The Official Syria (and all things about it) Thread

[Evraim]

This. Not being aggressive does not mean "isolating from the international community", that beloved term our leaders in the West just love utilising. Its just about stopping the immature sabre rattling, in favour of a really constructive international community where all nations can peacefully co-exist together as well as learn to share the world.

Are you familiar with what the Monroe Doctrine advocates, or are you railing against a position which you falsely attribute to me? The Monroe Doctrine essentially calls for the United States not to intervene in the affairs of the Eastern Hemisphere, while dominating those of the Western hemisphere and keeping out all competitors. This is exceedingly foolish in the modern context, where international relations should be governed by the consistent enforcement of laws and principles.

Assad's regime could be argued to have violated international law by expanding its war to civilians and employing chemical weapons. It is imperative then that all powers react to this breach of international law. Why? Because imaginary lines on a political map, believe it or not, are not a safeguard against murdering people. The question is how best to react to the breach of international law. Some believe a military strike would serve, others prefer a diplomatic solution, and the threat of intervention may prove useful in securing concessions in the latter case.

Really constructive? Are you familiar with Kant's argument, supported by scientific research, that truly democratic societies tend to go to war less? If we take this as true, couldn't one argue that bombing dictatorial nations to install American Democracy would ultimately benefit the world more than letting said regimes limp into the next decade by exploiting the tears and blood of their people? And, yes. I am using a little sarcasm here. But there's a definite difference between immature saber rattling and foreign policy, as much as some would like to deny it.

lol yeah, I forgot Assad is the embodiment of pure evil, worse than Hitler, and likes to eat babies for breakfast and the rebels are all model world citizens who can do nothing wrong. I'm sorry, my bad.

When was that said? Assad broke international law. He's the most prominent political figure in Syria at the moment. How does the fact that some rebels also broke the law negate the fact that Assad's regime violated the law? Should we not punish his violations just because other people transgress? This isn't a question of good or evil necessarily, though I tend to view murdering civilians as less than savory, if you must know.

[Shofercia]

Of course. And in terms of Rwanda, I completely agree with you, I'll just add that the thing that made Rwanda feasible, is that the US had the power to carry out an intervention with an over 90 percent chance of success. I'm played through the Rwanda Sim, I can get you the details on it if you like. So if there's clear evidence of massive Human Rights Violations and if the intervention will do much more good than harm, one should intervene. Rwanda is the posterboy example of that.

In this case, I take it that you believe the intervention would not be successful. I would disagree, depending on the sort of intervention and the manner in which it is executed. A full-scale war may be out of the question, due to the squeamishness of the general public and the reluctance of national governments to engage in an endeavor so fraught with risk. A strike, on the other hand, might humble the Syrian government somewhat, and Assad needs some humility. Brazen flouting of international law should not be tolerated.

Of course, whatever decision or lack thereof that they eventually embrace will have consequences. We may decide that Putin isn't just throwing up rhetoric, which seems likely, since we want to believe that an intervention may not be necessary. Getting a despot to give up his toys would please the less passionate persons concerned with this affair, but it won't stop the killing. Not that it will necessarily matter to anyone who isn't under the scope of a loaded gun.

What do you believe should be done, Shof? I suspect you would prefer to preserve Assad's governance in preference to that of the rebels, many of whom claim allegiance to a theocratic ideology, at least so long as it remains convenient to do so. Do you think Putin will deliver on his promises to the United States, or is he stalling?

I do. The problem is that there are too many parties involved, and not enough commitment, so you have to go with the strongest party, which would be Assad. Also, if you want to humble Assad, you don't need to militarily intervene, just fly a couple of empty missiles over his palaces, with leaflets saying "chemical weapons - bad!" In Arabic. Oh, and drop some on insurgent camps too. And announce to everyone that you're going to do that, and limit it at that. It'll be symbolic, but that's all you need right now.

Besides, Putin has no choice but to follow through, and he actually wants to! China finally approved the plan. NATO will approve it if US does. And US approval will depend on Putin's ability to get those weapons from Assad. He has no choice but to get it done. Either he gets it done, or it's Russia out of the Middle East, which benefits no one. What should be done?

Reasonable checks to nudge Putin towards the overall objective. Not push, but nudge. Remind him that the ball's in his court, that he has control, but that if he fucks up, he will lose said control. To Russians, including yours truly, the Ossetian War is important. Obama's rhetoric regarding that war, is the reason why the Russians have a soft spot for him. The objective in front of Putin is reasonable. It's doable. The weapons in that time frame, but those weapons need not be destroyed in that time frame, they just need to be secured by the UNSC. Obviously don't attack on mere technicalities.

In terms of ending the war, stop supplying the Insurgents, with one exception: the Kurds. It's a stalemate there. Assad is winning elsewhere. Letting Assad win everywhere besides Syrian Kurdistan, sets up a peace process which will, once again, involve the UNSC. And Assad isn't going to go against that. The Kurds will not get independent, that much should be made clear to them. But they'll get substantial autonomy, which is what they've been asking for.

As soon as peace is restored, rush in supplies. Stop ethnic hatred from spreading. Promote the Lincoln Approach, well to a reasonable extent, it's the Middle East after all. And obviously keep supplying Northern Lebanon.

[Wytenigistan]

By what measure? If you don't want people to do that to you, don't make stupid false assumptions about them. Now be a big boy and prove you can be the more mature person by getting back on topic.

"If you don't want people to shout bullshit, stop posting".

Honestly you shouldn't even try. Join another thread and learn to debate there. Then come back.

What are you on about, I know how to debate and have stated my opinion in this thread. Is it possible for you to address the topic and poster in a civil manner or not?

[Sibator]

It is rather petty, or the continuing shrink in the size of your arguments show you are rather beginning to acknowledge, at least to yourself, that you have lost.

If my post continues to shrink, it is not because I have run out of argument,

Not necessarily, but given the context, yes you are. And after noticing this flaw you quit significantly lengthened your argument. You have practically acknowledged I am correct.

but that your make the same arguments, and I have already more than adequetly addressed them in my previous posts.

I only make the same arguments because you keep repeating the same nonsense. I hope at some point it will hammer through to you.

The fact that you address nothing that I have said,

Which is a blatant lie.

and that you continue to repeat the thing that I claimed you said,

Which I don't.

while saying that you didn't say them seems to me a pointless endeavor

I'm sure my argument is useless to someone who refuses to understand it and acknowledge their flaws.

and, ultimately, receding further and further from the original point

Which occurs because you keep attempting to point out nonexistent logical fallacies, read into things that aren't there, and make point shat have neither the necessity nor ability to be made.

(which is strange, given that your entire first post has nothing to do with Syria and everything to do with Shofercia and how he hates America).

My first post had nothing to do with Syria. I will admit it was threadjacking, and I will take it elsewhere, probably telegram, if asked. Of course I never expected that post to cause pages worth of argument, but I can hardly be blamed for the inept reading of it.

I have pointed out that the entire thing was simply chauvinistic nonsense,

No, you have proven what you have stated is chauvinistic nonsense.

which is simply a form of the same discredited argument to silence all criticism

You have yet to do anything but flat out insist they are similar.

by questioning the speaker's patriotism,

Which I never did. Or, at least not directly. I am sure he isn't too patriotic if he hates the country, but that is hardly what I care about.

what I termed the 'America, love it or leave it' argument.

