrapped. And the planes. No many 'friendly' airfields to base our planes in that region - what we really need is an aircraft carrier with ground attack aircraft (and not just a bodged Apaches on a helicopter carrier solution) . Do you think they can hold on for another 10-15 years while we sort ourselves out?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 1 June, 2011 Share Posted 1 June, 2011 Always amuses me how people can talk so dispassionately about realpolitik when its something happening to others in "nig-nog" land... A boy, not much older than my eldest son, was treated like a f**king lump of meat. I worry about a world where people can shrug their shoulders at this sort of thing. I have never heard of this country of which you speak. Is it near Austria? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamilton Saint Posted 1 June, 2011 Share Posted 1 June, 2011 Always amuses me how people can talk so dispassionately about realpolitik when its something happening to others in "nig-nog" land... A boy, not much older than my eldest son, was treated like a f**king lump of meat. I worry about a world where people can shrug their shoulders at this sort of thing. So, your response to torture and killing is to "bomb the f*ck" out of the country, which would indiscriminantly kill and maim innocent civilians. Where's the logic or empathy in that response? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 1 June, 2011 Share Posted 1 June, 2011 We won't be bombing Syria. They don't have any oil. They have been a closed "Communist" style system since forever and so Western Companies have not been able to gain a globalisation foothold in the country so no foreign interests of donors to US Politicians to worry about. We didn't bomb them the last time they did all this stuff either. Ain't no money in it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 1 June, 2011 Author Share Posted 1 June, 2011 So, your response to torture and killing is to "bomb the f*ck" out of the country, which would indiscriminantly kill and maim innocent civilians. Where's the logic or empathy in that response? Well, Sarkozy, Cameron, Berlusconi and Obama seem to think its OK and worthwhile in Libya... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armitage Shanks Posted 1 June, 2011 Share Posted 1 June, 2011 The boy was tortured. Extremely sad. Our actions, more than anything else - our collective purchasing decisions - are just as 'evil' as the torturers who killed that little boy. Your last sentence - you have to be saying this tongue in cheek? That or you are not very bright. To equate someone buying a tv or something similar to someone who tortures a 13 year old boy to death is rather stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamilton Saint Posted 1 June, 2011 Share Posted 1 June, 2011 Well, Sarkozy, Cameron, Berlusconi and Obama seem to think its OK and worthwhile in Libya... So, if it's OK with them, it ought to be OK with me? I prefer to think for myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1976_Child Posted 1 June, 2011 Share Posted 1 June, 2011 Your last sentence - you have to be saying this tongue in cheek? That or you are not very bright. To equate someone buying a tv or something similar to someone who tortures a 13 year old boy to death is rather stupid. Nope. No tongue in cheek and thank you but actually I am quite bright. I may however have a broader understanding of just how the real world works. We in the west are shielded by decades of propaganda about free-markets and the 'trickle down effect' and just how swell international trade is. The facts however do not bare out. The consumerist lifestyles we lead - the chuck away society - is equatable to what happened to this boy. Millions - nay, billions! - suffer because of our crazed bug-eyed gluttony. All those nice new iPhones (and, yes I have one too)? Well they all contain a very rare element called Tantalum which comes from a mineral called Coltan. With out Tantalum any modern portable electronic devices simply doesn't work at the required scale. The 'Democratic' Republic of Congo is home to vast reserves of Coltan and almost half of all production of Tantalum comes from mines - owned by western companies - deep inside the Congolese jungles. Go to those mines and you will see the most depressing, sickening sites of abstract poverty amongst the children of the nearby villages. I could list hundreds of side effects of the mining operations - operations which have precisely zero regulatory oversight - but perhaps the most horrific is the polluted water sources that the villagers have to drink. All sorts of horrid chemicals find there way into the ground water. Now, you tell me. Is that just? Is it right that we rich westerners exploit these people and their natural resources in this way? Is it right that the global mining companies and traders such as the recently-floated Glencore (the shares of which will now be a component of all pension funds, now it is in the FTSE100) benefit so handsomely at the detriment of other human beings? No. I call it evil. It is completely equatable to what has happened to that Syrian lad. The only difference is that his death was out in the open and some journos were there to report it. The repressive regimes around the world which play butler to the mining companies do their thuggery well out of reach of the media. And all so we can be rich and comfortable and lead closeted lives. Oh, and have buoyant pension funds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjsaint Posted 1 June, 2011 Share Posted 1 June, 2011 Nope. No tongue in cheek and thank you but actually I am quite bright. I may however have a broader understanding of just how the real world works. We in the west are shielded by decades of propaganda about free-markets and the 'trickle down effect' and