Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Do humans have needed kno...
January 30, 2025, 10:33 AM

Lights on the way
by akay
January 29, 2025, 12:18 PM

New Britain
January 29, 2025, 11:40 AM

Gaza assault
January 26, 2025, 10:05 AM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
January 26, 2025, 08:55 AM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
January 20, 2025, 05:08 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
December 29, 2024, 12:03 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
December 29, 2024, 11:55 AM

News From Syria
by zeca
December 28, 2024, 12:29 AM

Mo Salah
December 26, 2024, 05:30 AM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
December 25, 2024, 10:58 AM

What's happened to the fo...
December 25, 2024, 02:29 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: What should America do in Syria?

 (Read 12389 times)
  • 12 3 4 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • What should America do in Syria?
     OP - January 23, 2014, 02:58 PM

    What should America do in Syria?

    It's been two years since Syrians rebelled against their dictator. Early on, the citizens pleaded for American arms support. They were denied.

    Since then an old war has resurfaced. Fundamentalist Muslims have hijacked the war and turned it into a religious one. They have declared that it's a fight between Islam and the non-believers — the latter being Assad, who is a secularist. Having turned it into a religious war, also known as 'jihad', they enlisted thousands of militant Muslims from all over the Islamic world to come and join the fight. Sure this will work to take down Assad, but it won't work in that there is no viable replacement government in sight.

    100,000 dead. Millions displaced from their homes. Millions left Syria. Why?

    It's because this war has a divided front — the rebels are mainly Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims and they've been fighting for Islamic political power since the inception of Islam 1400 years ago. And they are fighting against each other again in the middle of this rebellion.


    So what is best for Syria?

    Well a simpler question is: What was best for Syria at the start of the uprising? That had a better chance for success than today — so it's an easier problem to consider. It's easier to see how America could have gotten involved in a helping role to take down Assad and in a helping role to create a democracy. But this theory has holes.

    I asked a Syrian about what he would prefer between the following two options:

    1) What the English did which is gradual-change of government — i.e. evolution of government — from dictatorship to democracy, or

    2) What the French did which is radical-change of government — i.e. revolution of government — from dictatorship to democracy.

    He answered English! He'd rather have piecemeal reform instead of revolution. And the reason is that piecemeal reform means less chaos, less destruction of infrastructure and knowledge, and less bloodshed. (See Edmund Burke.)

    But then I asked, what would have happened had the Syrians given up their uprising before the militant Muslims from around the world joined in? How would the Syrians make sure that Assad enacts piecemeal reform like the English were able to achieve?

    He had no answer.

    So I asked: Do Syrians want liberalism?

    He said no.

    I asked, at least some of them?

    He said a tiny minority.

    So then, what would happen if Assad was suddenly overthrown? There would be many sides of religious groups that each want a dictatorial Islamic state, and each group wants the seat of power. This is bad. It's just more war. The resulting leader will be the one that does the most killing of his opponents — that means the one that does the most massacres — case in point, the Taliban committed 15 massacres from 1996 to 2001 as they ascended to power in Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion and subsequent Soviet installation of a communist dictator.

    So Assad's government is better than the alternative, which is NO government at all — they will have devolved back to warring tribes.

    And to make matters worse, most of the smart Syrians left Syria, so what are left are the dumber ones including the fanatics that have moved in from other places to join the jihad.


    If Assad falls, we have another Afghanistan.

    Before the Afghan civil war and subsequent Soviet invasion in 1979, Afghanistan was not that bad a place. It was kind of like Egypt and Syria.

    The civil war was over modernization. Some Afghans wanted it but most didn't because they saw it as an attack on Islam.

    A new prime minister, Hazifullah Amin, came to power by military coup as he exterminated the entire family of his predecessor — a common practice back then. He immediately tried to westernize Afghanistan by advocating for equal rights for women and promoting secular government — which is both a pro-liberalism and pro-communist move. He carried out a land reform —  huge and sudden state-sanctioned theft from rich to give to the poor — which was resented by most Afghans. This one was an anti-liberalism/pro-communist move.

    Amin instituted laws that prohibited voluntary trade involving usury (interest on money) in a situation where there was no alternative for peasants who relied on the traditional credit system in the countryside. This led to an agricultural crisis and a fall in agricultural production — another anti-liberalism/pro-communist move, which coincidentally is also a pro-Islam move.