Quite incorrectly I might add.

You simply tell me that I misrepresent your point

And then go on to prove it.

, only to repeat the same thing.

Another blatant lie.

I had to repeat that again,

There is no need to repeat nonsense.

and furnish examples within your own post to show that you clearly did say what I claimed you said,

Yet all you have proven is you like to draw conclusions without the evidence.

but you denied that and reiterated your point.

I dendied tyour false accusation and repeated my misrepresented point.

If I corrected your grammar, it is not because I am losing the debate

You can keep claiming that, but it doesn't make it true.

(given that repeating the same thing over and over does not constitute a debate),

A fault that lies at you feet alone.

but that I hold you in utter contempt,

The feeling is mutual, I assure you.

and by correcting your grammar, I am showing that you may not have the ability to comprehend what is being said

What you corrected was nothing of the sort. All you did was correct past/present tense in a single incident. Stop pretending you have translated my entire argument from a form of Gibberish.

nor do you have the ability to express yourself coherently.

No, you simply refuse to accept it.

If your argument is one giant fallacy,

The fact that it isn't pretty much invalidates your whole post.

then pointing it out won't help-

I pretty clearly stated they didn't exist.

Shofercia has already pointed out that your argument against him is simply one giant Ad Hominem attack.

No, it wasn't. I was questioning his behavior and the status of his residence. He then tried to refute it, and I replied.

You persist in it. I pointed out that you are simply rephrasing 'America, love it or leave it',[./quote]
You stated it but have been unable to repeat it.

you claim it means something else entirely.

Because it does.

Having pointed it out, and you being unwilling to correct it,

I am not entirely sure this makes sense given the reference to the previous sentence.

by correcting your grammar, I am doing you a faviour, if you seek to express your fallacious arguments, you may now do so with good English.

This sentence really just feels like you are inflating you ego on the matter. You corrected a simple English mistake. That's it, stop pretending it isn't.

[Sibator]

No, it still does. He clearly referenced the argument afterwards.

Am I petty and I can't argue against you, or do you admit that I do argue against you?

I stated you referenced the argument afterwards. It had nothing to do with the correction.

[Evraim]

I do. The problem is that there are too many parties involved, and not enough commitment, so you have to go with the strongest party, which would be Assad. Also, if you want to humble Assad, you don't need to militarily intervene, just fly a couple of empty missiles over his palaces, with leaflets saying "chemical weapons - bad!" In Arabic. Oh, and drop some on insurgent camps too. And announce to everyone that you're going to do that, and limit it at that. It'll be symbolic, but that's all you need right now.

I had thought a sharper message might drive the point home better, though this would demonstrate precisely how tenuous Assad's position is in the world. That said, if the more democratic and tolerant elements within the rebel camp became more prominent, I would think them infinitely preferable to Assad, both from a humanitarian and a pragmatic perspective. A second Libya would be nice, a state that adopts policies similar to Turkey, at least in the formative period, in an effort to promote solidarity and discourage extremism. That said, applying some pressure on Assad might convince him to limit his war to combatants as opposed to civilians who may be sympathetic to the opposition.

Besides, Putin has no choice but to follow through, and he actually wants to! China finally approved the plan. NATO will approve it if US does. And US approval will depend on Putin's ability to get those weapons from Assad. He has no choice but to get it done. Either he gets it done, or it's Russia out of the Middle East, which benefits no one. What should be done?

The threat of a potential intervention might motivate Assad to negotiate, hence why I am hesitant to take such an option of the table. Fear works well to inspire cooperation from men who deal consistently with it, and I cannot believe that Assad will have forgotten what happened in Libya. That said, I would give Putin some time to work, while continuing to "saber rattle".

Reasonable checks to nudge Putin towards the overall objective. Not push, but nudge. Remind him that the ball's in his court, that he has control, but that if he fucks up, he will lose said control. To Russians, including yours truly, the Ossetian War is important. Obama's rhetoric regarding that war, is the reason why the Russians have a soft spot for him. The objective in front of Putin is reasonable. It's doable. The weapons in that time frame, but those weapons need not be destroyed in that time frame, they just need to be secured by the UNSC. Obviously don't attack on mere technicalities.

I concur. Securing the weapons should be the priority.

In terms of ending the war, stop supplying the Insurgents, with one exception: the Kurds. It's a stalemate there. Assad is winning elsewhere. Letting Assad win everywhere besides Syrian Kurdistan, sets up a peace process which will, once again, involve the UNSC. And Assad isn't going to go against that. The Kurds will not get independent, that much should be made clear to them. But they'll get substantial autonomy, which is what they've been asking for.

I have a soft spot for the Kurds, admittedly. I would like to see some autonomy, and perhaps cooperation between the Kurds in Syria, Turkey, and Iraq. That said, I don't think disarming the rebels should be undergone until after Assad has given up control of his weapons. At the moment, foreign support could end his regime quite easily, and maybe even with public support. Weakening the rebels too soon would diminish incentives to conclude a peace.

As soon as peace is restored, rush in supplies. Stop ethnic hatred from spreading. Promote the Lincoln Approach, well to a reasonable extent, it's the Middle East after all. And obviously keep supplying Northern Lebanon.

I concur with this wholly.

[The Godly Nations]

Only if you opponent's wording is literally unreadable or painful to comprehend on a linguistic basis. When you use it as you do, it merely shows your desperation.

Of course, because I find bad grammar of all type to be painful, if you want to make fallacious arguments, do so in good English. That way, it will have some redeeming features.

No, you haven't. I am beginning to question whether your argument is even worth my time. You're obviously too entrenched in your position to see daylight, and at least Shofercia was the person I was directly referring to, along with delivering argument that are, albeit incorrect, both greater in substance and quality then yours.

That is because you provide nothing. I have only repeated the same argument that I have originally made, because your position has not changed, and your position has not changed because you refuse to admit that you are clearly in the wrong. You clearly said what I claimed you have said, and then, when I say it, you claim that it is a strawman. You may ask everyone who had the misfortune to go through with our argument whether I have clearly stated your position, and have shown that it is simply of the same substance as 'America, if love it or leave it', and I would bet that everyone would agree that I am right on this point. You may ask Shofercia, whom you claim to be a better debater, and I would assure you that he would be in agreement. Your tactic, it seems to me, is a fundamentally dishonest one, to weary your opponent by repeating the same thing, only more loudly and more stridently, until he gives up arguing with you, and then claim victory.

"I was simply wondering, for someone who hates America(at least the government) and loves the Russia one so much, is even here, when he could be there."

You continue to idiotically complain that you aren't misrepresenting my points. You are. This very sentence has me asking why he stays here when it appears he doesn't like it. It is logical not to stay places you dislike.

Just because you want the words to mean something else doesn't make it happen.

That is exactly what I said your position to be. I have already answered that in the first post, that criticism of America and its government does not mean that he hates it and should leave, and that this is simply a bunch of chauvinistic nonsense. You claim that I was wrong, I had to repeat this, and, thus, our conversation.

https://www.google.com/#q=definition+of+inane&spell=1

For someone you likes to criticize my English you sure do have a poor comprehension of it.

Nope, an inane fact, such as a tautological statment (good things are good) are far better than dishonest statements, such as what you are continually spouting.

For the purpose of advancing the fucking argument, let's say I have.like.
...
Prove it. One is a question, the other is an assertion.

Easy, when you say, even if one is a question and the other an assertion, they are, for all practical purpose, equivilent statements. For example, when I say 'For a set of actions X, there is no element y such that God cannot do it', 'God can do all things', 'God is Omnipotent', I mean the same thing. These are all equivilent. You say 'If you hate America and its government, why are you here?', which is basically saying, 'If you don't love America and its government, why don't you leave?', which first implies that you must love America and its government in order to live in America, else you have no business here, which is, to put it blankly, 'America, love it or leave it'. Ignoring the fallacy inherent in this, which connect love of America with unconditional approval of all of its government's action, or else, not be too critical of America, its government and culture, (when one can love America and express extreme disapprove of certain aspect of both), how is what you are saying not equivilent to 'America, love it or leave it.'?

You are really grasping at straws by now aren't you?

You don't know what a strawman is, do you?

Perhaps you should stop defending someone who has made the same argument you detest.

I am defedning him because you are wrong in this respect.

That was done already. Try harder, I mean if you going to say useless nonsense at least make it funny to the observer.

And you ignore everything. Of course you do, if you don't actually have an argument.

I already disproved the nonsense you have claimed earlier in this post.

How can you disprove my 'nonsense', if you simply vindicated my position, that you said what I claim you have said.

I suppose it is hopeless to try and reason with you. You keep shouting nonsense even when confronted with fact after fact. Being a human I am certain I have contradicted myself at points, but not to the point you claim.

And honestly, your argument is really not worth my time when I can instead reply to Shof's.

Your entire post is one giant fallacy, your manage to contridict yourself over and over again, in fact, I highlighted it in red several times. I have already shown that you said you are criticising Shof because he is critical of the government, I have prove all I have set out to prove, and your only argument is that I am 'burning strawmen'. I am not, and everyone can clearly see that I am not. If you are tired of me, then I am doubly tired of you, since you started this whole irrelevent, tread-jacking chain of posts dedicated to Ad Hominem attacks on Shofercia.

[New Chalcedon]

Only if you opponent's wording is literally unreadable or painful to comprehend on a linguistic basis. When you use it as you do, it merely shows your desperation.

Of course, because I find bad grammar of all types to be painful, if you want to make fallacious arguments, do so in good English. That way, it will have some redeeming features.

Corrected - oh, the irony.....

[The Godly Nations]

Not necessarily, but given the context, yes you are. And after noticing this flaw you quit significantly lengthened your argument. You have practically acknowledged I am correct.

If he had money he would gamble. A group of men would squat on the ground, Ah Q sandwiched in their midst, his face streaming with perspiration; and his voice would shout the loudest: "Four hundred on the Green Dragon!"

"Hey—open there!" the stakeholder, his face streaming with perspiration too, would open the box and chant: "Heavenly Gate! . . . Nothing for the Corner! . . . No stakes on the Popularity Passage! Pass over Ah Q's coppers!"

"The Passage—one hundred—one hundred and fifty."

To the tune of this chanting, Ah Q's money would gradually vanish into the pockets of other perspiring people. Finally he would be forced to squeeze his way out of the crowd and watch from the back, taking a vicarious interest in the game until it broke up, when he would return reluctantly to the Tutelary God's Temple. The next day he would go to work with swollen eyes.

However, the truth of the proverb "misfortune may be a blessing in disguise" was shown when Ah Q was unfortunate enough to win and almost suffered defeat in the end.

This was the evening of the Festival of the Gods in Weichuang. According to custom there was a play; and close to the stage, also according to custom, were numerous gambling tables. The drums and gongs of the play sounded about three miles away to Ah Q who had ears only for the stake-holder's chant. He staked successfully again and again, his coppers turning into silver coins, his silver coins into dollars, and his dollars mounting up. In his excitement he cried our, "Two dollars on Heavenly Gate!"

He never knew who started the fight, nor for what reason. Curses, blows and footsteps formed a confused medley of sound in his head, and by the time he clambered to his feet the gambling tables had vanished and so had the gamblers. Several parts of his body seemed to be aching as if he had been kicked and knocked about, while a number of people were looking at him in astonishment. Feeling as if there were something amiss, he walked back to the Tutelary God's Temple, and by the time he regained his composure he realized that his pile of dollars had disappeared. Since most of the people who ran gambling tables at the Festival were not natives of Weichuang, where could he look for the culprits?

So white and glittering a pile of silver! It had all been his . . . but now it had disappeared. Even to consider it tantamount to being robbed by his son did not comfort him. To consider himself as an insect did not comfort him either. This time he really tasted something of the bitterness of defeat.

But presently he changed defeat into victory. Raising his right hand he slapped his own face hard twice, so that it tingled with pain. After this slapping his heart felt lighter, for it seemed as if the one who had given the slap was himself, the one slapped some other self, and soon it was just as if he had beaten someone else—in spite of the fact that his face was still tingling. He lay down satisfied that he had gained the victory.
-Lu Hsun
The True Story of Ah Q

I only make the same arguments because you keep repeating the same nonsense. I hope at some point it will hammer through to you.
....
Which is a blatant lie.
...
Which I don't.
...
I'm sure my argument is useless to someone who refuses to understand it and acknowledge their flaws.
...
Which occurs because you keep attempting to point out nonexistent logical fallacies, read into things that aren't there, and make point shat have neither the necessity nor ability to be made.
...
My first post had nothing to do with Syria. I will admit it was threadjacking, and I will take it elsewhere, probably telegram, if asked. Of course I never expected that post to cause pages worth of argument, but I can hardly be blamed for the inept reading of it.

...
No, you have proven what you have stated is chauvinistic nonsense.
...
You have yet to do anything but flat out insist they are similar.
...
Which I never did. Or, at least not directly. I am sure he isn't too patriotic if he hates the country, but that is hardly what I care about.

...
Quite incorrectly I might add.

...
And then go on to prove it.

...
Another blatant lie.
..
There is no need to repeat nonsense.
...
Yet all you have proven is you like to draw conclusions without the evidence.

....
I dendied tyour false accusation and repeated my misrepresented point.

....
You can keep claiming that, but it doesn't make it true.
...
A fault that lies at you feet alone.
...
The feeling is mutual, I assure you.
...
What you corrected was nothing of the sort. All you did was correct past/present tense in a single incident. Stop pretending you have translated my entire argument from a form of Gibberish.
...
No, you simply refuse to accept it.

...
The fact that it isn't pretty much invalidates your whole post.

...
I pretty clearly stated they didn't exist.
...
No, it wasn't. I was questioning his behavior and the status of his residence. He then tried to refute it, and I replied.

...
You stated it but have been unable to repeat it.

....
Because it does.
...
I am not entirely sure this makes sense given the reference to the previous sentence.
...
This sentence really just feels like you are inflating you ego on the matter. You corrected a simple English mistake. That's it, stop pretending it isn't.

What is not dishonest is nonsense. You have lied over and over again about my misrepresentation of your post, when I clearly have not, and any person who has read through my posts will tell you that I have not.

[Wytenigistan]

Of course, because I find bad grammar of all types to be painful, if you want to make fallacious arguments, do so in good English. That way, it will have some redeeming features.

Corrected - oh, the irony.....

At least when Godly Nations did it, he also addressed the actual argument, which you haven't, yet you are still fixated on attempting to prove he is fixated on something he is not, in fact, fixated on. On the irony.

[New Chalcedon]

Corrected - oh, the irony.....

At least when Godly Nations did it, he also addressed the actual argument, which you haven't, yet you are still fixated on attempting to prove he is fixated on something he is not, in fact, fixated on. On the irony.

I stated my position re: bombing Syria many pages back, and have seen little here to change my mind.

The fact that I choose not to rehash my old arguments does not lead to "fixation". I merely saw a chance to point out someone's hypocrisy (acting all Grammar Nazi whilst making simple grammatical mistakes) and took it.

[Wytenigistan]

At least when Godly Nations did it, he also addressed the actual argument, which you haven't, yet you are still fixated on attempting to prove he is fixated on something he is not, in fact, fixated on. On the irony.

I stated my position re: bombing Syria many pages back, and have seen little here to change my mind.

The fact that I choose not to rehash my old arguments does not lead to "fixation". I merely saw a chance to point out someone's hypocrisy (acting all Grammar Nazi whilst making simple grammatical mistakes) and took it.

It's just funny because it looks hypocritical criticizing nitpicking someones post and calling them names for it while you nitpick their post. It goes both ways. Alway, this thread has been sufficiently hijacked, so I'm going to go chug something and pass out. Nighty night.

[Souriya Al-Assad]

Shofercia is only doing what we as Westerners should actually do more often.

Not really.

Putin exists as a necessary counter to the jingoistic behaviour of our elites,

The whole "balance of power" diplomatic policy was disproven in the 1800s when the world powers both exploited the intermediary states.

whether you like him or not,

I don't.

this is the most important reason why its necessary that Moscow take strong foreign policy stances.

They should but not for the reason you describe.

Now into the context of this thread. Is it hegemonic in character? No.

Not institutionally, and it hasn't been trying to since it knows it won't be achieving much. Russia has handed that torch to China.

Is its relation with Syria unequal? Definitely not.

Syria needs Russia. Russia doesn't need Syria.

Indeed, the Syrian-Russian relationship, as well as the Syrian-Iranian one, has been compared to, by persons on either side of these two exchanges, an exquisite, well off mutual marriage.

A marriage where one spouse owns all the money and property.

Russia threatened to leave the Middle East completely if it lost Syria as an ally. Is this the hegemonic behaviour you would expect? No.

Not from a power that has neither wanted nor needed to do so.

Both nations are sincerely very good allies, have been in this special relationship for decades. Do not expect that to end sometime soon.

Russia is not doing it out of the goodness of its heart. To claim so is as valid as claiming the American intervention is the same.

Furthermore, Russia, China, Iran, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Belarus, Algeria, amongst a plentiful of others are all nations very much crucially needed for their strong stances against neo-colonialism.

Because brutally devastating lands that want independence(Russia), literally invading other sovereign nations and annexing them(China), launching threats about invasion that piss off not only the West but also China(DPRK), and the supporting said actions (Cuba, Venezuela) are very much so "anti-colonialist."

Its because of them, that our elites have not gone a step over board to completely go on an insane rampage of neo-colonialism.

It is a combination of that and the fact that the public wouldn't support it. And of course, because not all politicians lack a conscience, as you seem to claim, while turning around and declaring your idols as role models.

Their counter-policing is a necessary balance, a necessary contribution to a paradigm shift in favour of an egalitarian, multi-polar world

A world where intermediary states are oppressed by both sides is not a world that is wanted.

where all nations equally hold a strong voice without being on top of the other.

Monaco should not and can not have as strong a voice as Sweden.

Without these above nations, as well as numerous others, Syria would have been bombed, Balkanised, as well as utterly blown into failed-state oblivion,

That's rather arguable, because had the FSA been supported from the start, much of the radicals would not have gotten a chance to join.

ruled by sectarianised-genocidal insurgent tyrannical Emirs.

Compared to the genocidal Assad.

Without these above nations, far more destabilisation conflicts would have emerged to keep Tri-Continental nations (Asia

China has doen an excellent job of that itself.

(including Russia & Eastern Europe),

You must have missed the part where the USSR brutally repressed Eastern Europe without the help of the West.

Africa

Which the West has shown relatively little interest in.

, Latin America) (as Che calls them) from ever being stable nor fully sovereign.

The USSR had done the same to West-leaning nations.

Far more wars in the false name of "spreading democracy" would arise,

You act as if this is unique to America pray tell, if the US didn't exist and only China were around, what do you think would happen?

which to me is indeed reminiscent of the old-era "spreading civilisation" rhetoric

Except in most cases the people are actually oppressed. The question comes when it is wondered whether or not an intervention is effective.

(which unfortunately for humankind, said rhetoric is still being utilised by some extreme megalomaniacs today, such as that infamous pastor comparing the invasion & occupation of Iraq to being a 'necessary religious war', or Winston Churchill justifying utilising chemical weapons on 'uncivilised tribes' in a flagrantly racist reference to the Kurdish people).

You can hardly say Churchill's statement is "still used today".

Without the above nations I mentioned, we would see a renewal of the colonial era,

The same is true if the US disappeared.

in the form of corporations committing the abuses,

Corporations are not the universal boogeyman you make them out to be.

in the form of private military corporations

Which rarely exist outside of making the equipment the US uses.

(that however would not be too different from the East India companies of old) spreading chaos wherever they wish for profit,

You contradicted yourself here, because corporations don't have the power to do that. It would be dependent on the US government sanctioning it.

as well as in the utter form of financial giants leeching the bloody hell out of Tri-Continental nations in unequal agreements for loans (IMF, World Bank).

Then they shouldn't agree to the loans. I don't necessarily support those institutions, but many nations you fuck their budget over have wasted it on nonsense. Including the United States.

It has not gone this far, to the bloodiest extent just yet, because of people like Putin.

All you need for such a being is Russia to exist. No one really believes Russia should be wipe doff the map. You are fetishizing him for his role, when he could be much better while still fulfilling the role.

However they cannot do that (maintaining a multi-polar balance) on their own, its also up to us Western civilians to speak out in favour of a multi-polar balance, as well as keeping the roving actions of neo-liberal/neo-conservative idealists in check.

They largely are 9% of the population supported intervention.[/quote]

1 - Perhaps we have experienced different cases then. Because in my personal experience, I have seen colonial apologists as well as roving NATO apologists. Then you have the apologists defending the Gulf regimes, or the Zionist government.

2 - That old balance of power concept was merely another manner to Scramble for colonies with unanimous consensus. My idea of what a balance of power should be, is that not one nation is on top the other, full stop.

3 - Actually, the main reason Russia is fulfilling its role is ideological. Whether its Putin actively doing it, or Zyuganov through political rallies or rhetoric, this role is necessary to the world.