just how swell international trade is. The facts however do not bare out. The consumerist lifestyles we lead - the chuck away society - is equatable to what happened to this boy. Millions - nay, billions! - suffer because of our crazed bug-eyed gluttony. All those nice new iPhones (and, yes I have one too)? Well they all contain a very rare element called Tantalum which comes from a mineral called Coltan. With out Tantalum any modern portable electronic devices simply doesn't work at the required scale. The 'Democratic' Republic of Congo is home to vast reserves of Coltan and almost half of all production of Tantalum comes from mines - owned by western companies - deep inside the Congolese jungles. Go to those mines and you will see the most depressing, sickening sites of abstract poverty amongst the children of the nearby villages. I could list hundreds of side effects of the mining operations - operations which have precisely zero regulatory oversight - but perhaps the most horrific is the polluted water sources that the villagers have to drink. All sorts of horrid chemicals find there way into the ground water. No it isn't right, but to compare the plight of Congolese miners to a 13-year-old who was tortured is a seriously odd leap in logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 1 June, 2011 Share Posted 1 June, 2011 1976 - I think questions are already being asked of Glencore http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13620185 I think concerns have been raised too about their ethics and exploitations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1976_Child Posted 1 June, 2011 Share Posted 1 June, 2011 (edited) No it isn't right, but to compare the plight of Congolese miners to a 13-year-old who was tortured is a seriously odd leap in logic. I disagree. Why is it? The lad was tortured by a regime which wants to stay in power and maintain their privileges. Likewise the villagers/miners are subjected to a serious and deliberate degradation of their living standards and are also beaten up and murdered on occasion to keep from protesting. To know 'their place'. Thuggery in Congo linked directly to mining operations has been well documented by human rights advocacy groups such as Human Rights Watch. Go to Human Rights Watch's website: http://www.hrw.org You will see top and center a report about the evil in Syria. Now go to http://www.hrw.org/en/publications/reports?filter0=**ALL**&filter1=96 which a filtered list of all their reports on atrocities in DR Congo. Where is the difference? None, in my mind. These atrocities in Congo - and the wider war/displacement - is a direct consequence of the resource grab. Like I said earlier, any difference is only because people have been propagandized into believing that there is one. Because to acknowledge the Congolese atrocities is the first step in understanding that it is our lifestyles which ultimately precipitates it. So, being human and thoroughly brain-washed, we use the iPhone but shed all responsibility. On the other hand, there is a discernible brutal regime with which we have absolutely no connection, in Syria, so we are free from guilt to report it on the front pages of our newspapers and condemn it. So, you think I am being relativistic in my morality? Edited 1 June, 2011 by 1976_Child Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 1 June, 2011 Share Posted 1 June, 2011 No, it is not. It is the resources that the country has. You may think this is semantics but it is critical to distinguish between money and resources. If it was all about money then it would have been cheaper for the US Taxpayer to just write a cheque to Halliburton et al rather than spend the gazillions of dollars to prosecute the war in Iraq. It is always about the resources, which no matter how ingenious one's central bank is simply can not be wished into existence. Then why do many of the poorest countries have lots of resources being taken from them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1976_Child Posted 1 June, 2011 Share Posted 1 June, 2011 Then why do many of the poorest countries have lots of resources being taken from them? Eh? Because we need them to continue our standard of living. The point I am making is precisely the one you have alluded to! It is not - repeat NOT - about money. Money is a human construct, especially the fiat kind. It is not bound to anything, is purely abstract. Resources are what really matters. Mineral and hydrocarbon resources - along with potable water, topsoil, clean air etc (what are collectively known as the Commons) - can not be created out of thin air. Credit - aka, money - most certainly can be wished into existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 1 June, 2011 Author Share Posted 1 June, 2011 Sorry, I draw a distinction between poverty caused by the extremes of capitalism, and kidnapping a child, breaking his f**king neck, cutting off his goolies, beating him black-and-blue, stubbing fags out on him and shooting him several times... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1976_Child Posted 1 June, 2011 Share Posted 1 June, 2011 (edited) Sorry, I draw a distinction between poverty caused by the extremes of capitalism, and kidnapping a child, breaking his f**king neck, cutting off his goolies, beating him black-and-blue, stubbing fags out on him and shooting him several times... Then I respectfully suggest you go read the HRW reports I linked to above. And also reflect on what I said about us being propagandized into believing that the Congolese villagers are just a 'by-product' - unfortunate though it may be - of 'extremes of capitalism'; a sort of waste product. The part where you say 'distinction between poverty caused by...' is telling. The blind hypocrisy stinks. If a family is terrorized in Congo or Syria, what difference is there? Edited 1 June, 2011 by 1976_Child Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farawaysaint Posted 1 June, 2011 Share Posted 1 June, 2011 Someone bomb Zim for me while you're at it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamilton Saint Posted 2 June, 2011 Share Posted 2 June, 2011 Sorry, I draw a distinction between poverty caused by the extremes of capitalism, and kidnapping a child, breaking his f**king neck, cutting off his goolies, beating him black-and-blue, stubbing fags out on him and shooting him several times... Do you draw a distinction between killing an innocent child up-close and personal, and killing an innocent child by dropping a bomb on him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1976_Child Posted 2 June, 2011 Share Posted 2 June, 2011 Do you draw a distinction between killing an innocent child up-close and personal, and killing an innocent child by dropping a bomb on him? well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 2 June, 2011 Author Share Posted 2 June, 2011 Do you draw a distinction between killing an innocent child up-close and personal, and killing an innocent child by dropping a bomb on him? Yes, because the child wasnt the target of the bomb, but he was of the shooting. This distinction is also defined in law as the difference between murder and manslaughter. You can try to justify anything like the bleeding-neart Guardianista you seem to be portraying, but the bottom line is that this kid was deliberately singled out and horrifcally abused and murdered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjsaint Posted 2 June, 2011 Share Posted 2 June, 2011 Yes, because the child wasnt the target of the bomb, but he was of the shooting. This distinction is also defined in law as the difference between murder and manslaughter. You can try to justify anything like the bleeding-neart Guardianista you seem to be portraying, but the bottom line is that this kid was deliberately singled out and horrifcally abused and murdered. Absolutely, well said. There is a huge difference, and we should count ourselves lucky that most of our politicians have the wisdom to be able to draw this distinction and act accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farawaysaint Posted 2 June, 2011 Share Posted 2 June, 2011 Absolutely, well said. There is a huge difference, and we should count ourselves lucky that most of our politicians have the wisdom to be able to draw this distinction and act accordingly. FFS, it's all very well and good America and Britain playing world police but there are far worse regimes in power, particularly in Africa, but nothing is done about them barring a few meaningless sanctions. The only time they get off their arses and do something about it is when their is an important resource at stake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamilton Saint Posted 2 June, 2011 Share Posted 2 June, 2011 Yes, because the child wasnt the target of the bomb, but he was of the shooting. This distinction is also defined in law as the difference between murder and manslaughter. You can try to justify anything like the bleeding-neart Guardianista you seem to be portraying, but the bottom line is that this kid was deliberately singled out and horrifcally abused and murdered. I am not justifying anything - and nothing I have said gives you the right to make that claim. Stick to the argument. Don't try to wriggle out of it by making ad hominem attacks. If your concern is for the fate of the innocent victim then there is no distinction. The victim is still dead. Your original point was that disgust with the horrific killing of this innocent child justifies "bombing the f*ck" out of Syria. Bombing can kill scores, hundreds, thousands of innocent lives. You don't achieve justice by punishing an entire community for the crimes of individuals. You don't achieve justice for an innocent victim by killing other innocent victims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 2 June, 2011 Share Posted 2 June, 2011 What oil did Afghanistan have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGTL Posted 2 June, 2011 Share Posted 2 June, 2011 What oil did Afghanistan have? About 1.8 billion barrels. I've counted. According to US Geologists, there is $1 trillion worth of mineral resources there too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 2 June, 2011 Share Posted 2 June, 2011 About 1.8 billion barrels. I've counted. According to US Geologists, there is $1 trillion worth of mineral resources there too. Working for Trant has made you boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 2 June, 2011 Share Posted 2 June, 2011 About 1.8 billion barrels. I've counted. According to US Geologists, there is $1 trillion worth of mineral resources there too. That's not a lot of oil. And it was only discovered last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 2 June, 2011 Share Posted 2 June, 2011 What oil did Afghanistan have? not a great deal, but the taliban provided a training ground for al qeada......who have caused untold terror around the world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 2 June, 2011 Share Posted 2 June, 2011 not a great deal, but the taliban provided a training ground for al qeada......who have caused untold terror around the world Thankyou, finally someone says the real reason we went to war in Afghanistan! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 2 June, 2011 Share Posted 2 June, 2011 Good posts by 1976_Child and Hamilton Saint. Daily Mail style outrage over how terrible one event is, doesn't lessen the horror of other events or actions. "Bombing the ****" out of a country will leave plenty of other 13 year old boys mutilated and dying in agony. Quite surprised by the amount of calm rational sense has been spoken by the former poster, he's not someone I expected to agree with, but he's seen through this straight to the point of the matter. he's not dismissing or ignoring the horror and not saying it doesn't disgust him (apparently the opposite). he's looking at the situation and giving quite a convincing argument with a level head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 2 June, 2011 Share Posted 2 June, 2011 Thankyou, finally someone says the real reason we went to war in Afghanistan! as a result, al qeada are no where near as strong as they were 10 years ago...whether that means we are safer in the world....who knows... what is more worrying...and can only see it getting worse...is the taliban influence in the nuclear state that is pakistan......very worrying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 2 June, 2011 Share Posted 2 June, 2011 as a result, al qeada are no where near as strong as they were 10 years ago...whether that means we are safer in the world....who knows... what is more worrying...and can only see it getting worse...is the taliban influence in the nuclear state that is pakistan......very worrying Indeed, Al Qaeda as an organisation are wrecked. You can't kill the idea though and other groups will attempt to take their place. Indeed, I dread to think what would happen if nuts like the Taleban got their hand on nuclear weapons because a lot of these people wouldn't even care about being bombed back because they are going to heaven anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGTL Posted 2 June, 2011 Share Posted 2 June, 2011 That's not a lot of oil. And it was only discovered last year. I know, I was answering your question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 2 June, 2011 Share Posted 2 June, 2011 I know, I was answering your question. Oh right, sorry. My sarcasm detector is off today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 2 June, 2011 Share Posted 2 June, 2011 Reading the article I fear a similar fate has already met the father Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebastian firefly Posted 2 June, 2011 Share Posted 2 June, 2011 No it isn't right, but to compare the plight of Congolese miners to a 13-year-old who was tortured is a seriously odd leap in logic. nope its just relative Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 June, 2011 Author Share Posted 6 June, 2011 I am not justifying anything - and nothing I have said gives you the right to make that claim. Stick to the argument. Don't try to wriggle out of it by making ad hominem attacks. If your concern is for the fate of the innocent victim then there is no distinction. The victim is still dead. Your original point was that disgust with the horrific killing of this innocent child justifies "bombing the f*ck" out of Syria. Bombing can kill scores, hundreds, thousands of innocent lives. You don't achieve justice by punishing an entire community for the crimes of individuals. You don't achieve justice for an innocent victim by killing other innocent victims. You are full of sh*t. The UK, Italy, France and the US (to a lesser degree) have determined exactly that in the case of Libya. They have decided that they can help bring about regime change by bombing. they are attempting to hit targets that would weaken Gadaffis grip on power, and are not deliberately targetting innocents, something you Gardianistas consistently and spectacularly fail to grasp. The only reasons that they arent trying the same thing in Syria are that they dont have the business interests to protect, there is sod-all chance of lucrative oil contracts, and they are sh*t scared of Iran taking over the country by the back door. All cyncial "realpolitik" reasons that people like you find so easy to discuss in an abstract manner, but all of which make this little boys plight all the more disgraceful. If you dont like me expressing my revulsion over his case, sod off elsewhere and post. I find comments that try to minimise the tragedy of his case by saying almost "well it happens elsewhere too" absolutely disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 6 June, 2011 Share Posted 6 June, 2011 (edited) You are full of sh*t. The UK, Italy, France and the US (to a lesser degree) have determined exactly that in the case of Libya. They have decided that they can help bring about regime change by bombing. they are attempting to hit targets that would weaken Gadaffis grip on power, and are not deliberately targetting innocents, something you Gardianistas consistently and spectacularly fail to grasp. The only reasons that they arent trying the same thing in Syria are that they dont have the business interests to protect, there is sod-all chance of lucrative oil contracts, and they are sh*t scared of Iran taking over the country by the back door. All cyncial "realpolitik" reasons that people like you find so easy to discuss in an abstract manner, but all of which make this little boys plight all the more disgraceful. If you dont like me expressing my revulsion over his case, sod off elsewhere and post. I find comments that try to minimise the tragedy of his case by saying almost "well it happens elsewhere too" absolutely disgusting. Problem is it's true. It's absolutely horrendous but there are far more horrendous incidents like this that go on around the world than the US/UK have bombs. As for kidnapping and torturing kids under 18 the US are as guilty of it as anyone. Besides, by bombing them your inevitably going to accidentally hit civilians/kids who'll suffer similar horrendous injuries. And they'll think the same of us as you do of the Syrian creatures that did this to the kid. If you use violence you'll make the problem significantly worse, not better. You don't put a fire out with petrol. Edited 6 June, 2011 by JackFrost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now