    He also changed the national flag from the traditional Islamic green color to a near-copy of the red flag of the Soviet Union, a direct provocation to the fundamentalist Muslims because communism condemns religion — another anti-liberalism/pro-communist move. His government imprisoned, tortured or murdered thousands of members of the traditional elite, the religious establishment, and the intelligentsia. This is what the French poor did during the French revolution.

    The Afghan resistance forces that rose up against Amin called themselves the Mujahideen, which means the people that do jihad — jihad means holy war against those people who are against Islam. In 1979, when the Soviets believed that Afghanistan was lost to the Mujahideen, they invaded. As a result, the jihad war was now extended to the Russians who were now in Afghanistan trying to maintain the power of Amin's communist government. The Russians claimed that they had been invited in by Amin's government and that they were not invading the country. They claimed that their task was to support a legitimate government and that the Mujahdeen were no more than terrorists.

    In December 1979, the Soviet Special Forces stormed the presidential palace and killed Amin and his 100 or so personal guards. The Soviets installed Babrak Karmal as Amin's successor. Kamal's position as head of the Afghan government depended on Russian military support of 85,000 soldiers to keep him in power.

    The Mujahdeen proved to be a formidable opponent. They were equipped with old rifles but had a knowledge of the mountains around Kabal and the weather conditions. The Russians resorted to using napalm, poison gas, and helicopter gun ships against the Mujahdeen — but they experienced exactly the same military scenario the Americans had experienced in Vietnam.

    By 1982, the Mujahdeen controlled 75% of Afghanistan despite fighting the might of the world's second most powerful military power. Young conscript Russian soldiers were no match against men fueled by their religious belief. They love death more than their opponents love life — I'm not exaggerating here, it's in the Quran. To fundamentalist Muslims, martyrdom's reward in heaven provides more encouragement than the material life of this world.

    Some factions were also fueled by support from America. Analogously in Syria, the opposition, whom America is now providing arms support in Syria against Assad, are the same as the Afghan Mujahideen — they have the same philosophy of how to resolve conflicts, that is, by force.

    By the end of the 1980's, the Mujahdeen were at war with themselves as each group tried to consolidate power.

    In 1989, when Gorbachev realized that Russia could not win the war, they withdrew. The Soviet-backed Afghan communist regime survived for three more years, after which the Afghan political parties established the Islamic State of Afghanistan and appointed an interim government.

    Immediately civil war broke out between many militias, each backed by regional powers such as Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, India, and Uzbekistan, each seeking influence over the centrally-located Afghanistan, and each supported and in some cases controlled one of the militias. Analogously, in the Syrian civil war, Qatar has interests in Syria as it tries to get access to a pipeline through Syria bypassing the existing Saudi-controlled pipeline, and it too is funding the Al-Qaeda-connected rebels in Syria. Iran has interests in Syria because it wants an alliance with a Shite-friendly leadership.

    The Taliban, one of the groups trying to consolidate power, with the backing of Pakistan's Army, took control and established the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. They were enforced by several thousand Al-Qaeda fighters from Arab countries and Central Asia.

    During the period from 1996 to 2001, the Taliban were responsible for 15 massacres on the Afghan people. This is the result of their efforts to consolidate control. This is what they know about how to resolve conflicts — violence instead of diplomacy.

    Following the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, the UN sanctioned intervention in Afghanistan under Operation Enduring Freedom. The purpose of this was to defeat Al-Qaeda, remove the Taliban from power and create a viable democratic state. They have not yet succeeded.

    So let me break this down. America supported the Afghan rebels — which later spawned Al-Qaeda — to fight against the Soviet-installed communist dictator, expecting, I presume, that afterwards the rebels would create a democracy — or at least a capitalist-friendly secular dictatorship as has happened in many Islamic countries. Analogously, America is supporting Syrian rebels connected with Al-Qaeda against the Russian-backed dictator, expecting, I presume, that afterwards the rebels would create a democracy or at least a capitalist-friendly dictatorship.

    Do you see the problem? Most Afghan people don't know the meaning of liberalism nor its relevance to governance. And neither do most Syrians. They don't know how to operate a government peacefully, which is critical for a nation to prosper. They don't have any interest in the liberal-democratic form of government because they are fundamentalist Muslims whose core religious values directly contradict liberalism. That's why Afghans rejected early attempts at modernization of their country by the Afghan King in the early 1900's, and that's why they resorted to violence instead of diplomacy after America helped the Afghan rebels overthrow their dictator. And all of this will happen again in Syria if Assad falls.


    Maybe Syria won't be as bad as Afghanistan?

    I said to my Syrian friend that the situation in Syria won't turn out to be as bad as what happened in Afghanistan because Syrian culture is more evolved than Afghan culture — mostly because of Enlightenment ideas installed by the French during their few decades of colonial-rule.

    My friend disagreed. He said in this environment everybody must send their kids to the mosque. So their kids get indoctrinated there. A people can move backwards pretty quickly by just enforcing laws that everybody must attend mosques, and that nobody can criticize Islam or else be punished by death. So we would have a whole generation of Syrian Muslims who have no clue about how to resolve conflicts nor how to operate a government. All they would know about how to resolve conflicts is that violence is the answer.


    There's a good sign, and a bad one.

    Then my mom chimed in. She said that she has explained what an Islamic state would be like to her Syrian Muslim friends, and they all get shocked by the truth. And then they side with the idea of no Islamic state — they side with democracy. More importantly, they side with secular government instead of a state based on a religion. This is a good sign. But there are bad signs too.

    I got into a discussion with a Muslim who said 'I CAN'T TALK TO YOU ABOUT THIS. IT'S.. IT'S HARAM [forbidden by religious law] FOR ME TO EVEN BE THINKING ABOUT CRITICISM OF ISLAM!!!" A moment later during the discussion he said that it is moral to punish for criticizing Islam. And the thing is that the standard punishment for that "crime" is death, since it's declared exactly that way in the Quran (9:11/12). And he knows it, and I know it, and we each know that the other knows it. So he's telling me that I should be punished by death. This is bad. It means that there are a lot of Muslims who are terrorists in their hearts who just haven't committed any crimes yet.

    Some of these terrorists-by-heart are here in America. Fortunately in America we have way fewer of them than compared to other places like in Europe because they appease Islamic fear-mongering for censorship of criticism of Islam a lot more than we do. But don't get me wrong. We are guilty of it too. It's just that we are less guilty of it than they are. America is more pro-liberalism than Europe is.


    So what do Syrians want?

    Most Syrians now want Assad to stay in power. They've seen the ugly reality of what a rebel war would be like, and now they don't want it. They don't want fundamentalist Muslims invading their country. They would rather have a secular dictator over a long civil war that results in a huge amount of human suffering in the form of destruction of lives, property, and infrastructure that is followed by a dictatorial Islamic state by the "winner" of the civil war that rewards the most cruel leader, the one willing to commit the most massacres.

    And they especially don't want foreign help. “We stress that we reject foreign interference in Syria,” said Ignatius Joseph III Younan, Patriarch of Antioch for the Syrian Catholic Church, in a statement read before a conference of more than 50 regional Christian leaders and a handful of global Christians and Muslim scholars in Amman this week. “We don’t accept any intervention by foreign powers … to protect minorities,” Pope Anba Tawadros II of Egypt’s Coptic church said in a statement. “It is basically a pretext … to advance their countries’ interest in the Middle East.”

    Syrian Christians are afraid that their communities will suffer a similar fate to Iraq, where the US-led war and subsequent religious fighting forced roughly half of the country’s one million Christians into exile.

    Syrians do not want more human suffering. Their pleas should not be ignored any longer.


    So how should the US deal with the Syrian situation?

    When Obama contemplates military strikes on Assad, he should be thinking about it rationally like so:

    First, let's agree that there is a problem, and that we should work on solving it. Second, let's agree on what the problem is, explaining it in detail, which includes a detailed explanation of what a solution would look like. In this step, one of the details that should be considered is the amount of human suffering in the form of loss of lives, property, and infrastructure that would be caused by the proposal, as a measure of its success as a viable solution to the problem.

    So, if your proposal is pretty much guaranteed to increase the amount of human suffering in Syria, instead of decreasing it, then your proposal is actually adding to the problem, instead of being part of the solution.

    If you don't think about it in terms of problem-solving, then you're thinking irrationally. All life is problem solving. So the question is, what problem are you trying to solve? In the case of Obama funding the Syrian rebels, what problem is he trying to solve? Does he want another Afghanistan where rival fundamentalist Muslim groups keep fighting each other until the most cruel opponent finally succeeds and assumes power and creates an Islamic state with Sharia law? Or does he want a situation where a democracy evolves by slowly reforming the government like the English did?


    Let's be clear about what Assad is.

