How can peace in Syria be achieved?

[Caustic Logic]

Because the regime will round lots of people up, torture and execute them to set an example. You'd know that if you were honest with yourself about the pro-Nazi regime you're defending.

Fair point. The danger of mass retaliation is of course very real - whoever wins, if you're really honest about it (see: Libya). I don't see a good way around that except for noting, from my point of view anyway, the false-flagging child slashers who've demonized the government with their own brutality, and sporadically promised to send "Christians to Beirut and Alawites to the grave" might be worse than the demonized government that's been trying to hold things together in relative peace, and managed for years until recently.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Leftist ideology ≠ history.

Maybe not, but it's a valid viewpoint. So is yours, I guess.

 

[Childlike Empress]

No one needs to "drag the rest of the world into it". Your friend needs to learn some history. The Middle East is not a weird foreign place separate from the West. The West has been intimately involved with it, carving it up while encouraging its worst elements and suppressing its best, for over a century.

Exactly. Maybe start with researching where all those odd little countries come from and make it through to realizing that even the flag the "rebels" fly indicates the neo-colonialist nature of this crude regime change attempt.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Maybe you can make another dishonest video about Houla that doesn't show anything close to what you claim it does,

Still awaiting an explanation of that. I presume you mean Houla massacre, Saad Street incident, pt. 1. I think the other Houla one, Houla massacre, 2 versions - UNSMIS Robert Mood, June 15, undeniably shows what it says, so that's not it. But remembering who I'm dealing with here, maybe that is what you meant. There are the links if you need to refresh yourself on what you thought was dishonest. citing specifics and time stamps might help.

 

[HoverBoarder]

Sure. The sources are there to check if you have any doubts.

Yeah, I have... About 5 seconds from clicking on your sources show that you were blatantly lying about it. Something that anyone else can easily see for themsleves as well. Although I don't think there are that many people who would seriously buy your 35 number as realistic.

Same as anyone who clicks on your Sari evidence can see that you were blatantly lying about that, same as anyone who clicks on your Houla videos can see that you are blatantly lying, same as anyone who clicks on your wiki, etc. etc.

The problem is not that people can't see for themselves the errors and contradictions in your statements and claims. The problem is that there is inevitably going to be people who will take what you say at face value, without realizing that you never had any intention of being honest in the first place.

Oh you love it now. Don't suppose you can explain how this particular range is suggested? It's not done explicitly anyway. As usual, you fail to specify any dates for your "before" type words. And now you've inserted "major" to the fighting part, so your definition of major is an issue. Previously it was no fighters, so everyone killed by anyone MUST be protesters/non-combatants killed by their government, you decided, running up to October-December. Now you seem to acknowledge fighting, just not major fighting, of the kind that kills 120 soldiers on June 6, for example.

You mean the 120 soldiers allegedly killed from regime executions for not firing at protesters, or are you taking any story that supports the regime side at face value again?

The 120 soldiers that were killed were done so right around a lot of other cases of reported executions of soldiers who were refusing to fire on protesters.

Around the time that there started to be major defections from army members for opposing the mass regime killings of protesters. Along with a lot of other witness claims of executions of army members who refused to fire on protesters. Leading up to July formation of the FSA, and eventually the major resistance that we have today when the Syrian people really started to fight back against the abuses of the regime.

The tally of dead protesters from your source quickly goes up to the multiple hundreds, and those hundreds quickly add up to a thousand to a few thousand.

Showing that there was no reason for your strawman avoidance of the issues. You are now more than free to actually address the topic of the thread, or more likely to come up with another excuse for why you just can't bring yourself to be honest about it.

To clarify my point, about 35 dead by the start of rebel violence, I meant by March 25, and that's a rough call, not firmly researched. And the right date to start counting is debatable, of course, considering the nature of the info, but clearly it's way before October.

Yeah, that's pretty ridiculous. Not many people are going to seriously buy that.


If you take any of the other cases in the wikipedia article that you selectively cut and pasted from? It adds up to the hundreds, and those hundreds add up to thousands really fast.

If you REALLY actually totally believe your 35 dead protesters number, than:

Your Selective Bias Fu is storng indeed.

Nope. Never a total waste, but I appreciate your effort to convince me otherwise.

All I want you to do is to seriously and honestly look at the information.

All at once or what? It's more like 90-95%, and as you've been reminded, I'm not ignoring it, in the usual use of the word.

