|
Oh, Israel. Hey guys wanna fight WW3? (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
Saw this post on FB the other day and thought I'd share it and see what some of you think? |
The "concession" were a ing insult. He had already killed at least 60 peaceful protesters (and those were the ones that got reported - no mention of the political prisoners held in murkey jails) just 12 days in, and two weeks AFTER THAT, he lifted a decades old Emergency Law which was designed to keep his people stripped of any civil liberties.
You can bang on all you want about outside interests, and I'm sure Isreal would be happy to see him go and are no doubt doing whatever they can to make it happen, but Assad and his father built this problem over the last 40 years, and it finally came back to bite them. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
The "concession" were a ing insult. He had already killed at least 60 peaceful protesters (and those were the ones that got reported - no mention of the political prisoners held in murkey jails) just 12 days in, and two weeks AFTER THAT, he lifted a decades old Emergency Law which was designed to keep his people stripped of any civil liberties.
You can bang on all you want about outside interests, and I'm sure Isreal would be happy to see him go and are no doubt doing whatever they can to make it happen, but Assad and his father built this problem over the last 40 years, and it finally came back to bite them. |
This problem was built far before Assad's father took over.
Israel would prefer Assad to the rebels.
You know nothing. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Oh, off. I didn't even mention The Guardian or any ing conspiracy theories. I'm talking about actual facts, something you don't have, you damn imbecile.
|
Then where are your stats that "only a small number" want assad gone? Where are those "facts"? It doesn't make it so just because you say it is. You're not Jean Luc Picard.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
That's a stupid statement with no understanding of what legitimacy is.
|
Bull - If killing your people because they protest doesn't endanger your legitimacy as a leader, then what should. Do you want mass genocide as the benchmark? And if so, what exact number has to die before your question their right to rule?
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
I'm not denying that Assad is bad. I have never said that. I despise the man. But I'm not so blindly myopic that I want us to involve ourselves in a cluster of a situation and make it worse.
|
Same, but the alternative is to sit there and watch a man kill innocent people because he wants to stay in power.
Which ing bit of this do you not get? Or are you just too much of a to take a stance? "It's complicated" isn't a ing solution.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Full military might would involve using every weapon he has on them, which he hasn't, so that statement is factually inaccurate.
|
He used fighter jets on civilian buildings. Tanks on protesters.
I see, he didn't nuke them. Oh, that's fine then. Carry on.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
You show, as always when it comes to politics, a blind and myopic misunderstanding of the situation. You freak out because you've heard about chemical weapons and crackdowns on protesters, and haven't ACTUALLY thought about the situation.
|
I couldn't care less about chemical weapons but yes, I do care about the slaughter of protesters. Look at all the early protests. No reports of "rebel fighters". No guns, no weapons, yet Asaad butchered them.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
International Relations is not simple. There is not a good person and a bad person. This isn't black and white. Assad is terrible, but the rebels are bad ing news. This is two groups of terrible people fighting it out, and we have no clear strategy of how to fix the situation. Yes, it sucks that innocent people are dying. Yes, it sucks that atrocities are occurring. But when there is no viable solution to the problem, the U.S. getting involved will only make things worse.
Why do you think the U.S. is so hesitant to get involved? We would love to over Iran by getting rid of an ally of theirs. This situation is ed up. Stop thinking it isn't and actually use your brain. |
Please spare me the lecture. This is a truly complex situation now, with interests involved that frankly should not be partaking in shaping these events.
Both sides now have plenty of blame and I agree the rebels now are not a good option either but the bottom line remains; Assad crushed what started out as a peaceful protest trying for more civil rights. The first two weeks of protests were mainly women, usually in gatherings of only a couple of hundred people and they were met with AK's and forced rendition and torture.
Here's an article I remember reading right from the very start:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middl...1422534165.html
The US won't get involved because it already has too much going on Militarily and aside from McCain, people do not want another war on foreign soil. Combine that with a recession and the resulting constants calls to cut defense spending, and the president that can't even close Gitmo aint going to sign off. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Israel would prefer Assad to the rebels.
You know nothing. |
Orly? (FROM TODAY)
| quote: | Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has threatened Israel with retaliation over future military aggression, as more than 1000 rebels rushed to the besieged city of Qusayr, near the border with Lebanon.
George Sabra, the interim president of the Syrian National Coalition said on Friday that opposition fighters were flooding into Qusayr, which had been under rebel control for months until government troops moved to retake the town in Homs province two weeks ago.
"More than 1000 fighters from the Free Syrian Army from all over Syria are now joining the resistance inside Qusayr to defend against the foreign terrorist invaders, who are infiltrating our country from Lebanon and other places," Sabra said. Assad, whose forces were battling alongside fighters from the Lebanese Shia movement, Hezbollah, to recapture Qusayr, said earlier in an interview with Hezbollah's Al Manar television that he was confident of victory.
"There is a world war being waged against Syria and the policy of (anti-Israeli) resistance... (but) we are very confident of victory," he said. |
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middl...1651480202.html
Hmmm, so you know more than Assad about his feelings in Israel then?
Seriously, do some research before posting. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
Bull - If killing your people because they protest doesn't endanger your legitimacy as a leader, then what should. Do you want mass genocide as the benchmark? And if so, what exact number has to die before your question their right to rule? |
So what's the cutoff for killing protesters that makes legitimacy go away? Is it 1 protester? 5? 5,000? What is it?
How are you going to define "killing" ? Do accidental deaths count? How are you going to know if its accidental? What if the protesters attack the police and the police respond, does that count?
If 5% of the population dislikes the leader, but 95% loves him, has he lost legitimacy? Was Hitler an illegitimate leader? What about Andrew Jackson? George W. Bush?
Legitimacy is a conceptual framework that is very hard to measure, except through faulty things like opinion polls. Assad has clearly lost legitimacy in the eyes of a large amount of Syrians, but not a majority.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
Same, but the alternative is to sit there and watch a man kill innocent people because he wants to stay in power.
Which ing bit of this do you not get? Or are you just too much of a to take a stance? "It's complicated" isn't a ing solution.
|
I've taken a stance, you ing twat. It should be ing clear, if you aren't a moron.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
He used fighter jets on civilian buildings. Tanks on protesters.
I see, he didn't nuke them. Oh, that's fine then. Carry on.
|
He's done a lot of terrible things, but he could do a lot worse if he really just wanted to kill every citizen.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
I couldn't care less about chemical weapons but yes, I do care about the slaughter of protesters. Look at all the early protests. No reports of "rebel fighters". No guns, no weapons, yet Asaad butchered them. |
As I said, he's a bad person and I dislike him. It would have been nice if he would have stepped down, but clearly that was never going to happen. Stop being a pathetic idealist and think.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
Please spare me the lecture. This is a truly complex situation now, with interests involved that frankly should not be partaking in shaping these events. |
But we should get involved?
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
Both sides now have plenty of blame and I agree the rebels now are not a good option either but the bottom line remains; Assad crushed what started out as a peaceful protest trying for more civil rights. The first two weeks of protests were mainly women, usually in gatherings of only a couple of hundred people and they were met with AK's and forced rendition and torture. |
He's a terrible person. Got it.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
The US won't get involved because it already has too much going on Militarily and aside from McCain, people do not want another war on foreign soil. Combine that with a recession and the resulting constants calls to cut defense spending, and the president that can't even close Gitmo aint going to sign off. |
We could very easily be doing a lot more than we're doing if we really wanted to. We don't like the rebels. Because we shouldn't.
We cannot make every situation ideal. It would be excellent if we could, but that is an idealistic and childish thought. |
|
|
| Lews |
Jesus Christ you are ing mentally handicapped, aren't you?
He hates Israel. Got it.
Israel hates him. Got it.
Israel hates the rebels more than they hate him. Got it?
This isn't mutually exclusive. Assad is bad, but AQ is worse. A stable dictatorship nextdoor is much better than a cluster of warring fundamentalists.
Why are you so mentally incapacitated? Stop telling me to do some research and actually do some ing research yourself, instead of simply reading Al Jazeera, which is one of the absolutely most biased news sources when it comes to Syria. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
So what's the cutoff for killing protesters that makes legitimacy go away? Is it 1 protester? 5? 5,000? What is it?
|
What. Are you serious? There were multiple reports of deaths at each of the protests which again were peaceful. That's already enough. Can you imagine that happening in the UK or Sweden or Spain? No, it would be over and that leader would be on a fast track to jail for the rest of their lives, let alone a "safe passage" to live in another country with all their state sponsored wealth. The protest one I posted (12 days in) was nearly entirely female, and they got badly beaten some killed and many were dragged away not to be seen again.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
How are you going to define "killing" ? Do accidental deaths count? How are you going to know if its accidental? What if the protesters attack the police and the police respond, does that count?
|
WHAT THE . Listen to yourself. What defines killing. In these cases (yes again, multiple) unarmed people being killed by state military for voicing an opinion. You don't get 60 accidental deaths at a gathering of 400 people. Jesus christ man, I really shouldn't be having to explain this or justify this.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
If 5% of the population dislikes the leader, but 95% loves him, has he lost legitimacy? Was Hitler an illegitimate leader? What about Andrew Jackson? George W. Bush?
|
Again, where are you getting both your figures and overall mistinterepations from?
Legitimacy has nothing to do with how many or what % people like him - I have been saying the moment you kill your people because you don't like what they are saying (basic human rights, please) you lose you legitimacy as a leader, both from your people and in the eyes of other civilised nations. You cannot kill your own people and expect to carry on as usual.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Legitimacy is a conceptual framework that is very hard to measure, except through faulty things like opinion polls. Assad has clearly lost legitimacy in the eyes of a large amount of Syrians, but not a majority.
|
He has lost it both from his own people and from the other world powers. USA officially declared it in July 2011 due to mass killings in protests earlier that month. Most of Europe had done so by the end of 2011 and the EU finally declared it in November 2012. It's a consensus but if you look at the reasons given, killing your people to limit their civil rights is the main and enduring reason cited.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
I've taken a stance, you ing twat. It should be ing clear, if you aren't a moron.
|
you havne't though. Your stances above keep showing that "it's too complex" or "both sides are bad". You're on the fence more so than anyone else in this thread.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
He's done a lot of terrible things, but he could do a lot worse if he really just wanted to kill every citizen.
|
Oh great, I'm sure that will keep the families of those killed nice and snug at night. Don't worry! Could have been worse :)
Where are your standards?