    He's a dictator that helped preserve and expand on evolved ideas that were installed by the French during the few decades that they colonized Syria — ideas like women learning to read and women in government. Before the French, Syrian girls were taught, and expected, to stay at home and take care of the children. Reading, and productive work outside the home, and governance was for men only.

    If Assad's regime suddenly falls, these evolved ideas will too. Women will go back to their old status more like the women in Saudi Arabia — who are still fighting for their right to drive — and like the women in Afghanistan — who don't even have the right to go to school. Women will suffer from this chaos way more than men will.

    Children will suffer more too. And Christians and Jews. And any Islamic sect that isn't in the seat of power. That includes the Alawis, which is an offshoot of the Shiites and is the sect that Assad and his whole government belongs to. Ethnic groups like the Kurds and Armenians won't be spared either. All these people are going to suffer at the hands of the people in the seat of power, which for Syria will probably end up being the one that is the majority, which is Sunni Muslims. Interestingly, Sunni Muslims have had almost exclusive control of Mecca, the center of religious power of the entire Islamic world since Islam's inception 1,400 years ago.


    If this is not the time to help a country get rid of a dictator, then when is?

    Sometimes a country could use some help. But that country needs to do like 99% of the work, and the outside help can give the extra 1% to make it happen. Syria is not even close to putting in that kind of initiative. Most of the people don't even know the meaning of liberalism — the political philosophy or worldview that (under the law) people should be free to do whatever they want short of initiating force on other people. That includes free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property. They don't know that liberalism is the goal and that democracy is a way to achieve that goal. So lots of Muslims claim to want democracy, while not knowing what liberalism means, and not knowing that Islam's concept of censoring criticism of itself contradicts liberalism and is counter-productive to it's intended goal, which is peace and prosperity.


    What's missing from these static societies?

    That raises the question, what's missing from these static societies? It's the knowledge that when criticism is censored, evil spreads — and that where criticism flourishes, evil dies out — so good evolves. Criticism is the natural selective pressure that kills evil ideas.

    The greatest advances in history of knowledge and technology are a direct result of those cultures having adopted the tradition of criticism (see _The Beginning of Infinity_, by David Deutsch). That's what the philosophers were doing — guessing ideas and refining and refuting them with criticism. And that's what scientists do too. Their ideas are scientific theories and their criticism comes in the form of the theoritical design and execution of experiments, and the interpretation of their results; and the criticism also comes in the form of explanations of flaws within the scientific theories.

    The ability to criticize is the most awesome invention the Universe has ever created! It's something that only humans can do — it's what separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. Why would anyone want to do less of such a great thing? Why wouldn't anyone want to do way more of it instead!? Why not do more of the best things in life!?

    Why censor criticism when censorship of criticism is itself evil??


    And what political system lets criticism thrive best?

    A democracy, where free speech is protected and cherished.. where there is a strong tradition of people settling their conflicts with ideas instead of weapons.. where if a ruler is found to be horrible as a ruler, there exists a legitimate way to change rulers peacefully so that destruction of infrastructure, knowledge, and human life are minimized.


    So let's not invade Syria. Let's instead use diplomacy to help Syria reform towards a liberal/democratic form of government. President Putin is taking the route of diplomacy as he tries to get Assad to give up his chemical weapons. We should follow his lead.

    Helping get rid of Assad, with pretty much guaranteed chance of all-out religious warfare like in Afghanistan, is not as good as keeping Assad in power, and getting ready for reform where Assad phases himself out in a gradual way as the Syrian people learn how to rule themselves.
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #1 - January 23, 2014, 03:07 PM

    America shouldn't do ANYTHING in Syria imo, let them sort it out themselves.  wacko

    "The greatest general is not the one who can take the most cities or spill the most blood. The greatest general is the one who can take Heaven and Earth without waging the battle." ~ Sun Tzu

  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #2 - January 23, 2014, 03:26 PM

    ^Agreed
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #3 - January 23, 2014, 03:36 PM

    Quote
    ^Agreed

    America shouldn't do ANYTHING in Syria imo, let them sort it out themselves.  wacko


    Nooooooooo.. America is policing force of  the globe., It is Chief Police Officer similar to the guy who works in some remote Pakistan  towns ..  They get kicked by Politicians and killed by baboons.. (THAT IS NOT TRUE ALWAYS but in general) And sometime these police guys creat problems..