All I want you to do is to seriously and honestly look at the information. Here, let me link to the Wiki that you ignored most of again. here

I've addressed a good chunk of everything you'e tossed at me, besides what I've read around and even researched a bit, besides the few things I'm exprt in by now.

All I want you to do is to seriously and honestly look at the information. And based on the amount of blatant errors and dishonest information you have posted, you are definitely not an 'expert' on any case in the Syrian conflict. Maybe good at telling yourself that in order to make yourself feel better about ignoring almost everything that has happened, and immeadiatly jumping to conclusions based on your personal bias.

But the only thing that is being an expert in is dishonesty.

Again, let me know when you really study even 1% of it, rather than just taking everything anti-Syria at face value.

This whole 'I know you are but what am I' thing is unproductive. All I want you to do is to seriously and honestly look at the information.

Have you ever tried to address the big Houla massacre portion we have covered? Some of the world's foremost experts on it, right here waiting for the debunks. It would be cute to see you attempt it, rather than ignoring 60-80% of our work in that thread, and the rest of it elsewhere.

Yeah, I have looked at it, and addressed it. There is nothing new to address. Your latest video just shows a man with a RPG knocked down after a series of what most people have deemed to be artillery strikes. There is nothing in the video that shows him firing his weapon.

Rebels with RPGs are all over Syria. It does not negate all accounts, videos, and evidence of regime artillery strikes.

That your first reaction to any evidence that is contrary to the side you support is to deem that it must be fake is not realistic. The amount of things that you claim must be 'faked' is not feasible. It is another dishonest argument from you.

Another in addition to what? That's a serious point in my book,

Let me guess, the title is "The Art of being Selectively Dishonest: Notes from an Expert."

It's not complaining, it's rubbing it in the cowards' faces, including you foremost, that no one has an answer for the growing body of good, often visually verifiable, evidence that the rebels lied to us about their sick massacre in Taldou.

Of course it is complaining, and calling people cowards because they have already addressed your topic is more complaining.

That he claims he fabricated, and what I do is refuse to dismiss and ignore the reports from Syria that most people, like you, have always ignored before this jackass ever gave you the lame excuse.

Not a valid excuse for ignoring the information he provided.

Yeah, sort of a logical dilemma in that, like the Epimenides paradox in reverse. How can I take his claim of being a liar as a sign that he's lying now, meaning he wasn't then, meaning he's to be trusted, except that he must be lying now...

His job was to make up specific fabrications. Not just lie about anything and everything.

One of the best corroborations of his story is the blatant fabrications and flat out dishonest reporting from the government controlled propaganda ANNA and SANA stations.

That SANA and ANNA have fabricated stories and been dishonest in their reporting many times is a fact. Omar just described some of the inside processes of how they did that.

Obviously, that was just a fun mechanism. Point is, he could be lying, and you in fact omitted the one part where that was mentioned even in passing, apparently hoping your readers would forget there's any such possibility as you insist we "address" (take at face value) what he says.

The ironic thing about your statement, is that not taking things at face value is all that I am asking. As I have said many times, all I want you to do is to seriously and honestly look at the information.

I posed a simple question and I'll pose it again:

They say things like this:

Totally subjective, to be sure, but I call bull on that. It just sounds like propaganda.

The only difference from usual is that you added in the word subjective this time.

And on that. To be sure, journalists are being killed there, and dead journos are no good for Damascus. They're actively engaged in propaganda war against the government and everyone knows it, so when they wind up dead, everyone knows just who did it, and with a sinister cackle. Consider Alex Thomson, shot dead with his crew by army snipers as he tried to cover a massacre quite like Houla and near to it in time and space.

Well they have certainly started to build up their supply of journalist hostages.

Picture shows captured Turkish journalist in Syria alive

A Turkish relief agency trying to secure the release of a Turkish journalist captured by government troops in Syria has obtained a photograph showing him in apparent good health.

Where did she claim trucked-in residents loved Assad?

here

Yeah, I call crap on that story too. Plenty of Assad supporters actually lived there, as everywhere in Syria, except places made into ghost towns by fighting after the armed rebels took up operations there.

Based on what? What you want to believe, or do you really think your statement is based on rational analysis and facts on the ground?

Odd that he cites "massacres against men, women and children" in Homs by "security forces and the Shabiha" when the truth, according to rebels then, was there were no massacres really, just lots of shelling.

You are wrong about there not being any claims of regime massacres. And like it or not, that includes the many deaths from shelling. Blowing entire neighborhoods and the people who live in them to pieces is a massacre.

It was the gov. people and the alleged witnesses they spoke to who said people were being kidnapped and killed, mutilated, and passed off as shelling victims. His truth seems to be different from the rebel truth, almost as if they were made up independently without coordinating.

In other words, based SOLELY on government supplied witnesses, the entire destruction of Homs, all of the people, and of the neighborhoods that have been artillery and air bombed to pieces are all the fault of the rebels.

So if they hadn't stood up to the regime killing massive numbers of their own citizens, than the regime would never have been forced to kill more massive numbers of civilians?

 

[HoverBoarder]

Because the regime will round lots of people up, torture and execute them to set an example. You'd know that if you were honest with yourself about the pro-Nazi regime you're defending.

Something that Russia specifically does not address.

 

[Toontown]

I'm with you so far, but then there was some cartoonish exaggeration and unwarranted sarcasm.

If my sarcasm is unwarranted, then you should have no trouble explaining why forever bemoaning the perceived inaccuracies in others' death count tabulations will bring peace.

 

[Toontown]

Exactly. Maybe start with researching where all those odd little countries come from and make it through to realizing that even the flag the "rebels" fly indicates the neo-colonialist nature of this crude regime change attempt.

The sorry Western colonialist bastards...

First they carve the collapsed Ottoman empire up into a lot of silly little countries and then leave. But now they're back, meddling again. What can they possibly want with Syria this time? They didn't want it when they had it. It doesn't have enough oil to bother with. But now, all of a sudden, they want it again?

Well...the evil West works in mysterious ways. It probably has something to do with carrying the Jews' baggage.

Will the serial victimization of the Arabs never end?

 

[Virus]

Funny how so-called "anti-imperialists" never mention of the Soviet Union's influence on Syria.

 

[HoverBoarder]

Funny how so-called "anti-imperialists" never mention of the Soviet Union's influence on Syria.

Or the current Russia, which is one of the primary reasons why there is a Syrian crisis at all... but that's not part of the talking points.

 

[HoverBoarder]

So hopefully there will be more discussion on ideas on how peace in Syria can be achieved.

I do like my idea of a buffer zone that would be run by a number of troops including Russian and Saudi Arabian troops.

Both Russia and Saudi Arabia would be very important in convincing both sides to agree to it, although there would need to be more details beyond just monitoring the prisoner detention centers and patrolling the buffer zone. I would very much appreciate input on that.

Eventually there will need to be disarming, but one of the problems with having disarming be a first step is that neither side trusts the other side to disarm, and it would just simply not work. A buffer zone is a good way to address that problem.

However, there are still many issues that need to be worked out on it, but I would like to work on drafting up a proposal and sending it to the UN for consideration.


One of the problems of course is air power. Russia would have to tak a very active role in ensuring that the regime does not continue to bomb Syrian cities to rubble. Some of which can be seen in the following video:


Evidence of harrowing attacks on Syrian civilians

 

[Caustic Logic]

Partial response. I've about gotten sick of this, and in the gaps of what I stopped arguing, we can get a glimpse of how peace in Hover Boarder's thread can be achieved (without his own co-operation even).

Yeah, I have... About 5 seconds from clicking on your sources show that you were blatantly lying about it.

You seem to be confused. I copied the text from wikipedia. I didn't write it. If the sources don't support the text, I'd like to know, or will find out when I get around to doing the same. So don't go saying I'm a liar. Unless you can explain it for real.

I don't take charges of lying lightly. And it doesn't contribute to peace in your thread. ```````````

Your Selective Bias Fu is storng indeed.

Yours is stornger yet and you don't even recognize it. Since the mainstream agrees with your hazy understanding of things, you don't have to. It's different for those of us who get it hammered into our heads over and over that we must be wrong and crazy, even though we keep double-checking against real evidence and finding no, it's the world that's crazy here. It really is. Apparently, anyway. No one can really know for sure.

Difference: we study a video to see just what it shows. You quote the video title without even looking at it, make a big argument based on the title, and insult me for watching 'snuff films.' That's a good example of the general problem here.

Where did she claim trucked-in residents loved Assad?

here

Thanks for a link. Trucks were not mentioned, thanking people for bombing neither. But I get what you mean, having accepted 100% the propagandist's rather audacious claims, you re-define the things she cited into your own words. It's annoying but y'know, I do the same thing sometimes to make a point.

So hopefully there will be more discussion on ideas on how peace in Syria can be achieved.

Yeah. The rebels need to lose their support, be crushed a bit, give up and negotiate amnesty and exodus programs, and the sovereign government of Syria needs to head the reconstruction of its own coubntry, the new constitution, reforms, and 2014 presidential elections plus whatever else makes sense need to given a chance to bring freedom, if that's what we really want. The West needs to take a pause for reflection and better study (of evidence, not googled articles), and then start acknowledging its primate role in prolonging the unnecessary crisis, paying restitution to Syria, adopting and caring for the failed proxies and keeping them the hell away from Syria, and reassuring itself with respectfully arranged and even-handed monitoring of the peace inside Syria.

Russia could obviously be a partner in THAT program and hell, even Syria could. It's only the no-compromise, to-the-hilt, self-poisoning false-flag propagandist rebels who'd have to swallow their pride, some bullets, whatever.

Take that, argue with it, concoct strawmen and tear 'em up, whatever. I'm not arguing the big picture with you. I'm on the record, in your thread. Everything you see in the mainstream media will continue trying to convince you otherwise, so I must be wrong, whatever.

I await your video notes, however. CAN you explain to me what's dishonest about my video? I'm really curious about that since you brought it up.
No huge rush, if you still haven't watched it, and need to scramble for something to justify your bad guess.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Ah, jeez, two more. You could try provoking less.

Of course it is complaining, and calling people cowards because they have already addressed your topic is more complaining.

No, what makes me say coward is how very very few people have addressed any of the specific things we've pointed out and discovered there. A few general 'i buy the rebel/aminstream narrative and you should too' spiels, but not a single valid de-bunk. And no acknowledgment. You can't show where people, including you, already de-bunked any of our findings. Maybe to things you could wrongly CALL that, but not actually that. Coward.

If you take any of the other cases in the wikipedia article that you selectively cut and pasted from? It adds up to the hundreds, and those hundreds add up to thousands really fast.

If you REALLY actually totally believe your 35 dead protesters number, than:

You're confused. I was referring to dead BEFORE armed rebel fighting started, as I called it, on March 23 (I said 25). You count the nuymber seen adding up during the whole several-month span I looked at summarily. There was armed rebel fighting, dead police, dead soldiers, murky incidents, all adding up that same time, and only that total of protesters, "protesters," and those killed by "protesters" reached thousands within several months.

So did thousands of protesters get killed before any opposition people starting doing their own killing? Just blithely say yes here. No use breaking character this late in the play.

AND, sorry I missed this. You did provide video notes. Thanks.

a man with a RPG knocked down after a series of what most people have deemed to be artillery strikes. There is nothing in the video that shows him firing his weapon.

Hm, that's a new way of looking at it. I'll re-consider it in that light.

To help flesh out the whole sequence, what direction does he walk, with his RPG but not his white head-scarf, after being knocked down in a plume of exhaust smoke by an unseen presumed artillery shelling? South, right? Towards the camera, then behind him). A moment later in the video, another shell lands near him, just south of the last spot he was seen. Same kind of smoke lingering there by the time the camera pans there. You think he was almost hit again? Same kind of exhaust-cloud-producing shells. What kind of artillery keeps following that one guy with the RPG launcher so closely, do you think?

You agree this guy is probably a rebel though?

 

[IDB87]

You seem to be confused. I copied the text from wikipedia. I didn't write it. If the sources don't support the text, I'd like to know, or will find out when I get around to doing the same.

Shouldn't you fact check something first before you enter it into your pool of evidence?

I don't take charges of lying lightly. And it doesn't contribute to peace in your thread.

Would you accept dishonest in place of lying?

Since the mainstream

Do you define "mainstream" as "Information that goes against my world view"? It'd be interesting to understand how you qualify "mainstream" and "underground" news.

It's different for those of us who get it hammered into our heads over and over that we must be wrong and crazy, even though we keep double-checking against real evidence and finding no, it's the world that's crazy here. It really is. Apparently, anyway. No one can really know for sure.

