Syria: Possible NATO or UN intervention?

That is what I am waiting for.

Regarding the massacre being committed by the rebels, here is one - http://www.rt.com/news/syria-report-massacre-houla-718/ .

To be clear, I don't support Assad. He is a right wing dictator. I am just extremely anti-intervention.

Also, those 9/11 videos had a semi purpose - To show the hypocrisy in the American line of thinking, when it comes to war, or killing civilians.

I support the actions of Assad. If armed rebels stormed DC how do you think Obama would react? Plus killing Moslems is never a bad thing. Even if I disagreed with what he's doing I'd still say we shouldn't get involved. Syria is a sovereign nation and it isn't our right to dictate how there run. I say we blow that entire region off the map and be done with it but that isn't realistic so I'll settle with don't get involved.

Y'know, I believe you raised a good point there. If a civil war happened in any country, even America, this is exactly what would happen, from both sides. Not that I agree with the rest of the post, though.

Of course. It had to be Russia Today! Because they are not biased at all!

Hold on Ler, have to handle something first:

Except that President Obama is not a dictator.

I don't know what else to say...

"All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Oh so you DO have limits.

Well to be fair, I did ask for ANY source:

I don't support Assad, at all. He is a right wing, theocrat-dictator, and Syria is the absolute opposite of what I would want a country to be like. The reason I'm so anti intervention is because I don't want another Libya - Maybe a Syria run under the rebels would be better off, but there is, in my opinion, a much larger chance that it would be worse.

@crocve - Every news organization is biased, no exceptions. I would have thought you'd be anti-intervention, anyway.

I am, if it is done withouth a decision from the United Nations.

Don't our ideologies share the belief that the UN is completely corrupt, and that it serves the interests of the global elite? (Or whatever you guys call them)

The UN isn't going to allow an intervention, anyway - Russia and China are just going to veto it. And upon saying that, it occurs to me that thus far, team anti intervention is composed of a communist, a libertarian, and a fascist. Whad'ya know.

This is true.
But that doesn't mean that the information from one source shouldn't be concurred on by another.
I tend to find BBC not too bad.

The BBC are generally one of the better sources. That being said, I'd like to get your thoughts on this video

Good.

You can see the true form of reds in this thread as well; celebrate terrorism and violence because you have a petty, childish grudge.

Irony.

Err, what? You guys are the ones with a fetish for sending people to do forced labor in frozen hellholes.

It's hard to offend a sociopath, y'know?
I mean, have you ever actually felt anything for another human being, other than contempt?

An interesting video.
I need, of course, verifcation of the claim.
It will, ironically, come from another news source that will likely have just as much if not more bias.

If the claim is true, no matter what his views are, the BBC should apologize and make efforts to prevent it from happening again. There is a fine line between presenting facts from a certain point of view and utterly faking them. His question is also a valid one. If the situation is so dire, why fake it?

That is not to say that Assad's regime is not committing unforgivable acts, but rather to say that it should not be faked for the sake of press or agendas. Indeed, it is unnecessary.

The person who spotted it should be commended for their efforts, even if it turns out that the claim to bias is wrong and it was just a typo.

On that subject, news agencies ought to be careful what they put and make sure that it is what they intend to.
That is to say, I won't rule out the possiblity that this was a typo.

It is true the UN is corrupt and it´s serves those countries who have the veto power and the permanet place in the Security Council. I think to change this problems would be a world revolution. Overthrow dictactorships, every country in the world uniting under a single banner and adopting libertarianism and forming the World Libetarian Republic! (but the world socialist repbulic, never!)

Replace two words, and you've summarized my beliefs.

Or they can expand the amount of permanent members on the Security Council. Or take away the veto power from the Security Council. I do agree though, the UN is inefficient with the permanent members of the Security Council (UK, France, USA, Russia and China) ability to veto anything passed.