El Comandante said:
I do find it a bit odd that you have mediocre English skills and this is your first post (on a topic more or less buried, no less), but I don't think you're a Syrian shill. I've seen a few of those on other forums, they're stark raving nuts. Claim the death toll is half the conservative UN estimates, claim it's only terrorists, claim Assad hasn't used jets, claim Assad is the rightful leader and any leader is better than a democratic transition...
I'm not making this stuff up, they've got shills out there. Look at Putin, he's practically a Syrian shill. Just a considerably smarter and more cunning one that can afford the best in translation efforts and speechwriters.
I´m german and i didn´t practice my english-skills for a very long time, also i made the mistake to not check for the writing ^^. You can see that I´m registred here a bit longer than this thread is one, but it´s good you made sure to check (no irony).
I wanted to post sometime ago but the climate in discussions here turned me down. The post under these articels are alway a bit different.
I was not referring to what the west is doing in these countries, just about what mainstream-media is showing about it. Considering the scale it had some weeks ago the coverage is nearly zero. In germany we will soon have elections (jay one time democracy in four years), so that is a reason for the shift of attention. Also protest against the muslim-brotherhood in egypt were interesting to watch, not very pro west I would say ;-).
It realy is the consummate hypocrite that hopefuly will keep the west from intervene. 1988 in the full view of western media Sadam gassed 1000s of Kurds. Why diden´t we do anything that moment? Nothing was done because he was fighting Iran (not a nice countrie, the worst thing is it´s not submitting itself to us).
Lybia is relativly stable in the sense that nobody is realy able the claim the full power over all those tribes.
Also I don´t trust the our media today, not the bbc, cnn, ard, zdf...sorry i´m trying to find good sources and they are not.
They lost my trust when they supportet the second war against Irak, that was based on a lie. The situation in Syria is different, but there are similarities in the way some people are trying to bring us into the conflict.
"Lie to me once, shame on you! Lie to me twice shame on me!" -English saying, right?
It was Assad who used the gas, in the worst possible moment he could ever choose, but media consens is it was him. He is cruel, brutal and a dictator, but he is not dumb.
Also would the West never put him down. They had the chance with Saddam 1990 but America as the leader of the western states needs an enemy in the locker at every point, now that the UDSSR was gone (oh how lucky they are, that Putin is such an ambitious man). I suspect that this is the reason why it took so long to get bin Laden. You are right when you say I have no proof for this! But we also have no proof that Assad used these weapons (witch we sold him, by the way, not russia). I have only the history to look at and see: "Yep stuff like that happend all over the place, and America has a long history in that."
At the end we have too rais the question, who profits when we go in? Keep in mind that once the west has control over Syria, the way to Iran is free. Oil will not need the way above the street of Homes and also it suspected that there is a lot of gas under Syria. Maybe the syrian people will profit, but it´s more likely to end like Irak where more people died during these years than under the dictatorship of Saddam. The revenge for 09.11 was cruel as they where in colonial times, when a native killd a white guy. A never ending conflict that brings a lot of cash...