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
As I said, he's a bad person and I dislike him. It would have been nice if he would have stepped down, but clearly that was never going to happen. Stop being a pathetic idealist and think.
|
"nice"? The standard needs to be, you kill your people, you give up your power and face the legal consequences.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
But we should get involved? |
In some ways yes, but that can be diplomatic up to a point, and then support for those being repressed beyond that. If you don't want to fight, at least protect.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
We could very easily be doing a lot more than we're doing if we really wanted to. We don't like the rebels. Because we shouldn't.
We cannot make every situation ideal. It would be excellent if we could, but that is an idealistic and childish thought. |
No one, ever, and certainly not me has suggested that it could or ever would be ideal. We don't like the rebels but we cannot allow assad to remain, regardless of if we like the sucessors or not. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
What. Are you serious? There were multiple reports of deaths at each of the protests which again were peaceful. That's already enough. Can you imagine that happening in the UK or Sweden or Spain? No, it would be over and that leader would be on a fast track to jail for the rest of their lives, let alone a "safe passage" to live in another country with all their state sponsored wealth. The protest one I posted (12 days in) was nearly entirely female, and they got badly beaten some killed and many were dragged away not to be seen again.
WHAT THE . Listen to yourself. What defines killing. In these cases (yes again, multiple) unarmed people being killed by state military for voicing an opinion. You don't get 60 accidental deaths at a gathering of 400 people. Jesus christ man, I really shouldn't be having to explain this or justify this.
Again, where are you getting both your figures and overall mistinterepations from?
Legitimacy has nothing to do with how many or what % people like him - I have been saying the moment you kill your people because you don't like what they are saying (basic human rights, please) you lose you legitimacy as a leader, both from your people and in the eyes of other civilised nations. You cannot kill your own people and expect to carry on as usual.
He has lost it both from his own people and from the other world powers. USA officially declared it in July 2011 due to mass killings in protests earlier that month. Most of Europe had done so by the end of 2011 and the EU finally declared it in November 2012. It's a consensus but if you look at the reasons given, killing your people to limit their civil rights is the main and enduring reason cited. |
So when WE, an outside country, declare that a leader has lost their legitimacy, it is official? Ignoring the millions of citizens who still support him?
Legitimacy, like everything in politics and in Syria, is NOT a clear cut issue. You would know that if you had the smallest understanding of politics.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
you havne't though. Your stances above keep showing that "it's too complex" or "both sides are bad". You're on the fence more so than anyone else in this thread. |
Since you insist on being a cretin, I'll spell it for you: The U.S. should not get involved. That should be really ing obvious from everything I've posted, and you would have picked up on that if weren't so ing blind.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
"nice"? The standard needs to be, you kill your people, you give up your power and face the legal consequences. |
That would be great. So let's go take out Russia's government, China's government, and every government who has ever killed their own people in a crackdown.
That's not how the ing world works. There are some situations where we can intervene and there are some situations where we cannot.
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
In some ways yes, but that can be diplomatic up to a point, and then support for those being repressed beyond that. If you don't want to fight, at least protect. |
So how are we going to protect the citizens? Especially considering "innocent citizens" are being killed by both sides. Do we go in and kill everybody with a gun?
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
No one, ever, and certainly not me has suggested that it could or ever would be ideal. We don't like the rebels but we cannot allow assad to remain, regardless of if we like the sucessors or not. |
So we should get rid of him, ignoring the consequences, because: he's lost legitimacy!!
Seriously, can you use your brain? Stop reading Al Jazeera and think. The rebels are terrible, Assad is terrible. This is not a genocide, this is not a massacre, this is a civil war. It's a cluster. We should not get involved. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
This is the most limp wristed argument I've seen in awhile. You both just keep rehashing things that have already been said and/or are completely obvious, mixed in with overly used ad hominems. You disagree, we get it.
(DJRANN is right though) |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| DJ RANN I don't understand why you are choosing to looking at this whole situation from only one angle? Do you have evidence that shows that Syria will be better off with the Rebels taking over? Will these Rebels bring stability into the country and unite the people of Syria? Why are you refusing to admit that these Rebel have committed horrendous acts in Syria? |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| I don't think he's arguing that the rebels should assume power, just that Assad should relinquish it. |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
I don't think he's arguing that the rebels should assume power, just that Assad should relinquish it. |
At the same time as I mentioned here before we are so quick to get rid of these "bad leaders" but yet nobody is thinking about the aftermath once Assad is gone. They assume that everything will just become normal and that the Syrians will be better off without him. Their main argument is that the Rebels are lesser of an evil in compare to the current regime and I simply don't think that's the case over there. The Rebels are just as bad or worse and they have proven that over and over again. |
|
|
|
|
