[abraxas21]

Originally Posted by Punky

so what i understand from u is, when an western kill another arab ur protest but if an arab kill another arab u dont really care...let them kill each other we shouldnt Intervene.


i dont know how much u know but Syria has a very ancient city called Halav, amazing place that Assad forces destroyed.

until now 70,000 ppl are dead, i have no idea how many Casualties.

when it will be 100,000 u think the west should do something? maybe 200,000?

if u dont want the west i ask u, where is the arab countries to help their brothers and sisters? they find their voice only when its the Israeli - Palestinian conflict, like thats what matters.

http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/3241

Can you imagine another country that is at war accept the other State's refugees?????????.

u wont find it.

the west shouldn't intervene because they will always look for their own interest in foreign affairs. most countries would, to be honest.

as for israel accepting a small number of refugees, it's most likely a political move. just for the record, several other surrounding countries have accepted far more refugees

[Punky]

Originally Posted by abraxas21

the west shouldn't intervene because they will always look for their own interest in foreign affairs. most countries would, to be honest.

let say ur right(i dont agree with u), where are the arab nations? why we dont hear them? where are their help?

Originally Posted by abraxas21

as for israel accepting a small number of refugees, it's most likely a political move. just for the record, several other surrounding countries have accepted far more refugees

a political move? to do what? i guess its hard for u to say a good word when ur full of hate and cant accept that the demon isnt that bad.

u say other countries accept refugees, theres only Turkey for all i know and the most important is Turkey isnt in a state of war against Israel, syria is.

Syria exemplifies the hypocrisy that there is in the world and ur hate, u never talk about the other side, the west and the west but when i ask u ok lets leave the west, why arabs dont help their brothers and sisters u say let them be..

and when my country is willing to accept and Submit medical treatment to their enemies u dismiss it so easily like they have an agenda.

i guess u didbt know that there was a plan to Fly over Syria and distribute medicines care and food but the plan was shelved because they did not want it to look loke we intervene and fanning fire.

[sexybeast]

Originally Posted by abraxas21

Let them be and let them sort out their own issues with no western involvement. Europe has been a burning inferno for thousands of years and only in the past decades it has found something close to peace with their own neighbors (although it would seem they still can't help their to meddle in other nations). Also, let them be and you'll be surprised at how the terrorism endured by the west progressively stops. If anything, history shows us that terrorism is closely linked to colonialism.

The idea that peoples of different ethnic compositions can't co-exist peacefully in a single country is at the very heart of the western mindset but in reality it has happened for ages in many places. Take a look at India, for example. Composed by many highly different different ethnic groups and yet the country moves forward. Take a look at Rwanda, a country which used to get by fine between Tutsis and Hutus until the French and the Belgians -perhaps following the British's divide and rule strategy- meddled in their affairs ultimately generating a cruel massacre.

Oh, I want to let them be. So we dont even need to debate that issue.

India is a very bad example of a country with different ethnic groups working, the country is among the most racist and hierarchal with the caste system, muslims and hindus barely can live together and in the 18th century before brittish colonisation the Moghul empire led by a muslim elite enslaved hindus and threated them like shit.

In fact very few countries of different ethnic groups has worked properly, if we take Iraq, Syria, Turkey, China, Afghanisthan, Sudan as examples clearly they all have huge problems with or without western involvement. Tribal wardare is older than man, it is a part of our nature we need to hold back for the greater good. It was not invented by the west, it has always existed and sadly probably will always exist.

Some countries have worked properly with different peoples living side by side however, I think Switzerland, Singapore, Malaysia are some examples of different people living side by side for a long time without conflicts between groups.

[sexybeast]

Originally Posted by abraxas21

it isn't the case at all. it's no secret that western powers have be financing and even arming the Syrian rebels. Let them sort out their own problems. That's all I ask from the west.

While that is true, it is also true that Russia and China is arming the Syrian regime, it is also true that Saudi Arabia is financing rebels for its own purposes (internal conflict with Iran over the region).

So, it would not save the day to remove the west from beeing involved in the region, it is really stupid to pick sides in these conflicts were all powerful men are fighting for power. It is very stupid to blame only one side, people in the west has very little knowledge of how CIA is secretly arming rebels and would not support their tax money beeing wasted this way if they knew. We have little ways to change these huge organisations by the nature of our limited democracy and limited flow of information in the mainstream media (which still is slightly better than the statemedia in dictatorships, but it is really picking the worst evil here).

Anyway, the point is that the left does more than blame powerful structures like Nato and special interests behind them, the blame is on the whole western culture and the "racism" among common people who hardly know anything about what goes on behind the curtains in these powerful organisations, somekind of collective blame for the problems of the world on people living their lifes in Europe and USA. You also fail to blame Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and China or other powerful players when they finance rebels or regimes or genocides, why is it so important for you to pick side among these men with too much power?

Someone like Ron Paul is doing so much more than you guys ever did to inform people about these things, Ron Paul speaks of how much harm all these wars does to the USA without blaming the people while you blame americans for things they have little control over which makes proud people automatically turn defensive.

[abraxas21]

i disagree with the idea that india is a bad example. there are obviously issues to be solved but still the country moves forward, and this with different religions, cultures and ethnic compositions.

Tribal wardare is older than man, it is a part of our nature we need to hold back for the greater good. It was not invented by the west, it has always existed and sadly probably will always exist.

i can certainly agree with this. i think humans are a very tribal species.

[abraxas21]

Originally Posted by sexybeast

While that is true, it is also true that Russia and China is arming the Syrian regime, it is also true that Saudi Arabia is financing rebels for its own purposes (internal conflict with Iran over the region).

So, it would not save the day to remove the west from beeing involved in the region, it is really stupid to pick sides in these conflicts were all powerful men are fighting for power. It is very stupid to blame only one side, people in the west has very little knowledge of how CIA is secretly arming rebels and would not support their tax money beeing wasted this way if they knew. We have little ways to change these huge organisations by the nature of our limited democracy and limited flow of information in the mainstream media (which still is slightly better than the statemedia in dictatorships, but it is really picking the worst evil here).

Anyway, the point is that the left does more than blame powerful structures like Nato and special interests behind them, the blame is on the whole western culture and the "racism" among common people who hardly know anything about what goes on behind the curtains in these powerful organisations, somekind of collective blame for the problems of the world on people living their lifes in Europe and USA. You also fail to blame Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and China or other powerful players when they finance rebels or regimes or genocides, why is it so important for you to pick side among these men with too much power?

I think you've got me wrong. I don't pick sides at all. However, I do mostly criticize the west here because:

1) their imperialist history (probably more so than the imperialism of any other major region in history)
2) their blatant (and almost innocent) hypocrisy and sense of superiority. A cultural aspect which, I believe, is acute particularly in europe.
3) I'm talking mainly to westerners here. If I were in a forum populated mostly by asians and africans, my focus would be different.

[sexybeast]

Originally Posted by abraxas21

I think you've got me wrong. I don't pick sides at all. However, I do mostly criticize the west here because:

1) their imperialist history (probably more so than the imperialism of any other major region in history)
2) their blatant (and almost innocent) hypocrisy and sense of superiority. A cultural aspect which, I believe, is acute particularly in europe.
3) I'm talking mainly to westerners here. If I were in a forum populated mostly by asians and africans, my focus would be different.

1)You know that some countries that nowadays count as part of the west were dominated by the imperial ottoman turks? Also that a large part of the middle east was colonised by turks for 500 years before beeing dominated by french/english for 50 years? Or how long did the small muslim elite control the Moghul empire in India before the brittish came and easily gained hindu support to get rid of this unpopular elite? You can also ask the chinese and southeastern asians if they prefered the english or the japanese empire. My point is not to defend the english empire, but to remind you that the powerful always took from the weak throughout history and I think specially the brittish did this with some more manners than others which does not make them right.
Ofcourse the belgian colony in Congo and spanish genocide of indians in Latin America is pretty damn horrific, however you cant blame people in Spain and Belgium today for crimes done by a few without their knowledge far away. Europeans have done as much harm to each other as to continents far away, 70-80 milion people died in 2 world wars this century alone. I like to think all the progess made by europeans to technology, arts and medicine make up for all the mayhem caused by the clash of civilisations.

2)I think Japanese and South Koreans have a sense of superiority, I think all countries which are succesfull and developped get that feeling of superiority. It is not solely a western trait. Arabs certanly historically felt superior to africans and still today seem to feel that way, persians I know from personal experience have that feeling of superiority against other middle easterns, turks have that feel of superiority over kurds, the han chinese over south eastern asians (a small han chinese minority dominates most countries in South eastern asia). Success seems to give birth to arrogance. Not solely a western trait.

3)Fair enought, but by blaming people for things powerful organisations do you make them defensive. If we could have a debate of how much harm these wars do for our economy and for the young men we send away you would get more people to side with you.