4 - You may not like him for some of his domestic policies, however you must admit he has a commendable role in foreign policy as well as counter-policing our jingoistic elites is concerned.

5 - China's politics are not really understood by some like yourself either. You do realise that under Mao it was staunchly anti-imperialistic, backing anti-colonialist movements across numerous nations? Furthermore, you do realise that the KMT entity, should not be considered separate at all? (Its the remnants of a defunct, long defeated regime of quasi-fascistic Capitalist twats founded by Chiang Kai Shek that the Chinese people under Mao revolutionised against, then won) | You also fail to realise that the policies vis-à-vis Cambodia (which I do criticise, in case you have not noticed the pages back), amongst other similar cases, were undertaken by a CPC faction different than the one Mao was part of. Said faction were the Mob of Four (Jiang Qing (the real orchestrator of taking the Cultural Revolution out of its original context by making a mess out of it) as well as the three other mobster politicians associated with her), as well as the subsequent so-called "pragmatists" (id est, neo-liberal/neo-conservative trolls attempting to look good with the twat Reagan) led by Deng Xiaoping etcetera. During that period, which to me ended with Xi Jinping's rise (a humble politician with ties to the original Mao faction of the CPC, as well as an ardent loather of corruption within the 'pragmatist' elements of the party), Beijing was embroiled in embarrassments that some of which were done in collusion with our Western governments too must it be known. Furthermore, I should also care to remind that during the year of the Tienanmen Massacre, the traitorous faction was already colluding with NATO on numerous things, including the Jaguar MBT, or the Sino-Vietnamese War, where Mr Xiaoping had US-UK-Thai support to attempt an invasion against Vietnam. This was a flagrant betrayal of what Mao stood for. This portion of history I incessantly curse as well as spit upon. - China was not hegemonic like this at all under Mao. It was much much worse before, under Chiang Kai Shek (even after he lost the mainland he participated in fomenting atrocious destabilisation wars elsewhere including the arming of contras in Latin America alongside NATO, Israel, South Africa's Apartheid regime, South Korea's former junta, as well as the Gulf monarchs), whilst verily imperialistic in the Empires of old (however the atrocities our governments made China go through during the Qing in fact eclipse all of this beyond your imagination, especially the Taiping Crisis, where our governments armed Evangelist zealots that fomented a conflict ravaging across China, killing at most one hundred million people in the process, or the Opium Wars).

6 - Russia however does love Syria, then vice versa. The feeling is even more mutual amongst both their civilian populations, whom want this relationship to continue.

7 - Not even close. Syria built Tartous in exchange for a free way off the debt it owed Moscow. This is actually better than Syria having to become an eternal slave to the terrorising organisation IMF, or the World Bank, for the matter with their gruesome idea of perpetually over-the-top insane-interest-rated "outstanding debt" systems.

8 - Because both Russia as well as China, as I keep telling people here, have technically overthrown as well as renounced imperialism a long while back. Russia did thus after defeating the Tsarist regime's twats in finalisation during the Russian Civil War (even managing to expunge this imperialist "Allied Intervention"), China did so under Mao. Now China is going to do so again, under Xi. These two powers are a different type of world powers, not what you would usually expect.

9 - Russia may or may not be doing it out of the goodness of its heart. However for the most part, Putin is not that terrible of a person as our mass medias demonise him to be.

10 - Ah yes, I almost forgot to mention to you that during the "Allied Intervention" the Baltic states, Georgia, Poland-Lithuania, as well as Czechoslovakia were all recruited by our Western governments to open up additional fronts in favour of the Tsarist regime (how is that for irony?) during their little imperialist infringement into Russia that allowed the White Terror to occur, in which Tsarist armies massacred tens of millions of peasants/serfs, proletarians, students, amongst others across the USSR in brutalising attacks on civilians in Soviet areas, or civilians sympathising with the Bolshevik revolution. Then you also completely utterly flagrantly omit that said "coalition" utilised chemical weapons on Murmansk in 1919 to defend the Tsarist regime twats. Well done, however even there, real history is in favour of myself as well as Shofercia. China, read point 5 about them. DPRK? Dear God, you do not expect them to be reasonably angry after suffering 2,5 million civilian deaths in Rhee Sygman-Coalition organised massacres across the North including through ruthless carpet bombings as well as utilisations of napalm amongst other agents? You do not expect them to be angry about how the 1948 promised electoral reunification process was annulled by Rhee in the same manner Ngo Dinh Diem would do later on, with full support in doing so from our governments? You do not expect them to be antagonised to highest level when they are haplessly watching Rhee Sygman murder 1,5 million South Koreans in the Bodo League Massacre amongst other barbaric crimes? You do not expect them to be antagonised whence they saw the realities of the allies we were backing in South Africa (where Pyongyang was contributing in the meantime to their liberation by supporting the ZANU-PF & ANC movements against roving apartheid)? Ah yes, Cuba, which contributed to the end of the UNITA death squads, liberated Namibia from Apartheid colonialist yoke, then also contributed to ending the apartheid regime, this is 'bad' to you? Marvellous. What about Venezuela? Is a humble person fighting to end the corporate enclaves that were ruthlessly leeching his nation something wrong, is ending a previous right-wing twat from the Cold War an act of expansionist nature? I apologise, however no.

11 - I apologise however I have a reasonable reason to not trust any politician within the two-party box. If you have not paid attention, for the decades before, to present, I have noticed them behave in almost the same manner vis-à-vis foreign policies.

12 - A world where nations co-exist without tramping each other, is a world I more than welcome. Sorry if you do not like such a world.

13 - Yes, both Monaco as well as Sweden, per your example, should be given equal clout in the world. Same rule for other nations as well. Its much better that way.

14 - Right, except you are wrong. Over half of them turn out to be flagrant radicalised scum, whilst as I have linked to in past pages, FSA commanders themselves have made statements proving they support the sectarian agendas of this so-called "minority" some of you supporting them keep blathering about.

15 - Ah yes? Keep blathering the idea that ALL 120 000 deaths are "civilians". As I pointed out before, more than half, if not more than 75%, are military deaths of either side (approximately in the 50 000s on either side by now); whilst in terms of the civilians, more than half of all their deaths were caused by deliberate massacres on the ground of the most barbaric Khawarji nature imaginable by the sectarian twats that are these insurgents. Even more shamefully, our mass medias deliberately took almost all attention off the recent insurgent attempt at entering Lattakia to unleash a sweeping genocide upon Alawite Muslims, or that our medias chose to ignore Kurdish sources reporting from within their own Syrian Kurdistan territories of the morbid massacres the insurgents were committing there. At least, RT reported those crimes themselves, which I commend. Same with Press TV for not ignoring these aforementioned facts.

16 - Again, about China do refer to point 5. The vile embroilments it got into were not under Mao. Under Mao China supported reasonable movements that fought against morbid colonialist injustice.

17 - You mean, what happened because our intelligence agencies utilised/leaked Nikita's speech to foment unrest in Warsaw Pact countries (almost threatening to boil into all out internal conflicts) in which the USSR was then forced to turn on its original word as a result?

18 - Ah yes, "little interest"... as if DGSE utilising Al-Qaeda to destabilise Algeria in the 1990s never occurred, as if the apartheid regimes of South Africa as well as Rhodesia never existed, as if Mobutu never existed, as if Yoweri Musevini never existed, as if no one in our governments was arming UNITA because Angola had become strategic, as if the IMF/World Banks were transforming Africa into utopias, as if our corporations were not committing horrendous abuses across the continent (including ignoring the Kimberly Process in numerous cases). Ah yes, "little interested", now am I right?

19 - Of course, you could argue the other way around. However no, if it were the other way around, whilst China's CPC kept to its original Mao teachings, no, it would not be a roving jingoistic Sir Bombaslot like any of our governments in the West (not solely the American one, because to be fair, which is in fact true, all of our governments in the West including ours in Paris, were doing the same cesspool).

20 - Ahahahaha, so its fine to you to sweep in then establish something equivalent to Belgian Congo as an example, under the guise of "spreading civilisation"?

21 - No, its still being utilised today. Monsieur Menechem Begin is the most exquisite incarnation of such a twat. Netanyahoo is another. Then you have Obama wanting to prevent all non pro-NATO Middle Eastern nations from having WMDs, whilst Israel as well as the Gulf regimes, in addition to Turkey, can quietly snuggle their weapons stockpiles underground for safekeeping. Then you have the continued AKP attitude towards Kurds, which borrowed from Churchill as well as the past Turkish juntas. The juntas & the AKP combined have also, should it be knownst, unleashed a genocide on Kurdish people, one of the bloodiest yet forgotten genocides ever. The Apartheid regime in South Africa utilised similar justifications of being superior throughout its time up into the 1990s whence it was finally gone.

22 - The same may or may not be true. It can be argued, definitely, however it depends entirely on the ideology of their governments.

23 - Corporations are responsible for tonnes of problems in the world, whether you want to admit or not. Furthermore, we in the West have made the most erroneous blunder ever by considering them to be "people", giving them green light to commit any stupid cesspool wherever they please, or disobey all forms of regulations whence-ever they want. Let me give you an example. Blackwater, the mercenaries corporation headed by Erik Prince, acquitted of all its crimes despite all the horrendous things it did in Iraq, including direct complicity in worsening the sectarian conflict there to the point where it is now. G4S, helps Israel commit morbid abuses in prison centres where tonnes of Palestinians are detained. Brit-Am, involved in numerous scandals surrounding Syria.

24 - Wrong, read point 23. The PMCs in general have been involved in those, as well as other quagmires across the globe.

25 - Except they do. Otherwise the international community would not be forced to make something such as the Kimberly Process.

26 - True, most nations including us in the West have not utilised their budgets into proper socio-economic programmes. However lets admit it, the IMF & World Bank make it a condition to horrible-conditioned under-developed countries that they privatised, liberalise, as well as unleash ruthless austerity programmes in exchange for these loans. This in itself is an atrocity beyond your imagination. This inevitably results in morasses such as Mobutu's oligarchic entourage.

27 - Yes, Russia existing is more than enough. Sadly, only two politicians that I know of there do stand for Russia's role as a necessary counter-police unit. Vladimir Putin as well as Gennady Zyuganov. Lastly, I am not "fetishising", I am exposing the reality here.

28 - Yes, however only now do the majority of us wake up, after decades of almost unstopped, unchallenged Sir Bombsalots.

Lastly, I think I am sickened by all these claims of Communist bloc nations being "imperialistic" more than our governments ever were. Is a coalition of Communist nations setting the stage for bringing an end to the roving apartheid regime (which also had imperialist attitudes envers its neighbours, as well as unleashed destabilising conflicts that killed several millions of people in Angola, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Zambia, Mozambique) whilst liberating Namibia & Zimbabwe, as well as defeating the UNITA death squads, "imperialist"? Is setting the stage for the liberation & subsequent Communist/Socialist led democratisation (pink tide) of Latin American nations out of the cesspool of former NATO-SA Apartheid-Israel-GCC-ROK-KMT backed regimes & death squads something of "imperialist" "tyrannical" character? Is South Africa emerging as a democracy out of the apartheid cesspool something "tyrannical" or "imperialist" on the part of DPRK, China, USSR, Cuba, Vietnam, South Yemen, or any other Communist bloc or leaning NAM nations? Is helping Iran defend itself against the roving Saddam regime's genocidal invasion attempt something of "imperialist" or "tyrannical" nature? Is arming the PFLP, DFLP, PDFLP, PPS, IJ groups to struggle against Israeli apartheid policies something of an "imperialist" or "tyrannical" nature? Is supporting the Kurds against the Turkish juntas of old, or the AKP regime or now, something of "imperialist" or "tyrannical" nature? Is liberating Cambodia from a roving bunch of agrarian-fascist pseudo "Communists" something of "imperialist" or "tyrannical" nature? Is helping Ethiopia defend against our governments' former ally Siad Barre's invasion attempts something of "imperialist" or "tyrannical" nature? Is helping South Yemen as well as Houthis defend against a roving regime past & presently our governments' ally something of "imperialist" or "tyrannical" nature? Is helping Mr Nkrumah something of "imperialist" or "tyrannical" nature in helping him better Ghana as well as attempt to commence the process of pulling out of the cesspool that the colonialist era had once ravaged it under? Some people here have a twisted logic/view as to what is imperialist, or what is not.

(I believe I did this refutation exquisitely.)

lol yeah, I forgot Assad is the embodiment of pure evil, worse than Hitler, and likes to eat babies for breakfast and the rebels are all model world citizens who can do nothing wrong. I'm sorry, my bad.

Yes, he may be less evil than Hitler, but that does not make him a nice person worthy of being support, just as the rebels are not all good people, but it may be that they are less bad than Assad.

Not quite. Assad is not even the one responsible for the horrendousness going on in Syria. The hog-washed view of the interventionists (or even the anti-interventionists whom nonetheless place the Qutbist insurgents on a divine pedestal of "democracy") is gobsmacking.

[The Godly Nations]

-deleted-

[Wytenigistan]

lol yeah, I forgot Assad is the embodiment of pure evil, worse than Hitler, and likes to eat babies for breakfast and the rebels are all model world citizens who can do nothing wrong. I'm sorry, my bad.

Yes, he may be less evil than Hitler, but that does not make him a nice person worthy of being support, just as the rebels are not all good people, but it may be that they are less bad than Assad.

"less bad". I mean, I think ranking attrocities is pretty insulting to the victims and ultimately very subjective, and I don't think anyone can actually accurately make that claim.

[The Godly Nations]

Not really.

The whole "balance of power" diplomatic policy was disproven in the 1800s when the world powers both exploited the intermediary states.

I don't.

They should but not for the reason you describe.

Not institutionally, and it hasn't been trying to since it knows it won't be achieving much. Russia has handed that torch to China.

Syria needs Russia. Russia doesn't need Syria.


A marriage where one spouse owns all the money and property.


Not from a power that has neither wanted nor needed to do so.


Russia is not doing it out of the goodness of its heart. To claim so is as valid as claiming the American intervention is the same.


Because brutally devastating lands that want independence(Russia), literally invading other sovereign nations and annexing them(China), launching threats about invasion that piss off not only the West but also China(DPRK), and the supporting said actions (Cuba, Venezuela) are very much so "anti-colonialist."

It is a combination of that and the fact that the public wouldn't support it. And of course, because not all politicians lack a conscience, as you seem to claim, while turning around and declaring your idols as role models.

A world where intermediary states are oppressed by both sides is not a world that is wanted.

Monaco should not and can not have as strong a voice as Sweden.

That's rather arguable, because had the FSA been supported from the start, much of the radicals would not have gotten a chance to join.


Compared to the genocidal Assad.

China has doen an excellent job of that itself.

You must have missed the part where the USSR brutally repressed Eastern Europe without the help of the West.


Which the West has shown relatively little interest in.

The USSR had done the same to West-leaning nations.

You act as if this is unique to America pray tell, if the US didn't exist and only China were around, what do you think would happen?

which to me is indeed reminiscent of the old-era "spreading civilisation" rhetoric

Except in most cases the people are actually oppressed. The question comes when it is wondered whether or not an intervention is effective.

(which unfortunately for humankind, said rhetoric is still being utilised by some extreme megalomaniacs today, such as that infamous pastor comparing the invasion & occupation of Iraq to being a 'necessary religious war', or Winston Churchill justifying utilising chemical weapons on 'uncivilised tribes' in a flagrantly racist reference to the Kurdish people).

You can hardly say Churchill's statement is "still used today".

Without the above nations I mentioned, we would see a renewal of the colonial era,

The same is true if the US disappeared.

in the form of corporations committing the abuses,

Corporations are not the universal boogeyman you make them out to be.

in the form of private military corporations

Which rarely exist outside of making the equipment the US uses.

(that however would not be too different from the East India companies of old) spreading chaos wherever they wish for profit,

You contradicted yourself here, because corporations don't have the power to do that. It would be dependent on the US government sanctioning it.

as well as in the utter form of financial giants leeching the bloody hell out of Tri-Continental nations in unequal agreements for loans (IMF, World Bank).

Then they shouldn't agree to the loans. I don't necessarily support those institutions, but many nations you fuck their budget over have wasted it on nonsense. Including the United States.

It has not gone this far, to the bloodiest extent just yet, because of people like Putin.

All you need for such a being is Russia to exist. No one really believes Russia should be wipe doff the map. You are fetishizing him for his role, when he could be much better while still fulfilling the role.

However they cannot do that (maintaining a multi-polar balance) on their own, its also up to us Western civilians to speak out in favour of a multi-polar balance, as well as keeping the roving actions of neo-liberal/neo-conservative idealists in check.

They largely are 9% of the population supported intervention.

[The Godly Nations]

Yes, he may be less evil than Hitler, but that does not make him a nice person worthy of being support, just as the rebels are not all good people, but it may be that they are less bad than Assad.

"less bad". I mean, I think ranking attrocities is pretty insulting to the victims and ultimately very subjective, and I don't think anyone can actually accurately make that claim.

I think one can compare genocide objectively- for example, I would consider the Khmer Rouge to be more evil than Assad, in terms of body count, how they off their victims, and such criteria. All genocides are bad in the same way all murders are bad, but some murders are more gruesome and horrific than others. To torture the victim to death would, it seems to me, be by any criteria, worse than simply killing the victim quickly.

[Wytenigistan]

"less bad". I mean, I think ranking attrocities is pretty insulting to the victims and ultimately very subjective, and I don't think anyone can actually accurately make that claim.

I think one can compare genocide objectively- for example, I would consider the Khmer Rouge to be more evil than Assad, in terms of body count, how they off their victims, and such criteria. All genocides are bad in the same way all murders are bad, but some murders are more gruesome and horrific than others. To torture the victim to death would, it seems to me, be by any criteria, worse than simply killing the victim quickly.

I don't think it can be truly objective but maybe basic statements can be made, but it is still highly insulting to the victims either way. Anyway what I meant was that I don't think anyone can accurately or objectively make the claim that Assad is worse than the rebels. It's very hard to tell what is what in a warzone until the dust settles.

[Souriya Al-Assad]

Yes, while I have no doubt that Assad is not as evil as the media paints him out to be, I still have no doubt that he was a brutal dictator, and that the rebels are brutal rebels, and that neither side have the moral high ground, nor can be supported for humanitarian reason. But to say 'I support Assad', one must provide reason why one should support a brutal dictator, just as the statement 'I support the rebels' or 'I support the rebels who are in favour of democracy', one would have to justify why one would support them, given that none of them, with the exception of those who are in favour of democracy (although I suspect, they are only in favour of it so long as they get what they want) would do anything to improve the situation in that nation politically.

In fact read my past posts to others on this matter throughout this thread. I have good reason to be sceptical about the allegations against him. Furthermore, look at Bashar's personality close up, including by looking at his speeches, this is not some irrational mass murderer. You can tell on a person's face very well if you look carefully.

In addition, as I also pointed out in past posts, the majority of the Syrian security forces, have taken tonnes of precautions in warning civilians to get out in advance before the military would commence a counter-offencive to liberate insurgent controlled areas.

Another point worthy to note is that this insurgency is the second time it has occurred, by the same sectarian-maniacs as the ones whom killed hundreds of Alawites & other minorities in the 1980s one to kickstart|initialise their "Islamic Uprising" utilising some of the most barbaric Khawarji behaviour one could ever see.

Besides the insurgencies, this is the third time our governments tried to destabilise Syria. The first being in 1949 to attempt to install some twat similar to Pinochet in numerous ways, in which said 1949 coup effectively ended Syria's attempts at forming its identity as a post-colonial democracy.

In both insurgencies, furthermore, I have long concluded that there is a fifth column, a shadow faction inside the government that collaborates with those insurgents to commit abuses. My case about Rifaat Al-Assad as well as Mustafa Tlass, the real perpetrators of the Hama massacre which occurred much after the army had finally clamped down on the sectarian-genocidal maniac 1980s Ikhwan insurgency, is reasonable due to how Ikhwan/FSA pardoned them then even gave them positions within their ranks. Then you have to remember, any alleged abuses under Bashar were not even his doing to commence with. It is the work of 12 different security officials part of this shadowy nexus that I have more than enough reason to believe exists.

[The Architect (Ancient)]

Yes, he may be less evil than Hitler, but that does not make him a nice person worthy of being support, just as the rebels are not all good people, but it may be that they are less bad than Assad.

Oh the ignorance of this statement is absolutely explosive. And so far I'm not very impressed with TGN and his posts as of this moment. Lets take note of the Syrian rebel who ate a Syrian soldiers heart, which I don't think Assads men have done, and lets also take the al qaeda affiliated groups and just forget about them right? I think Assad is far better, and currently according to WESTERN GROUPS, that's right! No Syrian government making it up or making false polls, 70% of Syrians approve of the government.

http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/ ... and-minds/

Boom. Sourced.

[Spirit of Hope]

Yes, he may be less evil than Hitler, but that does not make him a nice person worthy of being support, just as the rebels are not all good people, but it may be that they are less bad than Assad.

