Do you want The rebels in Syria to Win

[shakarak]

mai said:

Kasz216 said:

 For the life of me I'm not sure what your referring too.  As far as i can tell though there are two options.

The status quo of what's happening now mantaining.

The rebels winning.... and likely putting in place a shitter government.

 

The Status quo leads to contant death, and fighting forever pretty much until the status quo loses it's power.

The Rebels winning, likely leads to a shitter government and more infighting... but eventually may turn into something decent.

I'm referring to "get the f**k out of your informational ghetto". Given how drastically different current informational background around Syria from, say, Yugoslavian confilct where informational background was monopolistically held in the same hands, Syrian situation has more than one explanation, nothing prevents you from studyning the subject except from own disinterest.

 

Not that you're unique here, superficial glance at the thread only proves that fighting windmills is a waste of time, still let's take a look what we've got here?
"Even if things go wrong and it ends up worse then an Assad government. It might end up better long term because it got to that stage sooner."

- the fallacy that Assad government is bad (what is bad in the context? why it is bad? who said it's bad besides MSM? why all of sudden Assad is a problem? no answers);
- the fallacy that smth might go wrong as if it never went wrong in the first place (merceneries destroying your country -- your actions?);
- the fallacy that smth might end up better than it were (better compared to what? why it will be better? who is there to judge it will be better? and more importantly -- since when the whole point of this mess is to make Syria better? what kind of logic is that?);
- jesuit kind of thesis that end justifies the means (so short-term it's not ok, but on a longer run current death toll is justifiable? I wonder is there anyone will be left to say: "oh my, it's so much better now"? how long is long term here? why Assad is a problem for Syria to get better even if we agree Syria was bad? and more importantly -- how come mercenaries from various countries destroying Syria could help it get better?).

Previously I was questioning only your moral integrity, while that quote of yours makes me question your moral and intellectual integrity.

 

//Having had experience talking to people from other places on the subject, I always wondered who deep inside them sitting this fallacy about oppressing regime and simple freedom-thirsty people -- sometimes I envy them, the world is so crystal clear for them. At the same time I've seen people who were trying to defend Assad, but what they didn't understand -- as long as they accept that paradigm of horizontal slices of the society (regime above, people below) -- they lost the argument. While in real life these slices are never horizonatal, but vertical -- regime and people on both sides -- a civil war situation. Though in Syria civil war has ended long ago, current situation is better described with the word "invasion".

You make some pretty valid points.