    Well educating the folks about stupid religions and making them irrelevant to their day  to day lives will help immensely  to solve those problems.. To start that ,  Baboons of Islam that comes out of  sand Land and those who get support from them across the globe because of their oil wealth  should be buried under the sand...

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #4 - January 23, 2014, 04:15 PM

    Noooooo...... America has to concentrate on policing itself, forget anything else!    thnkyu

    "The greatest general is not the one who can take the most cities or spill the most blood. The greatest general is the one who can take Heaven and Earth without waging the battle." ~ Sun Tzu

  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #5 - January 23, 2014, 05:27 PM

    The problem is the US on the world stage is like a corrupt LA cop, it's not actually policing the world in any decent manner, it's raping the world like a thug.  So in principle I'd support intervention in Syria, but practically we'd screw it up at best.
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #6 - January 23, 2014, 05:35 PM

    The problem is the US on the world stage is  like a corrupt LA cop,  .......

    Cops can only become corrupt when citizens start paying  cops to hide their crimes EzraJT..

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #7 - January 23, 2014, 06:15 PM

    I think America should stop interfering with other countries.
    Muslim countries need to solve their shit by themselves. The interference of the US will just increase hatred towards the infidels....and it will make the situation worse.
    It will create even more chaos.



  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #8 - January 23, 2014, 06:30 PM

    Quote
    Cops can only become corrupt when citizens start paying  cops to hide their crimes EzraJT..


    Well, first of all, that's not true at all.  Where do you get these wacky ideas?  Corrupt cops arise from a lack of accountability, nothing to do with bribery.  In the US's case, it's not even really like a corrupt cop to be fair, we're really just the world's rapist.

    Quote
    I think America should stop interfering with other countries.
    Muslim countries need to solve their shit by themselves. The interference of the US will just increase hatred towards the infidels....and it will make the situation worse.


    Yeah but a lot of recent problems in the Middle East are caused either directly or indirectly by the US, so that's a big part of the problem.
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #9 - January 23, 2014, 07:19 PM

    Well, first of all, that's not true at all.  Where do you get these wacky ideas?

    Well I am wacko EzraJT., I am   A prophet material.,
    Quote
    Corrupt cops arise from a lack of accountability, nothing to do with bribery.

     Really?  well if you and other Americans don't give bribes to cops., how do they become corrupt?  

    Quote
    In the US's case, it's not even really like a corrupt cop to be fair, we're really just the world's rapist.

     
    You seem to use the words "rape" and "rapist" for US of A quite often., So how does it do it?  how America does this raping and how can it get away? can you think of a good reason for  that EzraJT. May be we can teach other nations to RAPE AMERICA and get away with it..  

    Quote
    Yeah but a lot of recent problems in the Middle East are caused either directly or indirectly by the US, so that's a big part of the problem.

    So if there was no America in this damn world,  there would have been no problem in Middle East.  Right??  Did I get that right EzraJT?

    I think the other problem is Israel and  the support it gets from America.  What do you think about that?

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #10 - January 23, 2014, 10:07 PM

    America does nothing, and the preachers start screaming about how they don't care and this and that and use it to further hatred of them. America does something, and the preachers start screaming about how they're just in it for themselves and interfering in muslin business and in muslim land and use it to further hatred of them.

    Damned it you do, damned if you don't.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #11 - January 23, 2014, 10:08 PM

    Well I am wacko EzraJT., I am   A prophet material.,


     Cheesy

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #12 - January 23, 2014, 11:04 PM

    America shouldn't do ANYTHING in Syria imo, let them sort it out themselves.  wacko

    I said that!
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #13 - January 23, 2014, 11:07 PM

    America does nothing, and the preachers start screaming about how they don't care and this and that and use it to further hatred of them. America does something, and the preachers start screaming about how they're just in it for themselves and interfering in muslin business and in muslim land and use it to further hatred of them.

    Damned it you do, damned if you don't.

    yes, its fucked up!

    its the same as what happens in human interactions where one or more of the individuals are altruists. if you help someone according to what you know is helpful (which is consistent with altruism), he hates you for doing things in a way they don't agree with, and if you leave them alone, they hate you for being selfish. wtf!?!?
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #14 - January 23, 2014, 11:08 PM

    Noooooo...... America has to concentrate on policing itself, forget anything else!    thnkyu

    That's kinda what I argued, for the US to leave Syria alone.
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #15 - January 23, 2014, 11:09 PM

    The problem is the US on the world stage is like a corrupt LA cop, it's not actually policing the world in any decent manner, it's raping the world like a thug.  So in principle I'd support intervention in Syria, but practically we'd screw it up at best.