Oh the ignorance of this statement is absolutely explosive. And so far I'm not very impressed with TGN and his posts as of this moment. Lets take note of the Syrian rebel who ate a Syrian soldiers heart, which I don't think Assads men have done, and lets also take the al qaeda affiliated groups and just forget about them right? I think Assad is far better, and currently according to WESTERN GROUPS, that's right! No Syrian government making it up or making false polls, 70% of Syrians approve of the government.

Can I have a source for this please? The 70% bit sounds a bit disproportionate since their were literally thousands of people protesting the government back during the Arab Spring.

[The Architect (Ancient)]

Oh the ignorance of this statement is absolutely explosive. And so far I'm not very impressed with TGN and his posts as of this moment. Lets take note of the Syrian rebel who ate a Syrian soldiers heart, which I don't think Assads men have done, and lets also take the al qaeda affiliated groups and just forget about them right? I think Assad is far better, and currently according to WESTERN GROUPS, that's right! No Syrian government making it up or making false polls, 70% of Syrians approve of the government.

Can I have a source for this please? The 70% bit sounds a bit disproportionate since their were literally thousands of people protesting the government back during the Arab Spring.

http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/ ... and-minds/
Thousands of people out of millions doesn't mean everyone hates him. That's a fallacy.

[Spirit of Hope]

Can I have a source for this please? The 70% bit sounds a bit disproportionate since their were literally thousands of people protesting the government back during the Arab Spring.

http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/ ... and-minds/
Thousands of people out of millions doesn't mean everyone hates him. That's a fallacy.

Notably the article points out that after the two years their has been a resent upsurge in support based on the changing demographic of the resistance fighters. That doesn't mean they like the regime that means they prefer the devil they know.

While the large number of protestors does not indicate that everyone hates Assad it does indicate that their is a large enough number to take to the streets witch in turn indicates that their is an even larger group who supports that view but is not a vocal. That is rather basic political science stuff.

[The Godly Nations]

In fact read my past posts to others on this matter throughout this thread. I have good reason to be sceptical about the allegations against him. Furthermore, look at Bashar's personality close up, including by looking at his speeches, this is not some irrational mass murderer. You can tell on a person's face very well if you look carefully.

While he may not have been responsible for the latest attack, few would doubt that he gaols political dissidents, tortures his prisoners, impose unduly restrictive and harsh laws, etc., etc. I don't think he is irrational, in that all the murders and genocide he commits are committed to a purpose, towards keeping him in power, I do not doubt that he is, in fact, dictatorial, and that he has committed war crimes in this latest conflict, and that he is a vile person.

In addition, as I also pointed out in past posts, the majority of the Syrian security forces, have taken tonnes of precautions in warning civilians to get out in advance before the military would commence a counter-offencive to liberate insurgent controlled areas.

If he does do these things, it is to his credit, but I have my doubt as to if he actually does, or if he does so simply as calculation, just as I do not doubt that he does commit war crimes against his enemies.

Another point worthy to note is that this insurgency is the second time it has occurred, by the same sectarian-maniacs as the ones whom killed hundreds of Alawites & other minorities in the 1980s one to kickstart|initialise their "Islamic Uprising" utilising some of the most barbaric Khawarji behaviour one could ever see.

Yes, but the rebels are not necessarily Islamists, thus, the fault of the extremists can be pinned onto the entirety of the rebels. Additionally, the Alawites are a minority the rules of the Sunni Majority, which does cause resentment, and whose resentment can be justified as being a politically disadvantaged majority.

Besides the insurgencies, this is the third time our governments tried to destabilise Syria. The first being in 1949 to attempt to install some twat similar to Pinochet in numerous ways, in which said 1949 coup effectively ended Syria's attempts at forming its identity as a post-colonial democracy.

Assad's government is hardly a democracy.

In both insurgencies, furthermore, I have long concluded that there is a fifth column, a shadow faction inside the government that collaborates with those insurgents to commit abuses. My case about Rifaat Al-Assad as well as Mustafa Tlass, the real perpetrators of the Hama massacre which occurred much after the army had finally clamped down on the sectarian-genocidal maniac 1980s Ikhwan insurgency, is reasonable due to how Ikhwan/FSA pardoned them then even gave them positions within their ranks. Then you have to remember, any alleged abuses under Bashar were not even his doing to commence with. It is the work of 12 different security officials part of this shadowy nexus that I have more than enough reason to believe exists.

I have my doubt as to your particular theory, just as I am weary of most conspiracy theories (not to demean your position, as I use conspiracy theories to mean any theories about alledged cooperations between individuals to achieve an end), and I don't doubt that human right abuses started before Assad, Assad still perpetrated them. Thus, the only reason I can think of for supporting Assad, is that the rebel groups are diverse, which may lead to in-fighting which will cause greater harm to the civilians, and that supposing that a democracy were to occur, comme Egypt, and they were to elect someone, then the 'pro-democracy' faction may remove him from power, like the Egyptian president, simply because it is not them who are voted, leading to more chaos.

[New Chalcedon]

I stated my position re: bombing Syria many pages back, and have seen little here to change my mind.

The fact that I choose not to rehash my old arguments does not lead to "fixation". I merely saw a chance to point out someone's hypocrisy (acting all Grammar Nazi whilst making simple grammatical mistakes) and took it.

Of course, the word hypocrisy is wrongly used here- a hypocrite is not one who recommends a certain standard to another person whilst failing to live up to it, such as a smoker telling children that they should never smoke, but one who is insincere about it. I do not believe that I have given any indication of being insincere about it.

But, pray, what is your position on Syria?

First, you chose to address Sibator's grammar first, and their argument second. The emphasis clearly indicates that you considered Sibator's grammatical deficiencies more important than their perceived factual/logical errors. Also, correcting someone's spelling/grammar/etc is a clear statement of "mine is better than yours". To make such a statement, only to fall into a common grammatical error within it, is rather ironic in my opinion.

Second, my position on Syria is as it was: so long as there isn't enough money to maintain essential public services within the United States - so long as schools are being closed, fire stations and hospitals shut down, essential infrastructure maintenance not done and emergency services cut back in the name of "not enough in the kitty" - there certainly isn't enough to go spending tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on munitions to bomb other countries based on claims of doubtful veracity.

If America wants to act "world policeman", let it first clean up its own act. Virtually every Amendment in the Bill of Rights - barring only the Second, which has a dedicated group of fetishists otherwise known as the Republican Party to protect it - is routinely ignored, negated or simply not carried through. When America's not throwing millions of its own people in prison because they're too poor to afford decent lawyers, when Gitmo is closed, when prosecutions ending in actual trials and convictions are held over matters such as Bagram torture center....then maybe America can talk about the "laws of war" and "rule of law" and the like.

In the meantime, America is neither more nor less than a world-class hypocrite, insisting upon the "right" to punish nations that in its sole judgement have violated international laws without any kind of international consensus behind it whilst undertaking to this day continuing violations of the Geneva Conventions, of basic human rights laws and of its own Constitution. Since Americans so love the Bible, here's a quote I consider pertinent:

You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

I'm no conspiracy theorist - I don't think that this has anything to do with Syria's putative energy resources. I think that this display of testosterone is more likely to have its origins in the Republican efforts to portray President Obama as "un-American" - basically, he's so afraid of appearing to be insufficiently zealous in prosecuting "America rocks!" policies that he's gone hyper-aggressive.