06.04.2012 08:15 AM

Syria, the Edmonton Journal, and indifference

More concerned about newspaper wars than civil wars, the Edmonton Journal’s Stuart Thomson this morning tweeted that my call for Western military intervention in Syria was “glib.”  I’ll leave it to others to decide whether the rising body count – and last week’s shocking murder of dozens of children in Houla – merits the sort of chronic misanthropic indifference assholes like Thomson traffic in, daily.

After his tweet came this one.  Me, I think there’s a reason why some journalists are stars, and why some are pathetic nobodies, and will end their careers as pathetic nobodies.  Cynicism.


  1. JamesHalifax says:

    Be careful, Warren….

    I too called for the use of Force as the only viable solution to stop the killing of innocents in Syria….and was attacked for it. Being a Conservative, however, I’m used to such treatment.

    Seeing a Liberal agree with my assessment may shock some of your readers and result in your further alienation from the more Left wing(nuts) in your (former?) Party.

  2. Dan says:

    Military intervention isn’t the only way to resolve this kind of situation.

    • JamesHalifax says:

      True Dan,

      There are a few different ways to resolve the issue. Unfortunately, when it comes to dictators, they only understand the one option.

      • Dan says:

        I think you’re confusing options and goals. The singular goal is the ousting of Al-Assad (or a severe reduction in power), and there isn’t a revolution in the world that didn’t involve violence, if not threats of violence.

        But dictators aren’t so dense that said threat needs to take the form of a specifically Western invasion.

        • JamesHalifax says:

          Dan, I was responding to what it would take to get Assad out of power. it will take force, either by an outside military, or internal groups of Syria.

          My concern however, is that once Assad is gone…..what will replace it? Frankly, I’d rather have a maniac running Syria that only affected the Syrians, rather than a second version of Iran. No win situation either way.

  3. kre8tv says:

    Obviously not a Springsteen fan.

  4. Kelly says:

    Honestly, why Conservative enthusiasm for attacking Libya and not Syria? Is it really as simple a matter as the oil fields of eastern Libya? Libya’s a basket case with retribution, chaos and oppression again the order of the day.

  5. JamesHalifax says:

    I’m all for attacking Syria too……but people need to know the repercussions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *