As he understands it.
Fighting crimes against humanity with crimes against humanity is not a good way to halt crimes against humanity.
— David Sirota (@davidsirota) August 31, 2013
. @andie_walsh @MisterTrashCan "Bomb someone! Anyone! Even if it doesnt help!" is not a rational or particularly humane policy.
— David Sirota (@davidsirota) September 3, 2013
@andie_walsh @MisterTrashCan ...bombing people just to bomb them is a violation of both.
— David Sirota (@davidsirota) September 3, 2013
Me: Wow. I was unaware that massive, indiscriminate US military "crimes against humanity" were even on the table?
Imaginary David Sirota: Oh they definitely are. Definitely! Because drones. And Boston Marathon. Also Assaaaaange!
Me: So what do you suggest, David?
Imaginary David Sirota: Obviously I'd much rather nonviolent resistance these atrocities away. Also marching would be good. Love marching. Obviously I will continue to militate against this depraved indifference to innocent human life from the pages of Salon. Also if he has a blog or is on Twitter, I could leave him some really scathing comments. But then again, he's is probably just the sort of fascist who would block me and has comments turned off.
Me: I'm pretty sure Assad isn't on Twitter and doesn't have a blog.
Imaginary David Sirota: "Assad"? I'm talking about that fascist Barack Obama. Who the fuck is "Assad"?
9 comments:
Imaginary (but not really) David Sirota: "And I'll hurl insults at Obama on Twitter so that my idol Glenn Greenwald will retweet me!!!"
Arguing with your imaginary friends is not an argument for dropping bombs that will undoubtedly kill innocent people and which will not in any way change the regime. Nor is the only alternative some sort of drum circle peace movement action. There are economic sanctions, there are many diplomatic tools short of dropping "humanitarian bombs of love". But we wouldn't want to disappoint the military industrial complex. And it's not like Barack Obama is in charge of them.
Pretending (or not knowing) that the US government has been actively trying to destabilize Syria in an attempt to place it under America's sphere of influence undermines any point you are trying to make Driftglass. The 20 years of misguided American policy is a leading cause of the civil war in Syria. More of our "help" is unlikely to improve the lives of Syrians.
Unless you are proposing a several year long Berlin style airlift campaign to bring in food, medicine, and cigarettes.
I'm not going to try to speak for our host, but it's entirely possible to read this not as "look those damn dirty hippies and how silly they are for not wanting to bomb them some brown people" but as the much more reasonable "perhaps equating everything the US does to 'crimes against humanity' doesn't exactly forward the discussion to what other possibilities are out there."
And no, I'm not excited, even the tiniest bit, that this derelict country of ours is, yet again, willing to spend untold billions lobbing bombs at the other side of the world, while letting people starve here.
That doesn't mean I think the prez would be engaging in "crimes against humanity" if we do get involved. Which again, I don't think we should.
OBS,
Winner winner, chicken dinner.
I continue to be amused at how thoroughly some of my friends on the Left have been conditioned to race right on past to what I actually write so they can get their hair-on-fire, outrage on over what I must be implying.
How do any of the war supporters know:
(1) That chemical weapons were actually used?
And if they can establish (1), how do they know:
(2) That the Syrian govt. used them, rather than the rebels?
I for one think that the 2nd war in Iraq definitely fits into the category of "crimes against humanity". If past is prologue our involvement in forcing Syria to "decapitate" its current government could eventually fit into the definition as well.
A little important background on the meaning and definition of "crimes against humanity" and "war crimes" can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity
It's interesting reading.
As an aside, I think by definition that Twitter is stupid. Attempting a "discussion" about crimes against humanity is incurably stupid when the forum is Twitter.
I'm officially placing myself in the "blame America first crowd", especially when it comes to starting and/or facilitating wars of aggression.
Carmelo --
Succinctly put.
I think point #1 can be adequately supported by the reports of international doctors and other first responders, with the vital caveat that nothing those responders have provided identifies the type of CW used or their source.
I think point #2 has not been established -- at all. The only evidence I've seen is an open communications intercept provided by the Israelis. Regarded without any complementary data, this is thin gruel to justify a war and everything else is being held back.
Most of the support for war against Syria seems to be a product of hysteria or about protecting the "international norms" regarding the use of CW. I hope the pro-war crowd will forgive me if I don't see the wisdom in defending "international norms" by launching a poorly justified war of aggression.
-- Nonny Mouse
Even the UN Secretary General thinks bombing Syria would be a crime against humanity.
Any faction found to have used chemical weapons "must be brought to justice," U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Tuesday. But the head of the world body also warned that any use of force to punish perpetrators would be legal only in self-defense or with U.N. Security Council authorization.
Post a Comment