    I don't even see how it could work "in principle".
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #16 - January 23, 2014, 11:11 PM

    Cops can only become corrupt when citizens start paying  cops to hide their crimes EzraJT..

    Yes.. both the cop that takes bribes AND the citizen that gives them, are the problem, not just the cops.
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #17 - January 23, 2014, 11:24 PM

    yes, its fucked up!

    its the same as what happens in human interactions where one or more of the individuals are altruists. if you help someone according to what you know is helpful (which is consistent with altruism), he hates you for doing things in a way they don't agree with, and if you leave them alone, they hate you for being selfish. wtf!?!?


    Childish, really.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #18 - January 23, 2014, 11:30 PM

    To: Quod Sum Eris

    Quote
    yes, its fucked up!

    its the same as what happens in human interactions where one or more of the individuals are altruists. if you help someone according to what you know is helpful (which is consistent with altruism), he hates you for doing things in a way they don't agree with, and if you leave them alone, they hate you for being selfish. wtf!?!?

    Quote
    childish, really.

    That's unfair to children. For one thing, children aren't born altruists. They are indoctrinated with altruist ideas by their parents and society.
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #19 - January 23, 2014, 11:40 PM

    I've seen evidence to the contrary.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #20 - January 23, 2014, 11:43 PM

    Quote from: Quod Sum Eris
    I've seen evidence to the contrary.

    You've seen evidence that children were born altruists?

    Could you explain how the evidence refutes the theory that the child was born without any altruist ideas (or any ideas at all)?
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #21 - January 23, 2014, 11:43 PM

    I've seen evidence to the contrary.

    Hmm.. that tells you were a bad..bad child QSD....

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #22 - January 23, 2014, 11:44 PM

    You've seen evidence that children were born altruists?

    Could you explain how the evidence refutes the theory that the child was born without any altruist ideas (or any ideas at all)?

    actually there is a plenty of evidence that not just child but even fetus after 6 months are so start learning from its surroundings .. such as mother feeling angry....  so rascals are born  with some ideas..

    but going back to the subject , EzraJT does have point  w.r.t  Uncle Sam and Saudi SAUDOM kingdom..

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvfyqlDeAgo

    Zionist Saudi Royal Family Completely Exposed Must Watch

    that is the heading of the tube...

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #23 - January 24, 2014, 12:32 AM

    You've seen evidence that children were born altruists?

    Could you explain how the evidence refutes the theory that the child was born without any altruist ideas (or any ideas at all)?


    I've never heard of it being an actual theory. But anyway

    http://phys.org/news192693376.html

    http://www.sengifted.org/archives/articles/the-moral-sensitivity-of-gifted-children-and-the-evolution-of-society

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1034798/Children-born-know-right-wrong-new-research-shows.html

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    http://worldofweirdthings.com/2010/05/09/are-we-born-with-a-sense-of-right-and-wrong/

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/parenting/do-babies-know-the-difference-between-right-and-wrong/article4634661/

    http://www.wnyc.org/story/are-we-born-knowing-right-wrong/

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #24 - January 24, 2014, 12:34 AM

    The same thing that we ought to have done in most places we end up laying our meddlesome fingerprints, ie nothing.

    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #25 - January 24, 2014, 12:41 AM

    actually there is a plenty of evidence that not just child but even fetus after 6 months are so start learning from its surroundings .. such as mother feeling angry....  so rascals are born  with some ideas..

    i agree we are born with something (calling these ideas is fine). but what the focus was altruistic ideas. wanting to suffer for the benefit of someone else.
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #26 - January 24, 2014, 12:44 AM


    the first link is about morality in general, it didn't specify the idea of altruism.

    the second link starts talking about 6 year olds.

    but we were talking about AT BIRTH.

    did the other links you gave say something about humans have altruistic morality AT BIRTH?
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #27 - January 24, 2014, 01:10 AM

    Mate, I dunno, it was just something I remembered and those were the first things to come up when I googled children innate right wrong

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #28 - January 24, 2014, 01:13 AM

    I think showing something innate at birth is impossible. At birth you can't act on anything, you can't really do anything for yourself. You need to develop to a certain point before anything can be tested.