Just one example of crazy:

CE entered into evidence an article that put forth the idea that nearly every rebel in Syria is a Jihadist. The author of that article cited a report by a French doctor operating in Syria who claimed that nearly all of the rebels treated by him were Jihadists, thus the FSA is composed entirely of Jihadists. If one actually reads the good doctor's report, one would discover that he never offers any insight as to the composition of the FSA, but merely states that since Jihadists are the first ones to the front lines (because of their fanaticism and bravado) they are more likely to end up in hospitals. The doctor goes on to say that the reason things in Syria are so bad is because the West did not intervene at all.

This is dishonest journalism, and it highlights your sides tendency to cling to journalists who are not "mainstream" simply because they support your world view.

 

[Virus]

CE entered into evidence an article that put forth the idea that nearly every rebel in Syria is a Jihadist. The author of that article cited a report by a French doctor operating in Syria who claimed that nearly all of the rebels treated by him were Jihadists, thus the FSA is composed entirely of Jihadists. If one actually reads the good doctor's report, one would discover that he never offers any insight as to the composition of the FSA, but merely states that since Jihadists are the first ones to the front lines (because of their fanaticism and bravado) they are more likely to end up in hospitals. The doctor goes on to say that the reason things in Syria are so bad is because the West did not intervene at all.

The idea of a truther being a fact-checker is pretty frigging hilarious.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Shouldn't you fact check something first before you enter it into your pool of evidence?

Yeah, of course. This in just an early inclusion for the forum. Even if the site was up some pages or sections are just lists of gathered reports to get organized. All really important points at least get checked pretty thoroughly. Ideally, everything would, but time is limited.

Now, all those passages sounded reasonable to me and in line with things I've read around in the mostly mainstream reports cited. I wonder if HB found one that was dishonest, or if he's again just saying things that aren't true. As usual, no specifics were provided. Sometimes he gives a link so I can actually see just where he read things wrong. The rest of the time, it remains a mystery.

Would you accept dishonest in place of lying?

He's used both, and as far as the video, his basis is just having a different and pretty silly opinion what it shows. I don't think he's lying here, but maybe. He might actually believe that, or just be saying things again.

Do you define "mainstream" as "Information that goes against my world view"? It'd be interesting to understand how you qualify "mainstream" and "underground" news.

Mainstream is defined as that - the acceptable, corporate-owned, mass-market outlets that 90% of us get all our information from. They do always wind up demonizing the same dictators the foreign policy establishment decided should be destroyed. Maybe they're totally right and reality itself follows State Dept. guidelines. I'm not so sure.

Just one example of crazy:

CE entered into evidence an article that put forth the idea that nearly every rebel in Syria is a Jihadist. The author of that article cited a report by a French doctor operating in Syria who claimed that nearly all of the rebels treated by him were Jihadists, thus the FSA is composed entirely of Jihadists. If one actually reads the good doctor's report, one would discover that he never offers any insight as to the composition of the FSA, but merely states that since Jihadists are the first ones to the front lines (because of their fanaticism and bravado) they are more likely to end up in hospitals. The doctor goes on to say that the reason things in Syria are so bad is because the West did not intervene at all.

The article mentioned the doctor and his observations too? Good, then I'm glad it was entered. Sounds like it had a little exaggeration too. That's damn crazy to cite an article that includes an unwarranted leap or some exaggeration.

Wait, no it's not.

This is dishonest journalism, and it highlights your sides tendency to cling to journalists who are not "mainstream" simply because they support your world view.

But so long as the "mainstream" does reflect your view, you refuse to cling to it anyway, rejecting any article that makes a presumption or leap, courageously seeking out your own answers, digging deeper than "activists say," checking primary source material, video evidence, etc. And we should follow that probing attitude, so well embodied also by HB, Virus, and their follow-behind helper TBV. Those guys do nothing but tear their own sources apart, identifying the possible flaws, and adding value by divining truth. So naturally, they have to do the same for every little thing any of us people with the other bias would post. Just to be even-handed.

Amiright?

 

[dc1971]

Peace is achieved by one side destroying the other, or by both sides getting sick of fighting.

That is probably the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

 

[JihadJane]

Dear reader,

With this in mind:

The same problems that people had with Bush's "axis of evil" comments are the same problems people have with the people that JJ linked to. Blanket blame assertions that ignore any detailed analysis in order to bolster their own personal world views.

please now read this:

Yeah, I have... About 5 seconds from clicking on your sources show that you were blatantly lying about it. Something that anyone else can easily see for themsleves as well. Although I don't think there are that many people who would seriously buy your 35 number as realistic.

