Jump to content

Do you have a solution for peace in Syria?


Robittybob1
 Share

Recommended Posts

It breaks my heart seeing what is happening. What is the solution?


If the problem arises from this we have no hope of a solution: Disarray http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/95413-who-was-abraham-that-religions-get-named-after-him/page-5#entry924786

 

The distinction between Shiite and Sunnis goes back, of course, to differences in interpretation as to such things as to whom is the spiritual successor of Muhammed. Again, it seems to be all about who is in line of descent, who has rights to land, who has rights to rule

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Political leaders across the world should say that either anyone is why reality exists, or that no one is; the political leader can be from any country, it doesn't matter. The bottom line is that once viewing publics had heard this kind of talk, problems such as you've referenced would no longer have reason to exist.

 

More precisely: whoever does the talking, in public, that talk should try to consist of ideas like all people being formula and context, or trees and forests, or this or that kind of specific life experience (e.g. the speaker could detail a life experience that's either theirs or someone they know, and then say that all people on Earth are that very experience).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two solutions - neither of them very plausible (or, in truth, very nice).

 

First, you isolate them and let them fight it out until there's a clear winner. Not a very palatable idea to most of the civilized world, but there you are.

Second, you do away with religion completely. This is going to be about as easy as stopping the tides.

 

The problem is they're fighting wars of ideology. Both sides fervently, deeply, and completely believe they are right, and you cannot reason with a fanatic. You cannot talk him off a ledge. These people are willing to die, indeed to kill themselves, for their belief. Diplomacy, sadly, is useless against that kind of all-consuming belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we need to find out who is arming the extremists, and go after them. Without access to military weaponry, extreme views are much more easily dealt with from within the culture, which is probably the only way any of this is going to end well. The vast majority of Islamic people don't view their religion in this extreme way. Don't glorify terrorist actions in the press, denounce them in the streets.

 

We also need to stop fighting terrorists as if they were normal combatants. Shock and awe only makes the terrorist ranks swell. It may sound counter-intuitive to focus on defense, but removing overwhelming response leaves the recruiters with fewer fervent supporters. Leave families intact and there are fewer survivors willing to blow themselves up to avenge a loved one.

 

And we truly need to rethink this whole military industrial setup we've let get out of control. We're running the war on terrorism on a for-profit model, and then wondering why it keeps growing. At what point are we looking for more places to drop the bombs we've already bought, instead of buying bombs to fight with? You can't trust that the same folks who profit from warfare aren't the same folks who armed the extremists in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Political leaders across the world should say that either anyone is why reality exists, or that no one is; the political leader can be from any country, it doesn't matter. The bottom line is that once viewing publics had heard this kind of talk, problems such as you've referenced would no longer have reason to exist.

 

More precisely: whoever does the talking, in public, that talk should try to consist of ideas like all people being formula and context, or trees and forests, or this or that kind of specific life experience (e.g. the speaker could detail a life experience that's either theirs or someone they know, and then say that all people on Earth are that very experience).

There is the saying "you can't see the forest for the trees". Does that fit in with what you are saying?

 

 

Forgive those who seek to create hatred/fear.

So that is that a total surrender by all the rebel groups?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is it you think they've won?

If all rebel groups surrender Assad has won, and then will he hunt down those who contributed to the chaos? He will feel he has won the war but who is going to pay?

Over the last few months we've been lead to believe they had a ceasefire, but every time it gets broken by the Russian backed Assad regime. They seem to equate a ceasefire with surrender, and when they don't surrender the rebel held areas are turned into a bloodbath.

Edited by Robittybob1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We (western world) cannot stop it through any type of intervention that involves killing people. Foriegn forces in ones backyard killing people is fuel terrorists can use. Certainly foriegn forces have been welcomed places before; England was happy to have U.S. in WW2 but that was a partnership between allied counrties with shared history and culture. U.S. forces, NATO forces, Russian forces will not be able to resolve this.

 

In the region there are several stable and wealthy countries. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, UAE, Kuwait, and Bahrain.These countries enjoy healthy business relationships with the western world. International money feeds their opulent countries. Yet they stay neutral on most of the destructive matters facing their region. In some cases they even provided money to violent groups. I think the western world should sacrifice paying higher fuel costs for a while so that our gov't can put pressure on these wealthy countries to act. Pressure Saudi Arabia to work with Iran and Turkey. Pressure the affluent nations to build alliance. They are the ones with the shared history and culture. Their presence isn't automatically a force multiplier for terrorist groups.

 

That would take sacrifice though. Drone bombing suspected terrorists thousands of miles away doesn't impact our wallets in a linear way. Much easier for politicians to campaign on how big our stick is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard of the phrase you reference, but I'm just saying that only once reality is shared does it get better; people who lived 1,000 years ago are anyone who's using the internet today, so therefore it's error that 1,000 years later I'm needing to write this sentence.

1,000 years from now, anyone of that time will be anyone of today: the end of the United States and all other nations could've existed 1,000 years ago, therefore it's wrong that they still exist today.

 

My point is that political leaders should speak in public how I'm speaking on this post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard of the phrase you reference, but I'm just saying that only once reality is shared does it get better; people who lived 1,000 years ago are anyone who's using the internet today, so therefore it's error that 1,000 years later I'm needing to write this sentence.

1,000 years from now, anyone of that time will be anyone of today: the end of the United States and all other nations could've existed 1,000 years ago, therefore it's wrong that they still exist today.

 

My point is that political leaders should speak in public how I'm speaking on this post.

They wouldn't have time for that.

 

 

How else does he pay?

Is that payment enough? Present your full solution dimreepr please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why wouldn't they have time? Can't David Cameron just say on a platform that "anyone on Earth is the meaning of life", or if not him then Assad or Obama?

They could but do you think that would make that much difference? Assad could have a Twitter account, he would get abused he could retaliate etc but the war goes on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they're a true leader, they crave the ability to make everyone on their team or in their charge into leaders themselves.

 

 

 

Quite right, I should have said "What is it a leader, like Assad, truly craves?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Quite right, I should have said "What is it a leader, like Assad, truly craves?"

To be like his heroes. Is it true his heroes are Hitler and Stalin? (There was something said about this a couple of years back.)

Edited by Robittybob1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you saw Cristina De Kirchner or Jeremy Corbyn say in public that anyone in Tehran or California were as much the meaning of life as someone such as Ridley Scott (the filmmaker) or someone like Nelson Mandela what would your reaction be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you saw Cristina De Kirchner or Jeremy Corbyn say in public that anyone in Tehran or California were as much the meaning of life as someone such as Ridley Scott (the filmmaker) or someone like Nelson Mandela what would your reaction be?

Personally it wouldn't make any difference to me. I don't quite understand your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't suppose there is a solution then. I just believe that life forms should say that they are what other people are: I suppose I have to accept though that even that is futile, in which case all one can do is be true to themself.

My philosophy is that because a forest can exist after anything anyone says, nations should be ended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.