    Unless you want to brain scans on a new-born in different situations, but again it's not something I see working. But if you have displays of certain things at young ages it lends credit.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • What should America do in Syria?
     Reply #29 - January 24, 2014, 01:43 AM

    Regarding the radicalisation of the Syrian uprising

    Quote
    Assad regime set free extremists from prison to fire up trouble during peaceful uprising

    Read more: http://www.thenational.ae/world/syria/assad-regime-set-free-extremists-from-prison-to-fire-up-trouble-during-peaceful-

    ISTANBUL / AMMAN // Syrian intelligence agencies released Islamist militants from prison to deliberately subvert a peaceful uprising and ignite a violent rebellion, according to a former regime security official.

    The claim comes ahead of peace talks in Switzerland on Wednesday, which President Bashar Al Assad's government said should "fight terrorism", a term he uses to describe all armed opposition groups.

    But according to the former security officer it was the regime that intentionally exacerbated radicalism shortly after the uprising began in March 2011 in order to make itself the least bad choice for the international community and Syrians alike.

    "The regime did not just open the door to the prisons and let these extremists out, it facilitated them in their work, in their creation of armed brigades," said the former member of Syria's Military Intelligence Directorate, one of more than a dozen of Syria's secretive intelligence agencies.

    The former officer said most of the releases happened over a period of four months up until October 2011 and that the project was overseen by the General Security Directorate, another of Syria's widely feared security organisations and one of the most important.

    Under pressure from opposition groups and the international community, the regime set free hundreds of detainees from jail in the first few months of the uprising as part of an amnesty.

    But many political prisoners and protesters backing the peaceful uprising were kept in prison, while others, including known Islamist radicals and violent offenders, were quietly released.

    Some former inmates of Saidnaya prison, a facility 50 km north of Damascus, went on to become prominent members of insurgent groups.

    Zahran Aloush, commander of the Jaish Al Islam; Abdul Rahman Suweis of the Liwa al Haq; Hassan Aboud of Ahrar Al Sham; and Ahmad Aisa Al Sheikh, commander of Suqour Al Sham, were all held in regime jails prior to the uprising.

    The commander of the powerful Al Qaeda affiliate Jabhat Al Nusra, Abu Mohammad Al Jolani, is also rumoured to have been among those set free, although little is known about his true identity.

    "Most of the important people in these extremist groups were in Saidnaya prison, not just Zahran Aloush. There were many of them and the regime let them go very deliberately," the former intelligence officer said.

    From the start of the uprising, the regime insisted it was facing an Islamist insurgency as a way of justifying its murderous response to overwhelmingly peaceful demands for political reforms.

    To give that narrative credence and bolster support among the fearful religious minorities it depends on for support, as well as Syria's moderate mainstream population, the regime sought to create instability inside Syria, including acts of violence by Sunni extremists, said the former intelligence officer. He spoke on condition of anonymity.

    He is one of a small number of Alawite security officers who defected from the regime in protest at its tactics to break the uprising.

    Although he left his position as head of a military intelligence unit in northern Syria in the summer of 2011, he remains in contact with some former colleagues and has not joined the opposition.

    In fact, he believes Mr Al Assad should remain in power as a preferable alternative to radical Islamist factions that have come to dominate the armed rebellion.

    Groups such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) and Jabhat Al Nusra have been infiltrated by Syria's security forces, the former intelligence officer said, with regime personnel helping them wage war against other Islamic groups and, in some cases, even against Syrian regime forces.

    "This regime is clever, no one on the outside will ever understand what goes on inside," he said, describing a shadowy system of intelligence branches spying on each other, betraying one another, sometimes promoting attacks by armed rebels on other security branches - all in the name of serving the president.

    The officer, who served for 12 years in military intelligence, including a long stint in Aleppo, said Syria's security agencies played a key role in sending Islamist insurgents to Iraq to fight US forces following the 2003 invasion, with President Al Assad fearful Syria would be America's next target.

    Aleppo, Syria's commercial capital - now a ruined cityscape, smashed by artillery and airstrikes - was a key recruitment and transit hub for militants.

    When the fighters returned to Syria, many were jailed or executed by the secuirty services, the former officer said, as the authorities sought to reign in extremists who, back on home turf, might pose a threat to the regime.

    However, with the 2011 uprising against Mr Al Assad refusing to die down after several months, the regime once again sought to exploit radical Islamists to make itself appear as a bastion of secular moderation.

    "The regime wanted to tell the world it was fighting Al Qaeda but the revolution was peaceful in the beginning so it had to build an armed Islamic revolt. It was a specific, deliberate plan and it was easy to carry out.