Same as anyone who clicks on your Sari evidence can see that you were blatantly lying about that, same as anyone who clicks on your Houla videos can see that you are blatantly lying, same as anyone who clicks on your wiki, etc. etc.

The problem is not that people can't see for themselves the errors and contradictions in your statements and claims. The problem is that there is inevitably going to be people who will take what you say at face value, without realizing that you never had any intention of being honest in the first place.




You mean the 120 soldiers allegedly killed from regime executions for not firing at protesters, or are you taking any story that supports the regime side at face value again?

The 120 soldiers that were killed were done so right around a lot of other cases of reported executions of soldiers who were refusing to fire on protesters.

Around the time that there started to be major defections from army members for opposing the mass regime killings of protesters. Along with a lot of other witness claims of executions of army members who refused to fire on protesters. Leading up to July formation of the FSA, and eventually the major resistance that we have today when the Syrian people really started to fight back against the abuses of the regime.

The tally of dead protesters from your source quickly goes up to the multiple hundreds, and those hundreds quickly add up to a thousand to a few thousand.

Showing that there was no reason for your strawman avoidance of the issues. You are now more than free to actually address the topic of the thread, or more likely to come up with another excuse for why you just can't bring yourself to be honest about it.




Yeah, that's pretty ridiculous. Not many people are going to seriously buy that.


If you take any of the other cases in the wikipedia article that you selectively cut and pasted from? It adds up to the hundreds, and those hundreds add up to thousands really fast.

If you REALLY actually totally believe your 35 dead protesters number, than:

Your Selective Bias Fu is storng indeed.



All I want you to do is to seriously and honestly look at the information.



All I want you to do is to seriously and honestly look at the information. Here, let me link to the Wiki that you ignored most of again. here



All I want you to do is to seriously and honestly look at the information. And based on the amount of blatant errors and dishonest information you have posted, you are definitely not an 'expert' on any case in the Syrian conflict. Maybe good at telling yourself that in order to make yourself feel better about ignoring almost everything that has happened, and immeadiatly jumping to conclusions based on your personal bias.

But the only thing that is being an expert in is dishonesty.




This whole 'I know you are but what am I' thing is unproductive. All I want you to do is to seriously and honestly look at the information.



Yeah, I have looked at it, and addressed it. There is nothing new to address. Your latest video just shows a man with a RPG knocked down after a series of what most people have deemed to be artillery strikes. There is nothing in the video that shows him firing his weapon.

Rebels with RPGs are all over Syria. It does not negate all accounts, videos, and evidence of regime artillery strikes.

That your first reaction to any evidence that is contrary to the side you support is to deem that it must be fake is not realistic. The amount of things that you claim must be 'faked' is not feasible. It is another dishonest argument from you.




Let me guess, the title is "The Art of being Selectively Dishonest: Notes from an Expert."




Of course it is complaining, and calling people cowards because they have already addressed your topic is more complaining.


Not a valid excuse for ignoring the information he provided.



His job was to make up specific fabrications. Not just lie about anything and everything.

One of the best corroborations of his story is the blatant fabrications and flat out dishonest reporting from the government controlled propaganda ANNA and SANA stations.

That SANA and ANNA have fabricated stories and been dishonest in their reporting many times is a fact. Omar just described some of the inside processes of how they did that.



The ironic thing about your statement, is that not taking things at face value is all that I am asking. As I have said many times, all I want you to do is to seriously and honestly look at the information.



The only difference from usual is that you added in the word subjective this time.



Well they have certainly started to build up their supply of journalist hostages.

Picture shows captured Turkish journalist in Syria alive

​

here



Based on what? What you want to believe, or do you really think your statement is based on rational analysis and facts on the ground?




You are wrong about there not being any claims of regime massacres. And like it or not, that includes the many deaths from shelling. Blowing entire neighborhoods and the people who live in them to pieces is a massacre.



In other words, based SOLELY on government supplied witnesses, the entire destruction of Homs, all of the people, and of the neighborhoods that have been artillery and air bombed to pieces are all the fault of the rebels.

So if they hadn't stood up to the regime killing massive numbers of their own citizens, than the regime would never have been forced to kill more massive numbers of civilians?

 

[Toontown]

That is probably the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

See the 7-decade intermittent Arab-Israeli conflict to learn what happens when neither side is destroyed and both sides do not get tired of fighting.

 

[Virus]

That is probably the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

You should try reading some of your own posts sometime. It's like skipping a page of a book.