    "There were strong Islamic tendencies to the uprising so it just had to encourage them," he said.


    Another former regime official who has not joined the opposition agreed that there was a policy on the part of Mr Al Assad's forces to create violence and terrorism to legitimise a crackdown on the opposition.

    "You release a few people and you create the violence. It's contagious," the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

    Weapons were made available to radical elements of the opposition in key hotspots, including Deraa and Idlib, the former military intelligence officer said.

    "This is not something I heard rumours about, I actually heard the orders, I have seen it happening," the officer said. "These orders came down from [Military Intelligence] headquarters Damascus."

    The officer remains angry about the strategy of stoking radicalism, saying it was a key reason why he left his post. An incident in Jisr Al Shoughour, in northern Syria, in June 2011, proved decisive, after hearing higher ranked officers saying it was necessary to provoke sectarian bloodshed there, including the slaughter of fellow Alawite officers by Sunni rebels, in order to "serve the nation".

    "They [the regime] fed us nationalism but at the expense of our blood, they sold our blood to create Takfiris" he said, a reference to a radical Sunni ideology that regard Alawites as heretics who should be killed.

    His claims could not be independently verified and he did not have documents supporting them. Syria's security branches have, overwhelmingly, remained fanatically loyal to the regime with each depending on the other for survival.

    Some regime supporters admit former detainees have joined the insurgency, but say that was not the authorities' intention and is, rather, the responsibility of international powers, which pushed Mr Al Assad to free all political prisoners, including Islamists.

    In other cases, rebel fighters say they were radicalised by the routine torture practised in regime detention cells, with security service brutality boosting the appeal of extremist groups.

    Islamic radicals are now a major participant on all sides of the Syrian conflict, with Sunni rebel groups battling one another as well as against Shiite militias fighting alongside the regime.

    The increasingly sectarian proxy war, with Shiite Iran and the Sunni Arab Gulf states backing opposite sides, has killed in excess of 120,000 people, wounded hundreds of thousands more and forced upwards of 6 million Syrians to flee their homes.

    It is a conflict that shows no sign of abating.

    Opposition activists say about 1,500 inmates of Saidnaya, a major regime prison for Islamist militants, were freed by the Syrian government.

    A former Saidnaya prisoner, jailed for three years but released before the uprising started, said many inmates went on to join armed rebel factions.

    "Some of the important radical leaders [of armed groups] were in there including Jolani [the head of Jabhat Al Nusra], he said. "The Islamists were held in a separate wing of the prison but some of them like Aloush were famous. I didn't see Jolani but people said he was in there," the former detainee said.


    Major General Fayez Dwairi, a former Jordanian military officer involved in Amman's response to the growing crisis in Syria, said the Assad regime was directly involved in the growth of Islamic extremism.

    "Many of the people who established Jabhat Al Nusra were captured by the regime in 2008 and were in prison. When the revolution started they were released on the advice of Syrian intelligence officers, who told Assad 'they will do a good job for us. There are many disadvantages to letting them out, but there are more advantages because we will convince the world that we are facing Islamic terrorism'," he said.

    Maj Gen Dwairi said 46 leading members of Jabhat Al Nusra had been in Syrian regime custody, including its leader.

    He also said Islamic groups had been infiltrated by Syrian intelligence agents.

    A western security consultant, who has been involved in secret negotiations involving Jabhat Al Nusra, said senior figures involved with that group had been in Syrian prisons.

    There have been other cases of the complex relationship between extremist militants and the regime. Some reports have said that after seizing oil fields in eastern Syria in 2012 Jabhat Al Nusra struck deals with the regime to transport the oil to the coast for export.

    The former Syrian military intelligence officer said Mr Al Assad and his senior lieutenants had ruthlessly outmanoeuvred western and Arab states, dragging them into a regional sectarian war that, perversely, gave the regime better odds of survival than a peaceful uprising and gradual democratic change would have.

    Western capitals now fear the Islamist-dominated opposition more than they do the regime, he said, making President Al Assad a potential ally rather than enemy.

    "Syrian security opened the doors to the prisons, and they knew what would happen," he said.


    Danish Never-Moose adopted by the kind people on the CEMB-forum
    Ex-Muslim chat (Unaffliated with CEMB). Safari users: Use "#ex-muslims" as the channel name. CEMB chat thread.
  • 12 3 4 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »