View Full Version : The Bashar al-Assad Betting Game
PanzerJaeger
07-20-2012, 05:52
I'm thinking there are four options here.
The Hussein - Assad retains control of his powerful military assets and crushes what appears to be a successful rebellion by an oppressed religious majority town by town, massacre by massacre, as they do not have the firepower, organization, and/or international support to fight back.
The Massoud - Assad and his loyalists retreat to a stronghold, while the rebels assume control of the rest of the country. Syria is essentially split into two nations as neither side is able to defeat the other.
The Mubarak - In an attempt to preserve their power and appease the mob, the military removes Assad from power - either arresting him or expelling him from the country.
The Gaddafi - No explanation needed.
Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen - extra points for explaining your thought process.
My bet? The Hussein. The Syrian military is far more powerful than Gaddafi's was, and we saw how much NATO firepower it took to defeat. And despite the reports of defections, it has remained mostly loyal. Without international assistance, the rebels simply do not have the firepower to oust them. The only question in my mind is the level of secret international assistance, coming from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, specifically. If they are getting sufficient amounts of anti-air and anti-armor weaponry plus small arms and ammunition, that paradigm may not hold. Also critical will be the rebels ability to retreat, regroup, and plan operations from the safety of friendly nations, which appears to be the case.
That being said, I still think Assad will eventually reassert power over Syria. The fighting in Damascus almost seems like a trap.
Strike For The South
07-20-2012, 06:00
Without odds I can't make a fully informed betting decision.
However, I say Hussein but with the caveat of lip service recessions due to a rather pokey RussiaChina at his back
PanzerJaeger
07-20-2012, 06:03
Without odds I can't make a fully informed betting decision.
Well yeah, you don't really win anything either. It's really more of a guessing game. :shrug:
I don't think anyone would be surprised if we'd find out Saudi-Arabia (in particular) and possibly some other states would be supporting the rebels. Furthermore, I would be kind of careful in drawing comparisons with previous uprisings, particularly that of Saddam Hussein, but the problem lies more in the phrasing: the uprising against Assad is not a religious one.
As of writing this, I'm in Beirut, and we're being continually updated on the latest events in Syria. The current developments point towards a critical stage. The next events will probably be crucial in determining the conflict, but it's very hard to make a real educated guess right now.
Strike For The South
07-20-2012, 06:50
please bring me women, a cedar tree, and shisha
a completely inoffensive name
07-20-2012, 06:54
God I suck at foreign affairs, but because no one else has said it, I will guess the Gaddafi. Only because I would like another crazy dictator that comedians can easily make fun of.
rory_20_uk
07-20-2012, 08:29
I was going to go with the Gadaffi.
Syria's armed forces are strong in terms of weaponry, but consripts are often more similar to the rebels than the officers - and some of the officers are defecting as well. This erosion of capability would be what mitigates the strength on paper, and I think will snowball. Losses also often strengthen the rebels.
The suicide bomber killing three at the head of the chain took a lot of experience out at a crucial time.
Saudi Arabia et al are giving and will probably continue to give weaponry and I imagine this will increase - hand portable are a threat to modern tanks, let alone the Armour Syria has. Syria has already refused to dig out rebels in cities as the army's morale is too low. At then end of the day, rebels can survive just holding the countryside but the supposed regime can't.
Russia wants to retain their geopolitical ally. But there will come a point where it is better to belatedly back the winner you don't want rather than the looser you do. China is probably against setting the precident of the UN sticking their nose into matters so is less likely to relent. They might end up abstaining in the vote.
If Assad were to turtle, I think the rebels would expend the resources to dig him out, lest he return. Also I imagine he and his enclave would rather flee for a life of riches in exile rather than a life of poverty and possible execution. The Alawyte locals might side with him, but by that point they'd more likely give him up lest the victorious rebels engage in some post-match religious cleansing.
The Armed Forces are Assad's creation and have little if any more cudos and I doubt the populace or rebels would view this as satisfactory. In Egypt the armed forces had a lot more respect and they have shown that once a power base gets power it is reluctant to give it up.
~:smoking:
The rebellion seems to be too entrenched for it to be possible for Assad to survive. One guess would be that the war ends with most of the senior military officials fleeing, leaving the army without a proper chain of command and so it collapses.
Kralizec
07-20-2012, 11:04
Mubarak seems to be a ship that has already sailed. The Massoud and Ghadaffi scenarios are possible if the rebels increase their momentum. The Massoud seems the less likely of the two because if the regime permanently loses, say, half of its territory it will be seen as having lost its legitimacy - I don't see Assad surviving long in that position, allthough it's possible that some military bloke will off him and take his place. Right now my gut says a Hussein scenario: by and large, Syria slowly comes back under Assad's control except for some minor enclaves that will defy his authority for many years, but which are no existential threat.
I'm off to divine the entrails of a goat, will get back to you after that.
The Gaddafi, Modified Version
I do not believe that Assad can defeat the rebels. He's fighting a guerrilla war in his own country and in heavily urbanized areas. Without the support of the local people in those areas, it's pretty much impossible to control them without overwhelming force. At the same time, he clearly does not have overwhelming force. Regardless of the size of the Syrian military, it is clearly insufficient to deal with the size of the rebellion. They seem to win whenever they concentrate forces on a certain area, but the rebels simply withdraw and go elsewhere. The rebels strike wherever the Syrian military is weak, and usually win there. The Syrian military is not large enough to be everywhere at once, and this is well demonstrated with the current situation in Damascus. They drew forces back to the capital to deal with the fighting there, and lost control of many border areas.
At the same time, Assad is getting weaker while the rebels are getting stronger. Funding and weapons to the rebels will continue to increase (from Western and other Middle Eastern nations), while Assad will not be getting resources from any more sources than he is currently (Iran, Hezbollah, Russia). If you look at the daily casualty figures, the Syrian military is also taking very high numbers of casualties. If you remove civilian casualties from the picture, Syrian military losses regularly exceed FSA losses every single day, and usually by a significant margin. Add in defections, which continue to occur and only go in one direction, and the Syrian military is bleeding out.
The reason I say it will be a 'Modified' version of the Gaddafi scenario is that it has the potential to be a lot bloodier after Assad finally falls. Libya still has some tribal conflict issues, but it has managed to avoid much bloodshed and appears to be coming together as a cohesive nation. Depending on how long the Syrian situation goes on, that might not occur there. It could turn into sectarian warfare, which would be very bloody and do extensive harm to the nation. The best comparison for that scenario would be, IMHO, the Lebanese Civil War.
HoreTore
07-20-2012, 15:20
Just a few days ago, I would've gone with either Gadaffi or Massoud.
After the high officials were murdered, however, I'm introducing a fifth option; the semi-Stalin.
It seems likely that such murders can only be carried out without the support of someone on the inside. Whether it's true or not is actually irrelevant, the important thing is the ammount of paranoia it generates. I believe we'll see a moscow trial show soon, with plenty of executions, defections and general mayhem. Stalin did this when there was no real threat to his position, unlike Assad, and so I expect this will lead to Assad's downfall.
GenosseGeneral
07-20-2012, 16:18
As said before, the Mubarak is unlikely. There has been too much bloodshed for simply removing the president and blame him for everything. Too many soldiers and militiamen have been involved. I think we will see a continuing civil war in which the rebels get prolonged support with weapons, ammonition and training from outside. Eventually they will take over most of the country and kill or expell Assad, but this won't end the bloodshed as there still will be too many wishes for revenge. Fearing them, many members of the security forces will continue fighting, alongside the minorities.
So after all, my guess is the Gaddafi followed by an ongoing civil war.
I don't think the comparison with the Lebanese Civil War works, for two main reasons.
Firstly, the sectarian divide in Lebanon was emphasised by the political organisation of the country. Much of the policy-making was created by political bosses who often got their way through bribery, extortion or physical violence. The difference between (pseudo-)democratic elements present in Lebanon before the Civil War and the authoritarian situation in Syria since the coup d'êtat in 1970 by Hafez al-Assad is very important.
Secondly, in my opinion, Syrian politics are a lot less defined by sectarian discourse than in Lebanon. As was the case with Libya, the roots of the conflict are, as far as I'm aware, in essence not religious. This doesn't necessarily mean that religion has played no role in this conflict as we've seen numerous examples of Shi'ites being harassed, assaulted or killed. Be that as it may, I don't think sectarian divides define this uprising/civil war, and I don't expect a post-wartime reconstruction of the state to be characterised by religious or sectarian discourse.
I don't think sectarian divides define this uprising/civil war, and I don't expect a post-wartime reconstruction of the state to be characterised by religious or sectarian discourse.
I very much hope you are correct.
Sarmatian
07-20-2012, 17:58
I believe it's gonna be Hussein. It seems like Assad hasn't really tried to fight - he seemed more content to just respond to threats rather than to seek rebels out actively.
As PJ said, he's got a rather powerful and loyal military at his back and it's not gonna be pretty when he unleashes it.
That scenario depends on Syrian Army units following their orders and attacking civilians. The 60,000 (according to Turkey) who've deserted rather than follow such orders makes that unlikely.
I very much hope you are correct.
Me too. It could very well just be my hope speaking here, but I re-read the history of Hafiz al-Assad's rise to power and the uprising back in the 1980s, and it occured to me that it appeared to be much more defined along Islamic lines.
HopAlongBunny
07-21-2012, 04:31
Modified Mubarak
Russia will convince him to step down; military takes control=>Assad "disappears" in resulting confusion=>hand-picked successor over-sees a "regime of reconciliation" which then rules indefinitely.
I'm thinking there are four options here.
The Hussein - Assad retains control of his powerful military assets and crushes what appears to be a successful rebellion by an oppressed religious majority town by town, massacre by massacre, as they do not have the firepower, organization, and/or international support to fight back.
The Massoud - Assad and his loyalists retreat to a stronghold, while the rebels assume control of the rest of the country. Syria is essentially split into two nations as neither side is able to defeat the other.
The Mubarak - In an attempt to preserve their power and appease the mob, the military removes Assad from power - either arresting him or expelling him from the country.
The Gaddafi - No explanation needed.
Well, to be honest, the Gaddafi would actually be the Hussein. Before the NATO airstrikes, Gaddafi's army was calmly strolling towards Benghazi. Even Saif was saying "This will be over by tomorrow" Only once NATO started bombing the :daisy: out of every metal thing going East did things start to go sour for Gaddafi.
Modified Mubarak
Russia will convince him to step down; military takes control=>Assad "disappears" in resulting confusion=>hand-picked successor over-sees a "regime of reconciliation" which then rules indefinitely.
I'm going to go along with this one.
I think there's enough international uproar that Assad will have to step down at some point, but it'll be just another face to front the same power base. Short of a major external military intervention I don't think there's going to be any real changes to the political situation. A bit more guesswork says that the regime is trying to use as "little" force as "necessary" to put things down, as they're hoping to avoid real, serious international intervention. If they do have to ratchet up the brutality a few or lot more notches, Assad will keep the reigns as long as they need to get things done and associate the blame with him, at which point he'll step down, or more likely aside.
The Hussein seems more likely at the moment, and in the grand scheme of things it's the best feasible solution.
truth1337
07-31-2012, 19:57
I'm thinking there are four options here.
The Hussein - Assad retains control of his powerful military assets and crushes what appears to be a successful rebellion by an oppressed religious majority town by town, massacre by massacre, as they do not have the firepower, organization, and/or international support to fight back.
The Massoud - Assad and his loyalists retreat to a stronghold, while the rebels assume control of the rest of the country. Syria is essentially split into two nations as neither side is able to defeat the other.
The Mubarak - In an attempt to preserve their power and appease the mob, the military removes Assad from power - either arresting him or expelling him from the country.
The Gaddafi - No explanation needed.
OT: You almost listed the components of the American president's name: Mubarak Hussein Osama, oops I mean Barack Hussein Obama. Is it true that that is only a fake identity and his real name is Barry Satoro?
@Topic: I think Assad will try to win the information war and make people realize the rebels are false flag operations, so they will lose sympathy in the west and they will leave having lost both militarily and information-wise.
a completely inoffensive name
08-01-2012, 04:26
OT: You almost listed the components of the American president's name: Mubarak Hussein Osama, oops I mean Barack Hussein Obama. Is it true that that is only a fake identity and his real name is Barry Satoro?
https://i.imgur.com/SNZcY.jpg
PanzerJaeger
08-01-2012, 06:30
Was wondering when someone would catch that one.
Here is interesting report from inside Aleppo. Warning: brief clips of deceased Syrian soldiers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU4CyIQcwl0&feature=plcp
I have been very interested in how the old Soviet AFVs have performed in Libya and now Syria. One would expect the Syrian ones to perform better due to better crew training and maintenance, but it seems that they, too, are being ordered/lured into cities and destroyed. Can any of you military guys identify what killed the T-72 shown in this clip? RPGs would be the most obvious guess, but they would have to be fairly well placed/lucky hits.
PanzerJaeger
08-01-2012, 06:32
double post
rory_20_uk
08-01-2012, 08:13
It does seem a "classic" ploy: the rebels / freedom fighter / whatever wail they've no RPGs or anti-air. They hole up in a nice important city. They await the Army to come in with armour, confident they can root out the rebels who appear to have decided to commit suicide.
Lo and behold, they've got RPGs and IEDs they unsportingly didn't tell the Army about. Assad looses tanks which are going to be tough to replace in terrain that is ideal for light infantry with AT to kill them.
~:smoking:
Can any of you military guys identify what killed the T-72 shown in this clip? RPGs would be the most obvious guess, but they would have to be fairly well placed/lucky hits.
Not military, but to me it looks like it's almost completely burned out. Could have been anything from powerful IEDs to RPGs to a bunch of molotov cocktails tossed into the right areas.
truth1337
08-01-2012, 15:12
The Syrians may not be Aryan brothers, but they are Christian brothers. Same goes for Iran - they may not be our Christian brothers, but they are our Aryan brothers.
Who except anti-white Jewish neocons and anti-Christian communists would want to see a war between Christian brothers, or Aryan brothers?
The "rebels" in Syria are extremist muslims like in all the other countries that have experienced CIA and Mossad sponsored rebel groups taking over well-working regimes and turning them into extremist Islamist states. We don't need to see our Christian brothers in Syria get destroyed by an invasion orchestrated by Israel through AIPAC.
rory_20_uk
08-01-2012, 15:17
We all love strong views in the backroom, and I am no bleeding heart. But this is approaching White Supremacy rhetoric / just bonkers.
~:smoking:
truth1337
08-01-2012, 15:20
We all love strong views in the backroom, and I am no bleeding heart. But this is approaching White Supremacy rhetoric / just bonkers.
~:smoking:
I'm sad if I made you feel that way. I'm merely against Israel being "always ready to fight to the last American soldier".
rory_20_uk
08-01-2012, 15:29
I'm sad if I made you feel that way. I'm merely against Israel being "always ready to fight to the last American soldier".
Backwards logic if I ever heard it. America uses Israel to fight its battles by proxy.
~:smoking:
truth1337
08-01-2012, 15:31
Backwards logic if I ever heard it. America uses Israel to fight its battles by proxy.
~:smoking:
Yeah, because muslims were such a huuuuge problem to America before the false flag attack 9/11.
Hooahguy
08-01-2012, 15:39
Backwards logic if I ever heard it. America uses Israel to fight its battles by proxy.
~:smoking:
Wat.
Yeah, because muslims were such a huuuuge problem to America before the false flag attack 9/11.
Double wat.
rory_20_uk
08-01-2012, 15:42
Yeah, because muslims were such a huuuuge problem to America before the false flag attack 9/11.
Invading America's earstwhile ally in the Middle East might have had a teeny weeny effect on this.
~:smoking:
The problem with 9/11 conspiracy theories that it fully denies and delegitimises the very much legitimate anger experienced in the Middle-East against the United States. Keep that in mind.
truth1337
08-01-2012, 15:46
Invading America's earstwhile ally in the Middle East might have had a teeny weeny effect on this.
~:smoking:
What has the wonderful "ally" Israel ever given America, except casualties and debt? They even shot American navy men to death in a ruthless attack on USS Liberty in an attempt to blame the Egyptians so America would go to war with Egypt. Or the Lavon affair, where God intervened and made the bomb explode in the pocket of one of the Israeli terrorists, who wanted to blow up white people then blame the Palestinians. But now this discussion is turning into an all-out Israel bashing, which I'm not willing to take part in.
Hooahguy
08-01-2012, 15:49
I dont mind Israel bashing, but the fact that you are so against it when compared to your otherwise nutty views is interesting. Please, tell me more why you would allow homosexuality but ban bisexuality.
truth1337
08-01-2012, 15:51
I dont mind Israel bashing, but the fact that you are so against it when compared to your otherwise nutty views is interesting. Please, tell me more why you would allow homosexuality but ban bisexuality.
I'd be happy to discuss that subject in a separate thread.
I'm no real fan of how Israel acts, but truth1337 may be singly responsible for keeping Alcoa in business. As a shareholder, :2thumbsup:
Hooahguy
08-01-2012, 15:59
I'd be happy to discuss that subject in a separate thread.
You got it.
truth1337
08-01-2012, 16:00
I'm no real fan of how Israel acts, but truth1337 may be singly responsible for keeping Alcoa in business. As a shareholder, :2thumbsup:
Alcoa = aliminium producer? Now you need to explain!
truth1337
08-01-2012, 16:07
Tinfoil hats.
What is a tinfoil hat for?
It's to stop the evil government rays, man. That's how they turn you into a slave! The NWO is everywhere, duuuuude.
Hooahguy
08-01-2012, 16:09
What is a tinfoil hat for?
From Wikipedia.
The concept of wearing a tin foil hat for protection from such threats has become a popular stereotype and term of derision; the phrase serves as a byword for paranoia and persecutory delusions, and is associated with conspiracy theorists.
truth1337
08-01-2012, 16:14
It's to stop the evil government rays, man. That's how they turn you into a slave! The NWO is everywhere, duuuuude.
I'm quite confident Christ is sufficient protection against becoming a mind slave to any false ideals, lies, government, satanic ideology (such as communism) or other organization that tries to deceive people by ridicule or lies, without providing arguments for their standpoints.
Yeah. I'm wearing a Hezbollah shirt right now. That doesn't really work for me, do you have any other options?
Vladimir
08-01-2012, 16:23
I like the new guy. :yes:
I'm quite confident Christ is sufficient protection against becoming a mind slave to any false ideals, lies, government, satanic ideology (such as communism) or other organization that tries to deceive people by ridicule or lies, without providing arguments for their standpoints.
I don't see how an an imaginary character from a a book of mythology is going to stop anything.
And what's the spread on "the lion" these days?
Also, since when is Syria a Christian state? Did I miss anything during my flight back from Beirut?
What is a tinfoil hat for?
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/tinfoil-hat.jpg
Also, since when is Syria a Christian state? Did I miss anything during my flight back from Beirut?
Like many Muslim nations there's a Christian minority in Syria. Even after the French broke off Lebanon they still make up about 10% of the population. Syrian Orthodox church and the like. So for this guy pretending to be a religious nut bag that's enough.
Also, since when is Syria a Christian state? Did I miss anything during my flight back from Beirut?
The west of it, not many but also alvert356::(€€:
Like many Muslim nations there's a Christian minority in Syria. Even after the French broke off Lebanon they still make up about 10% of the population. Syrian Orthodox church and the like.
Hahah, yeah, I know. That's still a very, very long way from being a Christian state.
Strike For The South
08-01-2012, 17:16
joo
I'm quite confident Christ is sufficient protection against becoming a mind slave to any false ideals, lies, government, satanic ideology (such as communism) or other organization that tries to deceive people by ridicule or lies, without providing arguments for their standpoints.
Since the US is becoming more and more fundie Christian, then why do we need to worry about the Fed, the Rothschilds, or Zionist commies? It's either one or the other. :inquisitive:
You have to consider there are quite a few here not "Aryan" or "Christian" either.
"Anti-white jewish neocon" - What is that even meant to be, especially since neocons are the stereotyped of crummy old christian whites male? it just seems a little rhetorically obsolete.
As for Israel being pro-extremist, this isn't the case, as the status quo is working far better for them as governments are keeping the peace, opposed to a new government who might try their luck, especially if they are more inflammatory.
Ironside
08-01-2012, 18:00
Hahah, yeah, I know. That's still a very, very long way from being a Christian state.
It's even better that the Ba'ath party is at least rhetorically Socialist.
And essentially nationalist socialist. And pretty a- to anti-religious.
truth1337
08-01-2012, 18:54
Since the US is becoming more and more fundie Christian, then why do we need to worry about the Fed, the Rothschilds, or Zionist commies? It's either one or the other. :inquisitive:
Apparently, the government isn't. Two examples:
- David Axelrod, (one of Obama's 2 closest advisors) grandson of Lev Bronstein aka Trotsky, leader of the phalanx within communism that wanted a "world revolution", i.e. no part of the world would be left out from the communist system, i.e. there would be nowhere on earth where people would be tolerated to have another system, than bolshevism, Gulags, and all the rest.
- John Holdren (Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology - informally known as the United States' Science Czar). This cozy guy co-authored a book in 1977, where he says that:
* Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not
* The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food
* Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise
* People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized
* A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.
Then we may check, who is Mubarak Hussein Osama's biggest campaign contributor - Goldman-Sachs, cute little Lloyd Blankfein-boy. By the way, Goldman-Sachs also are the biggest campaign contributors of the other side too.
"When we are successful, and we will be muahahaha"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a9Syi12RJo
Strike For The South
08-01-2012, 19:33
trolololololol
Hooahguy
08-01-2012, 19:55
Always loved the works of Thomas Hobbes. The Leviathan, really.
"When we are successful, and we will be muahahaha"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a9Syi12RJo
I prefer this version (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIzyoKsWTA4) myself.
truth1337
08-01-2012, 21:13
trolololololol
I'll just quote one of my favorite poems in response to that. Basically, please look it up and show me that it is not true - I'd welcome it!
You may not like it but it's true. Yeah, the truth is an unfortunate thing. The truth is a pain in the ***. The truth is uncomfortable and downright unpleasant. The truth is not welcome in the house. The truth can sleep under the bridge abutment. The truth can take a hike. **** the truth. I don't want no part of the truth. The truth is dangerous. The truth can get me in trouble. The truth can mess up my life. The truth can get in the way of my appetites and desires because I live for the commands of my stomach and my ****. Crucify the truth! Crucify the truth! Such is the cry of outrage and anger from those whom the truth convicts. Such is the nature of those who live and profit from misery and lies.
[...]
I don't want to say these things. I don't want to get up out of my warm bed and apply myself to the kind of thing that has never granted a warm bed or a welcome hearth. I don't want to do it but I have no choice. I will not look back on my life and say in the shamed confinement of my imprisoned heart that I was a coward and a traitor to every good and decent quality that I did not have the courage to seek after and possess. I will not turn my eyes away from the terror, the harm, the suffering and abuse of my fellows at the hands of conscienceless beasts. They are not human, whatever else they may be. They are not human and I will call what I see. They do not rule over me.
Yeah, what about it? Prove me wrong. [...] Show me where all of this is not true. I hunger for it not to be. Shall it go on and on forever? Shall it never end? So long as the much, much vaster numbers of humanity submit, it will continue. On that you may depend. What is it that spellbinds the minds of so many of you? What is this force that makes you doubt what is right before your eyes? What is this power that can hypnotize?
truth1337
08-01-2012, 21:16
I prefer this version (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIzyoKsWTA4) myself.
You sir, have good taste!
Strike For The South
08-01-2012, 21:20
I'll just quote one of my favorite poems in response to that. Basically, please look it up and show me that it is not true - I'd welcome it!
You may not like it but it's true. Yeah, the truth is an unfortunate thing. The truth is a pain in the ***. The truth is uncomfortable and downright unpleasant. The truth is not welcome in the house. The truth can sleep under the bridge abutment. The truth can take a hike. **** the truth. I don't want no part of the truth. The truth is dangerous. The truth can get me in trouble. The truth can mess up my life. The truth can get in the way of my appetites and desires because I live for the commands of my stomach and my ****. Crucify the truth! Crucify the truth! Such is the cry of outrage and anger from those whom the truth convicts. Such is the nature of those who live and profit from misery and lies.
[...]
I don't want to say these things. I don't want to get up out of my warm bed and apply myself to the kind of thing that has never granted a warm bed or a welcome hearth. I don't want to do it but I have no choice. I will not look back on my life and say in the shamed confinement of my imprisoned heart that I was a coward and a traitor to every good and decent quality that I did not have the courage to seek after and possess. I will not turn my eyes away from the terror, the harm, the suffering and abuse of my fellows at the hands of conscienceless beasts. They are not human, whatever else they may be. They are not human and I will call what I see. They do not rule over me.
Yeah, what about it? Prove me wrong. [...] Show me where all of this is not true. I hunger for it not to be. Shall it go on and on forever? Shall it never end? So long as the much, much vaster numbers of humanity submit, it will continue. On that you may depend. What is it that spellbinds the minds of so many of you? What is this force that makes you doubt what is right before your eyes? What is this power that can hypnotize?
Another sex starved social retard joins the ranks.
Vuk will be along shortly with your gift bag and T-shirt
a completely inoffensive name
08-01-2012, 21:36
First they came for the liberal communist zionist feministas.
And I did not speak....because I am not a liberal communist zionist feminista.
First they came for the liberal communist zionist feministas.
And I did not speak....because I am not a liberal communist zionist feminista.
Then they came for the Paultards and the 9/11 Truthers.
And I did not speak ... for I was not a Paultard or a Truther ...
a completely inoffensive name
08-01-2012, 22:05
Then they came for the Paultards and the 9/11 Truthers.
And I did not speak ... for I was not a Paultard or a Truther ...
There needs to be an option for a "double thanks" with two thumbs up instead of one.
Ironside
08-01-2012, 23:27
Apparently, the government isn't. Two examples:
- David Axelrod, (one of Obama's 2 closest advisors) grandson of Lev Bronstein aka Trotsky, leader of the phalanx within communism that wanted a "world revolution", i.e. no part of the world would be left out from the communist system, i.e. there would be nowhere on earth where people would be tolerated to have another system, than bolshevism, Gulags, and all the rest.
Oh man. First, the US is far, far from going commie.
Second, condemning people because of their ancestors without anything else is a quite dubious methods. Children are not their parents parrots, no matter how much some wants them to be.
Third and most damning. That fact checking sucks. There exist more than one David Axelrod in the world. Obama's advisor was born 1955 and the descendant of Trotsky was born in 1961.
- John Holdren (Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology - informally known as the United States' Science Czar). This cozy guy co-authored a book in 1977, where he says that:
* Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not
* The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food
* Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise
* People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized
* A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.
It was a big scare of overpopulation in the seventies and the book is pretty much if worst comes to worst, then these are possible messurements that could be taken in countries without normal control. It's simular to a defense plan against an invasion from the Fourth Realm of the Democratic Republic of United Europe on US soil, even if John Holdren probably thought that severe overpopulation was a more realistic scenario at the time. The issue is looking to resolve itself longterm, thanks to those evil feminists and their focus on giving women the abillity to choose the family size by themselves btw, even if higher food yield is the big reason on why starvation is dropping and the predicted crisis never came.
The single mothers thing has to do with unwanted children, not a general policy.
The contribution to social deterioration that's made is having a lot of children. Nothing else.
The planetary regime is supposed to control the birth population on a global scale. Since the bedroom is intimate, you can misquote like that if you want to.
It's still not exactly the best 1000 pages book written (quite radical and dubious), and I would not give a 30 year old John Holdren ultimate power. 35 years later, with control on what he's doing and if he's been quite competent after that? Yes, he can be considered.
Dead apparantly, it was the Ghadaffi
What?
Well that, I don't know anything more than you do but he's probably dead
Vladimir
08-06-2012, 17:09
What?
http://www.businessinsider.com/a-bunch-of-people-are-getting-duped-by-this-fake-twitter-account-thats-saying-syrian-president-assad-is-dead-2012-8?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Fake.
Hooahguy
08-06-2012, 17:10
Never mind.
You know how reliable Fragony's news sources are.
You know how reliable Fragony's news sources are.
Has the word 'apparently' suddenly become an aquired taste, I never realised it lost it's original meaning
Montmorency, I noticed you always vote on every post that's directed against me, you aren't very good with words yourself are you, do you stutter
Montmorency
08-06-2012, 18:08
Montmorency, I noticed you always vote on every post that's directed against me, you aren't very good with words yourself are you, do you stutter
I've handed out 86 thanks, in total.
You are, apparently, a narcissist in addition to a paranoiac with persecutory delusions.
Perhaps you wouldn't mind completing an MMPI form?
In other news, the Syrian prime minister has defected to Jordan.
If Assad doesn't retake Aleppo soon, he might as well start looking for a place to spend his years in exile.
Ain't nowhere to go, I'm afraid. Maybe Latin America?
In other news, the Syrian prime minister has defected to Jordan.
Probably over then
I've handed out 86 thanks, in total.
You are, apparently, a narcissist in addition to a paranoiac with persecutory delusions.
Perhaps you wouldn't mind completing an MMPI form?
I am also able to pinpoint you within 2 meters and a 30 minutes margin mia muca
Ain't nowhere to go, I'm afraid. Maybe Latin America?
That's a good idea. I bet Chavez will welcome him.
Noncommunist
08-09-2012, 03:15
What about Moscow or Tehran as places to retire?
SoFarSoGood
08-09-2012, 04:44
Iranian 'Pilgrims' and Syrian Assassinations
When the 'suicide bomber' got several senior Government and Military personnel in Damascus last month (Gen Daoud Rajiha etc) it became pretty clear that some insider must have tipped off the bomber and those behind this. You do not get at three such senior Government sources in a time of civil war without being told in advance where and when they are going to be.
More recently we have these Iranian 'pilgrims' being taken 'hostage' in Damascus... The claim that they were 'pilgrims' in the first place I found amusing. It is not Hadj time and Damascus is not Mecca. Nor is it a significant religious time for ANY of the Shi'ite Immans. Besides any of that who seriously goes on a pilgrimage to a country in the middle of a civil war? I am a Catholic and wouldn't visit Rome if the Italians were shooting at each other... So the suggestion was that these 'pilgrims' were in fact Quds (the foreign operations section of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps... the people who fund Hezbollah etc). Well yesterday, after just pledging support for Assad, the Iranians admitted that some of the 'pilgrims' were in fact 'retired' Quds personnel... Well these elderly 'ex - Qudists' just happened to be on a 'pilgrimage' in a war torn city at a time of no religious significance... Sure.
All of which leads me to the conclusion that upto the point when these 'pilgrims' were grabbed the inside informer within the Syrian Government was still in place. How else do the 'rebels' know that a Quds party is in Damascus and where and when it will be? Assad may have done some 'clearing house' after the suicide bomb attack but now he will be under pressure from his Iranian friends to conduct a thorough witch hunt...
@ Noncommunist; If Assad leaves he loses. Russia will not take him as they will have play friendly with any future regime to keep their naval base.
Furunculus
08-09-2012, 08:39
The Gaddafi -
He may well retreat to allawite heartland that is impervious to rebel advance, but the outside world will provide the necessary spur be that by cruise-missile or truck bomb in order to see business concluded.
What about Moscow or Tehran as places to retire?
Hmm, I don't think Iran is going to invite Assad over if he loses his country. They've got enough trouble as it is.
More recently we have these Iranian 'pilgrims' being taken 'hostage' in Damascus... The claim that they were 'pilgrims' in the first place I found amusing. It is not Hadj time and Damascus is not Mecca. Nor is it a significant religious time for ANY of the Shi'ite Immans. Besides any of that who seriously goes on a pilgrimage to a country in the middle of a civil war? I am a Catholic and wouldn't visit Rome if the Italians were shooting at each other... So the suggestion was that these 'pilgrims' were in fact Quds (the foreign operations section of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps... the people who fund Hezbollah etc). Well yesterday, after just pledging support for Assad, the Iranians admitted that some of the 'pilgrims' were in fact 'retired' Quds personnel... Well these elderly 'ex - Qudists' just happened to be on a 'pilgrimage' in a war torn city at a time of no religious significance... Sure.
Who knows. I don't think you appreciate or understand the position of the ahl al-bayt within Shi‘a communities. Quite some important people are buried in Damascus, and pilgrimage to these spots has nothing to do with the hajj itself.
HopAlongBunny
08-09-2012, 10:59
Just looking for a bit of clarity.
The war is often portrayed as a popular uprising against Assad; while flicking through the web I came across one article that suggests otherwise.
The contention was essentially that 40% of Syria's pop. is made up of numerous minorities, none of whom were active or engaged in the uprising. So is the civil war a changing of the guard among the elite; or a popular uprising?
rory_20_uk
08-09-2012, 11:07
Frankly, who knows?
What most people want is to live their life without worrying that they'll be dragged off and killed. Y'know, small things.
Most would probably like to have a life similar to those in Surrey. But that isn't an option.
To get on the wrong side of this fight is probably life and death. The last uprising c. 30k people were killed merely at the end to prove a point.
To make things really "fun", if you're a minority and militant islamists with a Saudi-backed intolerance to... practically everything there could also be religious cleansing.
What to do? Both options are so ghastly I imagine most just hope that if they keep their heads down and do nothing, neither size will decide to raze their home / village / town and kill all the occupants.
~:smoking:
Just looking for a bit of clarity.
The war is often portrayed as a popular uprising against Assad; while flicking through the web I came across one article that suggests otherwise.
The contention was essentially that 40% of Syria's pop. is made up of numerous minorities, none of whom were active or engaged in the uprising. So is the civil war a changing of the guard among the elite; or a popular uprising?
I really have absolutely no idea
SoFarSoGood
08-09-2012, 13:19
Who knows. I don't think you appreciate or understand the position of the ahl al-bayt within Shi‘a communities. Quite some important people are buried in Damascus, and pilgrimage to these spots has nothing to do with the hajj itself.
Iran has already admitted that some of the 'pilgrims' are "retired Quds". If it walks and quacks like a duck...
I'm not saying they're not related to the Iranian government. It's just that you've been giving the wrong reasons. Also, you sure gotta a lot of chutspa showing up on these forums, mister Netanyahu.
rory_20_uk
08-09-2012, 13:31
Iran has already admitted that some of the 'pilgrims' are "retired Quds". If it walks and quacks like a duck...
Turkey: set up secret HQ for rebels and provides training / logistical support etc.
UK / USA - providing "non lethal" assistance - which is farcical as others are providing the guns and both are equally required for a force to be effective. This they tell us. Is the SAS / other special forces in there? Who knows.
Other countries are providing small arms and the Rebels also have some Anti-Air / Anti-Armour. Limited amounts lest Terrorists get their hands on it (i.e. the same people if they decide to leave Syria).
Russia happened to have two ships dock in the port it uses which happen to be full of Marines. They're there for duty free, right?
The language might have changed, but Bismark could adapt to this inside of 5 minutes.
~:smoking:
SoFarSoGood
08-09-2012, 14:11
Russia cannot get involved directly or Turkey will crush them and take Armenia to boot. A boat-full of Marines is only good for holding a dock area, not substantial intervention. Turks simply have the most organised numbers in the area and sit between Russian resupply lines for Russia to be insane enough to send serious troops in. Mind it would be great if they did...
I'd rather have nobody does anything at all untill we know a little bit more about the rebels. Syria wasn't all that bad before this started (I am told I know nothing of Syria myself) and the christians and alavites don't seem to like the rebels all that much. There are supposedly jihadi's from all over the world fighting against the state army, including European and American ones, yes you too America.
rory_20_uk
08-09-2012, 14:34
That's my point - the Russians want a warm water port - that's it. Much easier to negotiate with whoever wins with a garrison nearby. They have done what is required to protect their interests and as far as possible not upset others in the local area - Marines could most likely hold out against attacks until reinforced, but are no serious threat to anyone else.
~:smoking:
I'd rather have nobody does anything at all untill we know a little bit more about the rebels. Syria wasn't all that bad before this started (I am told I know nothing of Syria myself) and the christians and alavites don't seem to like the rebels all that much. There are supposedly jihadi's from all over the world fighting against the state army, including European and American ones, yes you too America.
So let's suppose for a moment that yes, a part of the rebels, or all of them, are Islamic radicals. Does that make their grievances any less justified? Read up on the Algerian civil war of the 1990's.
So let's suppose for a moment that yes, a part of the rebels, or all of them, are Islamic radicals. Does that make their grievances any less justified? Read up on the Algerian civil war of the 1990's.
Less justified? No. It does however make helping them akin to shooting self in the foot.
So let's suppose for a moment that yes, a part of the rebels, or all of them, are Islamic radicals. Does that make their grievances any less justified? Read up on the Algerian civil war of the 1990's.
You are talking to a total noob here Hax I won't pretend to have anything meaninfull to say on what's going on in Syria, or Algeria for that matter
Less justified? No. It does however make helping them akin to shooting self in the foot.
I'd disagree. If you look at movements operating against foreign powers, you'll mostly find they're either of a supranational nature (such as al-Qa'ida or extreme left wing groups) or they're nationalist movements without a country (for example: the radical Zionist movement in the 1930's and 40's or the PLO).
The thing with Islamism is that as soon as its mentioned, people tend to have this kneejerk reaction. Anything associated with Islamist movements is immediately dismissed, which, in my opinion is not only unfair, but actually works in the opposite direction. Believe me, I'd rather talk to Mohammad Morsi than to Ayman al-Zawihiri or Osama bin Laden. I'd rather talk with Hezbollah than with the Taliban.
You are talking to a total noob here Hax I won't pretend to have anything meaninfull to say on what's going on in Syria, or Algeria for that matter
Okay, so here's a newsflash: don't say anything. We don't necessarily need your opinion to have a conversation.
The thing with Islamism is that as soon as its mentioned, people tend to have this kneejerk reaction. Anything associated with Islamist movements is immediately dismissed...
And rightfully so.
which, in my opinion is not only unfair, but actually works in the opposite direction.
Not at all. There are plenty of non-crazy people to deal with. Like nationalists, BAATHists, pan-arabists, etc.
I'd rather talk with Hezbollah than with the Taliban..
I'd much rather not talk with either one.
That is fortunate for all of us Hax as I can't give my opinion because I don't know anything about the situation there. I also know little about saturated fat percentages of yak-milk from Tibet by the way, heard it tastes horrible.
And rightfully so.
Yeah, woo, ever since the Muslim Brotherhood came to power in Egypt, you'll get stoned for kissing your girlfriend in public! And in Tunisia, they're mass-executing money-launderers as we speak And now that Hezbollah is in a coalition with the Progressive Socialist Party and Amal in Lebanon, they're also murdering gays!
Man, have you ever even been in the vicinity of these areas. Here's a thing, I was in Lebanon last month. I talked to everyon there, and you know what? They don't even care about Aoun or Gemayel or Nasrallah, as long as they get paid and can take care of their families, they're happy.
Not at all. There are plenty of non-crazy people to deal with. Like nationalists, BAATHists, pan-arabists, etc.
Tell you a nice story about the Ba‘ath in Iraq. They were executing babies. Swear to God. How can you not call them crazy?
Yeah, woo, ever since the Muslim Brotherhood came to power in Egypt, you'll get stoned for kissing your girlfriend in public! And in Tunisia, they're mass-executing money-launderers as we speak And now that Hezbollah is in a coalition with the Progressive Socialist Party and Amal in Lebanon, they're also murdering gays!
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here...
Man, have you ever even been in the vicinity of these areas. Here's a thing, I was in Lebanon last month. I talked to everyon there, and you know what? They don't even care about Aoun or Gemayel or Nasrallah, as long as they get paid and can take care of their families, they're happy.
Whom did you talk to? Who is "everyone"? Furthermore, the reason they don't care about Nasrallah is because people like Aoun and Gemayel won't allow Nasrallah to turn Lebanon into mini-Iran. Otherwise they'd care very much.
Tell you a nice story about the Ba‘ath in Iraq. They were executing babies. Swear to God. How can you not call them crazy?
What babies? When? On whose orders?
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here...
In the three countries I just mentioned, Islamist parties play a large role in the political process within the country. I was using sarcasm to express the fact that none of these countries at the current moment are currently ruled as Islamic states. None.
Whom did you talk to? Who is "everyone"? Furthermore, the reason they don't care about Nasrallah is because people like Aoun and Gemayel won't allow Nasrallah to turn Lebanon into mini-Iran. Otherwise they'd care very much.
Hmm, let me think. Students at AUB university, shopkeepers in Hamra, Shi‘a in the banlieus, Sunnis in the centre of the city, Christians in Gemmayze, Druze in the mountain areas. Do you want me to go on?
The thing with you is that you automatically assume that everyone not immediately adhering to your view of how Muslim parties function are either ignorant or are somehow complying with the supposed Muslim plot to take over the world. The very fact that you're saying: "otherwise they'd care very much" pretty much suggest that you're not even willing to let these people have an opinion of their own, even though they're first of all much more fit and entitled to an opinion on how their own country is run and secondly because they actually live there and are sick of this sectarian infighting which has cost hundreds of lives over the last thirty years.
Stop enforcing your opinion people whose country you know nothing about.
What babies? When? On whose orders?
Robert Fisk mentioned in his "The Great War for Civilization" that this woman, whose husband had deserted and was arrested, came to the jail with three of her children. They were all shot, except the mother. I'm looking up the exact quote.
In the three countries I just mentioned, Islamist parties play a large role in the political process within the country. I was using sarcasm to express the fact that none of these countries at the current moment are currently ruled as Islamic states. None.
Not yet. In Egypt, it is the military that prevents islamists from doing something stupid for now, as for Tunisia and Libya, it's too early to tell. In Tunisia there's already a nationwide campaign of attacking liquor stores. Not a good start.
Hmm, let me think. Students at AUB university, shopkeepers in Hamra, Shi‘a in the banlieus, Sunnis in the centre of the city, Christians in Gemmayze, Druze in the mountain areas. Do you want me to go on?
The thing with you is that you automatically assume that everyone not immediately adhering to your view of how Muslim parties function are either ignorant or are somehow complying with the supposed Muslim plot to take over the world. The very fact that you're saying: "otherwise they'd care very much" pretty much suggest that you're not even willing to let these people have an opinion of their own, even though they're first of all much more fit and entitled to an opinion on how their own country is run and secondly because they actually live there and are sick of this sectarian infighting which has cost hundreds of lives over the last thirty years.
Wait a minute, you're telling me that Nasrallah wouldn't want to turn Lebanon into Shiite theocracy? Really? Oh, I bet he would, but he can't. Precisely because of the Sunni/Shiite/Maronite gridlock.
Stop enforcing your opinion people whose country you know nothing about.
I know more about it than you think.
Robert Fisk mentioned in his "The Great War for Civilization" that this woman, whose husband had deserted and was arrested, came to the jail with three of her children. They were all shot, except the mother. I'm looking up the exact quote.
And? Am I supposed to believe that all baathists across the Arab world are crazy because of that incident?
Wait a minute, you're telling me that Nasrallah wouldn't want to turn Lebanon into Shiite theocracy? Really? Oh, I bet he would, but he can't. Precisely because of the Sunni/Shiite/Maronite gridlock.
No. And you know why? It's because people in Lebanon are totally done with the destructive sectarian warmongering that has cost lots of Lebanese their lives. You keep pressign this issue of religion, but people are completely done with it. In fact, one of these people I was talking actually rebuffed me for assuming he was a Shi‘a because his family was from Saida. He said that questions like those are not only rude, but they are obstructing people from living in a sustainable, peaceful environment. Sectarian thought is way more destructive than you seem to realise.
I know more about it than you think.
Haven't seen that much evidence, to be fair.
And? Am I supposed to believe that all baathists across the Arab world are crazy because of that incident
Replace baathists with Islamists and there you go.
No. And you know why? It's because people in Lebanon are totally done with the destructive sectarian warmongering that has cost lots of Lebanese their lives. You keep pressign this issue of religion, but people are completely done with it. In fact, one of these people I was talking actually rebuffed me for assuming he was a Shi‘a because his family was from Saida. He said that questions like those are not only rude, but they are obstructing people from living in a sustainable, peaceful environment. Sectarian thought is way more destructive than you seem to realise.
The question is whether or not Nasrallah is done with the sectarian warmongering. And the answer is no (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/06/2011618103354910596.html). This guy is as sectarian as they get.
Replace baathists with Islamists and there you go.
Except that islamists routinely try to establish theocracies whenever they get a chance to do so. Be it in the Gaza Strip, Tunisia, Mali or wherever else. The trend repeats itself over and over. It's something to be expected.
The question is whether or not Nasrallah is done with the sectarian warmongering. And the answer is no (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/06/2011618103354910596.html). This guy is as sectarian as they get.
That's just part of the question. But in my opinion, contributing to this sectarian divide (which is what you're doing) is not helping anyone. You're basically telling people they can't get along because of their religion. What, then, on the rhetorical field, seperates you from Hassan Nasrallah? The irony that seems to slip over most people is that they're applying the exact same logic as the people with whom they disagree.
Just as the repeatable trend that it doesn't really matter to what degree political parties try to form any kind of opposition, they'll always get crushed by their governments. It's not coincidental that the only form of meaningful resistance against a corrupt and nepotist government (be it Iran under the Shah, the post-Nasser era in Egypt or the Palestinian territories under Fatah) is through Islam. I'm not going to deny that Islam lends itself quite useful for this, but you have to realise that at the moment your political party's headquarters being shut down, your party leaders are being arrested, jailed, executed or assassinated, the only place they can't shut down is your mosque. The only person they can't assassinate is the imam.
It is not coincidental, it's not because all Muslims feel like they should express their dissatisfaction through religion, but it's because the very same governments that oppressed them for generations have driven them to the only place where you can still oppose the government without immediately being arrested.
That's just part of the question. But in my opinion, contributing to this sectarian divide (which is what you're doing) is not helping anyone. You're basically telling people they can't get along because of their religion.
That is false, I'm not saying anything like that. What I'm saying is that islamists (of any sect) if given a chance would crush all other groups in their respective country and establish their flavor of theocracy instead of freedom.
What, then, on the rhetorical field, seperates you from Hassan Nasrallah? The irony that seems to slip over most people is that they're applying the exact same logic as the people with whom they disagree.
I'm merely calling a spade a spade.
Just as the repeatable trend that it doesn't really matter to what degree political parties try to form any kind of opposition, they'll always get crushed by their governments. It's not coincidental that the only form of meaningful resistance against a corrupt and nepotist government (be it Iran under the Shah, the post-Nasser era in Egypt or the Palestinian territories under Fatah) is through Islam.
That's not true. The commie South Yemen was a testament to that.
I'm not going to deny that Islam lends itself quite useful for this, but you have to realise that at the moment your political party's headquarters being shut down, your party leaders are being arrested, jailed, executed or assassinated, the only place they can't shut down is your mosque. The only person they can't assassinate is the imam.
It doesn't subtract from the problem: once the islamists grab the power, that imam wants to be a caliph, or at the very least a president or an grand ayatollah.
It is not coincidental, it's not because all Muslims feel like they should express their dissatisfaction through religion, but it's because the very same governments that oppressed them for generations have driven them to the only place where you can still oppose the government without immediately being arrested.
Certainly a sad reality.
That is false, I'm not saying anything like that. What I'm saying is that islamists (of any sect) if given a chance would crush all other groups in their respective country and establish their flavor of theocracy instead of freedom.
But you're clinging to the idea that in the minds of the people we're talking about, sectarianism is more important than anything else. It's not true. Lebanon is a prime example of that. So is Egypt right now. Or Tunisia.
I'm merely calling a spade a spade.
That is aboslutely no excuse. You can't hide under the nomer of "don't shoot the messenger". You are responsible for what you're saying.
That's not true. The commie South Yemen was a testament to that.
And look what happened to them. Look what happened to the political parties in Egypt after 1952, or the Tudeh and their coalition partners in Iran after 1953, or the short-lived moments of political freedom in Algeria in the early 90's. These regimes are not at all interested in allowing any kind of opposition.
It doesn't subtract from the problem: once the islamists grab the power, that imam wants to be a caliph, or at the very least a president or an grand ayatollah.
Grand Ayatollah is a stricly modern Shi‘a concept. And seriously, returning to the Caliphate? I don't think there's any party, apart from Hizb al-Tahrir, that is supporting the idea of a new caliphate. Tunisia's Nahda party has gone as far as to say there's no way there's going to be another Caliphate.
I don't dismiss your knowledge, but I absolutely dismiss your assessment of this knowledge. The point is that we're dealing with people here who have very legitimate reasons to express their dissatisfaction, and so be it that it's under the nomer of Islam(ism). Believe it or not, but these are with whom you can talk.
Case in point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjuEdWWupPg
You don't have to know anything about the islam, rule #1: 'more islam equals worse world'. No matter if it's in Africa, Middle-East, Indonesia or Europe. It just happens to be a violent and intolerant desert-ideoligy. Islam is like a cancer, starts small, spreads out, starts affecting vital organs, host dies.
Another well-researched and nuanced opinion from our resident expert on Islam and the Middle-East, Fragony. Thank you.
Owwwwwww ok. You don't have to be an expert just looking at what happens just about everywhere in the world where islam is it's pretty much the same. Islam is ALWAYS the agressor when it comes to religious intolerance. Fact.
rory_20_uk
08-10-2012, 11:14
Owwwwwww ok. You don't have to be an expert just looking at what happens just about everywhere in the world where islam is it's pretty much the same. Islam is ALWAYS the agressor when it comes to religious intolerance. Fact.
Cobblers. Sikhs and Hindus are just as capable of pushing back, and in Africa Christians are equally good at violence. Jews? The chosen ones have their own rule book. Lebanon was a civil war - that takes two to tango.
Europe might have become soft recently but it might be a blip and we'll start slaughtering those who are wrong and deserve to be killed due to their faith. To be fair, the Christian Serbs kept up the tradition of Ethnic / religious extermination so we've still got the skills.
~:smoking:
Ok on Libanon you have a point, but Serbia really isn't all that straightforward. Wasn't very nice but they had it comming imho
Owwwwwww ok. You don't have to be an expert just looking at what happens just about everywhere in the world where islam is it's pretty much the same. Islam is ALWAYS the agressor when it comes to religious intolerance. Fact.
Well, look at it like this: if the truth is already so obvious, you don't even have to mention it. Have you considered the possibility that you're actually wrong?
Wasn't very nice but they had it comming imho
Eh..yeah, whatever. Defending genocide now?
What genocide, it's called a warcrime women and children were spared. And it happened for a reason Serbian villages were consistantly attacked from the safe-zones we pulled up, and a lot of the people doing that weren't even ethinc Yugoslavian they were jihadi's from the Middle-East who wanted to open a front in the west. And Serbians were already a bit pissed because of what muslim-SS devisions led by the Grand Mufti from Jeruzalem did to them in WW2, that was actually genocide.
If you don't believe ask Brennus he was there
Sarmatian
08-10-2012, 12:14
That's my point - the Russians want a warm water port - that's it. Much easier to negotiate with whoever wins with a garrison nearby. They have done what is required to protect their interests and as far as possible not upset others in the local area - Marines could most likely hold out against attacks until reinforced, but are no serious threat to anyone else.
~:smoking:
Yeah, but Syria under Assad was also a big buyer of Russian arms, and could also be used as a bargaining chip (if we don't like something west does, we'll install missiles in Syria, destabilize the region, that sort of stuff).
I'm somewhat surprised they haven't helped Assad so far. It may be that indeed a port is more important to them than anything else and they think it would be much easier to deal with rebels (if the eventually win) if they are neutral during the conflict.
But you're clinging to the idea that in the minds of the people we're talking about, sectarianism is more important than anything else. It's not true. Lebanon is a prime example of that. So is Egypt right now. Or Tunisia.
In the minds of certain people in power sectarianism is indeed more important than anything else. Nasrallah being one of them. As for Egypt, Christians are already feeling the heat from the longbeards. Tunisia -- the anti liquor campaign is just the beginning.
That is aboslutely no excuse. You can't hide under the nomer of "don't shoot the messenger". You are responsible for what you're saying
Of course I'm responsible for what I'm saying, and what I'm saying is the truth. Thus I'll shout it atop my lungs with a clear conscience. I'm not going to try to put lipstick on a pig.
And look what happened to them. Look what happened to the political parties in Egypt after 1952, or the Tudeh and their coalition partners in Iran after 1953, or the short-lived moments of political freedom in Algeria in the early 90's. These regimes are not at all interested in allowing any kind of opposition.
With one caveat: those regimes, as brutal as they were, happened to be secular. A secular tyranny is a whole lot better than a theocratic one.
Grand Ayatollah is a stricly modern Shi‘a concept.
So?
And seriously, returning to the Caliphate? I don't think there's any party, apart from Hizb al-Tahrir, that is supporting the idea of a new caliphate. Tunisia's Nahda party has gone as far as to say there's no way there's going to be another Caliphate.
Not for the lack of trying, that's for sure.
I don't dismiss your knowledge, but I absolutely dismiss your assessment of this knowledge. The point is that we're dealing with people here who have very legitimate reasons to express their dissatisfaction, and so be it that it's under the nomer of Islam(ism). Believe it or not, but these are with whom you can talk.
Dismiss what you like. Whitewashing islamism does not work.
As for your case in point, I'll bring to your attention that the bearded salafists finished second place in the Egyptian parliamentary race being outdone only by the brotherhood.
Kralizec
08-10-2012, 13:25
What genocide, it's called a warcrime women and children were spared. And it happened for a reason Serbian villages were consistantly attacked from the safe-zones we pulled up, and a lot of the people doing that weren't even ethinc Yugoslavian they were jihadi's from the Middle-East who wanted to open a front in the west. And Serbians were already a bit pissed because of what muslim-SS devisions led by the Grand Mufti from Jeruzalem did to them in WW2, that was actually genocide.
Allthough I'm not particulary wel-informed about it (I was a kid back then) I would hesitate to attribute any of the Yugoslav conflicts to religion except insofar as stating that religion was an important part of the respective identities that set the combatants apart. The Bosnians were out for self-determination, same as the Croats really. Suggesting that the Bosnians were motivated by jihad because some fruits from the middle east showed up on their behalf is disingeneous.
Hax: wasn't the last Iranian Shah pretty hard on the clerics, too?
rory_20_uk
08-10-2012, 14:30
Yeah, but Syria under Assad was also a big buyer of Russian arms, and could also be used as a bargaining chip (if we don't like something west does, we'll install missiles in Syria, destabilize the region, that sort of stuff).
I'm somewhat surprised they haven't helped Assad so far. It may be that indeed a port is more important to them than anything else and they think it would be much easier to deal with rebels (if the eventually win) if they are neutral during the conflict.
I don't imagine it's easy for the Russians. They'd rather Assad won - but they need a fall back if he looses. Hence the honouring existing arms sales but no new ones - helping but with a plausible reason should be loose. If the rebels win, it'll be easier to sort out one problem by letting Russia keep using the port than have to try and dig out their Marines.
Open support might have problems with the Muslims in the south of Russia, and perhaps openly annoying the West is thought to be a bad idea too.
I doubt any regieme that starts there is going to be massively pro-Western so the Russians can make friends. I imagine the narrative is they are open to business with Syria the country, not Assad the man.
~:smoking:
Allthough I'm not particulary wel-informed about it (I was a kid back then) I would hesitate to attribute any of the Yugoslav conflicts to religion except insofar as stating that religion was an important part of the respective identities that set the combatants apart. The Bosnians were out for self-determination, same as the Croats really. Suggesting that the Bosnians were motivated by jihad because some fruits from the middle east showed up on their behalf is disingeneous.
The foreign fruits were motivated by jihad, but the Bosnian muslims surprisingly wanted an islamic state which probably doesn't shock our rvg they tend to want that but hey what does he know (our beloved princess Mabel played a nasty role here by arranging the firepower that is all well documented she was a spy)
Noncommunist
08-10-2012, 17:34
With one caveat: those regimes, as brutal as they were, happened to be secular. A secular tyranny is a whole lot better than a theocratic one.
Since when? There've been tons of evil secular regimes that've been worse than anything theocrats have mustered. Pretty much all of the dictatorships in Europe in the 20th century were secular and they have some of the highest death counts ever.
It doesnn't take the nation-state, it takes the streets
Since when? There've been tons of evil secular regimes that've been worse than anything theocrats have mustered. Pretty much all of the dictatorships in Europe in the 20th century were secular and they have some of the highest death counts ever.
Simple: secular regime is worried only about its survival and nothing else. As long as you don't pose a threat to its survival, you're left alone. A theocracy is equally concerned with its survival PLUS it has to enforce a religious dogma i.e. put more restrictions on people. Had those secular european tyrannies been theocratic, the body count would have been even higher.
Vladimir
08-10-2012, 18:35
Yea, I don't know. I'm far more worried about recent converts (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/10/awol-soldier-gets-life-term-for-fort-hood-plot/?test=latestnews) than someone who was born to it. In that case, the culture they grew up in is more important.
Yea, I don't know. I'm far more worried about recent converts (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/10/awol-soldier-gets-life-term-for-fort-hood-plot/?test=latestnews) than someone who was born to it. In that case, the culture they grew up in is more important.
Yeah, converts are the worst.
Sarmatian
08-10-2012, 19:24
Since when? There've been tons of evil secular regimes that've been worse than anything theocrats have mustered. Pretty much all of the dictatorships in Europe in the 20th century were secular and they have some of the highest death counts ever.
You can deal with secular regimes.
They don't seek answers in a sacred script or philosophy. However tyrannical they may be, they tend to be more pragmatic.
You could do business with Saddam, you can't do business with the Ayatollah.
You could do business with Saddam, you can't do business with the Ayatollah.
Iran Contra seems to disagree. But you know, whatever.
Sir Moody
08-10-2012, 21:26
Since when? There've been tons of evil secular regimes that've been worse than anything theocrats have mustered. Pretty much all of the dictatorships in Europe in the 20th century were secular and they have some of the highest death counts ever.
sorry there were?
the Nazis were Catholic, as were Mussolini's boys and the Spanish - which pretty much scuppers your "Europe" argument right there
now the Soviets were "secular" as were the Khmer Rouge but in both those cases id say Communism takes the brunt of the blame not Secularism
Im really not sure where you are going with your statements...
as for "Secular" dictatorships - they tend to not actually be advocating a separation of church and state - more trying to wrest/secure power over/from the local Church (who are usually the biggest competition).
No Dictator has committed genocide in the name of Secularism - more often they use it to support their Political Agenda
That is incorrect. Catholics were appeased by Hitler, but he actually had his own church, Reich Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reich_Church). So not completely fair to blame Catholicism, though the pope did turn a blind eye due to the appeasement.
Eitherway, it is not even "communism", it is the fact all those were cases of Totalitarian Governments.
Russia under Stalin was not Communist and neither were his successors. Lennin was a transitional government with goals towards a communist state, no idea on how it would have progressed under Trotsky. Closet examples of communism in practise are the Kibbutz.
Meanwhile, in Beirut... (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Politics/2012/Aug-10/184160-assir-holds-beirut-rally-in-support-of-syrian-uprising.ashx#axzz23BE6isAn)
Assir holds Beirut rally in support of Syrian uprising
BEIRUT: Controversial Sidon preacher Sheikh Ahmad Assir held a rally in Beirut's al-Tariq al-Jadideh neighborhood in support of the Syrian uprising, pledging undying loyalty to the rebels, according to the National News Agency (NNA).
"May God protect you ... We will remain with you until the end of our lives," he said in a speech delivered at Imam Ali mosque in Beirut's al-Tariq al-Jadideh neighborhood following Friday prayers.
Addressing hundreds of people who responded to his call to assemble at the mosque, Assir also said that “the Syrian-Iranian project has nothing to do with resistance,” depicting it as an “assassination project.”
Assir also touched on the recent detention of Michel Samaha, who was taken into custody Thursday over a plot to carry out bomb attacks in Lebanon. He hailed the Internal Security Forces (ISF) for its action.
“The ISF has offered us a precious gift in the last two days, one that makes us hold our heads high,” Assir said.
He also stressed that the belief that the Syrian regime was conciliatory toward the Christians of Syria and Lebanon had proven to be false. He added that the Syrian regime has harmed Christians in Lebanon and pointed out that several prominent members of the Syrian opposition are Christian.
Assir also claimed that, “The criminal Iranian project has always tricked the region,” and accused Iran of being behind the assassinations in Lebanon, including that of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, and attempted assassinations, such as that which recently targeted MP Butros Harb.
Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Politics/2012/Aug-10/184160-assir-holds-beirut-rally-in-support-of-syrian-uprising.ashx#ixzz23BEpPMwL
(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)
Sir Moody
08-10-2012, 23:11
That is incorrect. Catholics were appeased by Hitler, but he actually had his own church, Reich Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reich_Church). So not completely fair to blame Catholicism, though the pope did turn a blind eye due to the appeasement.
Eitherway, it is not even "communism", it is the fact all those were cases of Totalitarian Governments.
Russia under Stalin was not Communist and neither were his successors. Lennin was a transitional government with goals towards a communist state, no idea on how it would have progressed under Trotsky. Closet examples of communism in practise are the Kibbutz.
yes they weren't exactly Communist to the strictest letter of the idea but they used Communism to suppress and maintain their positions - so while in practice they were just a dictatorship its not really that clear cut.
ill yield I was wrong about Catholicism in the Nazi's case - id forgotten he founded his own church - either way its hardly a secular ideal to create a state church :yes:
HopAlongBunny
08-11-2012, 11:31
If I recall my Marxist/Leninist ideology it would be the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Transitional stage needed to deepen and protect the revolution until complete victory over the capitalist threat; then leading to the "withering away of the state" and communist society. What they got was state capitalism (they pretend to pay us, we pretend to work) and a conventional ruling elite. Probably a foreseeable outcome anywhere an elite has absolute influence/control over political outcomes.
If I recall my Marxist/Leninist ideology it would be the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Transitional stage needed to deepen and protect the revolution until complete victory over the capitalist threat; then leading to the "withering away of the state" and communist society. What they got was state capitalism (they pretend to pay us, we pretend to work) and a conventional ruling elite. Probably a foreseeable outcome anywhere an elite has absolute influence/control over political outcomes.
'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' basically means 'Democracy'. The concept from the time period is that democracy would be the transitional phase where government will end up serving the needs of society due to the simple fact there are significantly far more workers than there are CEO's thus creating a Socialist State.
It does not mean "Dictatorship" in the totalitarian sense of Stalin, Kim and Mao or control via the oligarch or that Proletariat is going to kick me and Pape out of Backroom moderating and impose her iron will upon these threads.
PanzerJaeger
08-12-2012, 00:08
Wow @ 2:00.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goQ5bhtN6v8&feature=youtube_gdata_player
HopAlongBunny
08-12-2012, 06:53
'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' basically means 'Democracy'. The concept from the time period is that democracy would be the transitional phase where government will end up serving the needs of society due to the simple fact there are significantly far more workers than there are CEO's thus creating a Socialist State.
It does not mean "Dictatorship" in the totalitarian sense of Stalin, Kim and Mao or control via the oligarch or that Proletariat is going to kick me and Pape out of Backroom moderating and impose her iron will upon these threads.
But under the Marxist/Leninist fusion the party as "vanguard" is the only party that can represent the true faith; therefore it is the only party and it's leader is as infallible as the Pope.
PanzerJaeger
08-13-2012, 06:36
O M G
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6y3m68kX5o&feature=player_embedded
Nice guys http://www.zukunftskinder.org/?p=24604
It's also raining postmen but I'll spare you that
Sarmatian
08-13-2012, 10:12
O M G
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6y3m68kX5o&feature=player_embedded
For those who don't understand the language, it says - Thank you for visiting Mrs. Jazilla Handgun and Rifle Emporium, the grand opening is next Tuesday. We have everything you need to kill your favourite government official or a rebel leader. Cause our motto at HRE is - it's not guns that kill people, it's the civil war.
Gunships and tanks available on a two week notice. Crew is extra.
Vladimir
08-13-2012, 13:29
Wow @ 2:00.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goQ5bhtN6v8&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Look/sound familiar?
Vladimir
08-21-2012, 13:08
Assad is going down, just like all the women in the Middle East. Then, the world:
http://storify.com/dailydot/ridiculously-photogenic-syrian-rebel-meme-reddit
https://img27.imageshack.us/img27/8985/politicalpicturesridicu.jpg (https://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/27/politicalpicturesridicu.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (https://imageshack.us)
Hooahguy
09-08-2012, 04:05
An incredible set of pictures from Syria.
Warning: quite graphic.
http://www.globalpost.com/photo-galleries/planet-pic/5718451/life-and-death-aleppo-photos
Looks kinda fake
Yea I agree those pictures are suspicious...would a photographer really just sit there and snap photos while people are getting blown up by a tank? And the whole thing seemed a little too nonchalant considering 3 people died.
Hooahguy
09-09-2012, 00:49
I remember reading somewhere that the photographer was using one of those rapid frame cameras that takes a bunch rapidly when the button is pressed.
Kadagar_AV
09-09-2012, 01:02
I remember reading somewhere that the photographer was using one of those rapid frame cameras that takes a bunch rapidly when the button is pressed.
Knowing some photographers, I wouldn't be surprised if the pics were legitimate...
The picture does look surreal, the explosion effect seemed a little out of place, but I am not expert in witnessing such footage.
Kadagar_AV
09-09-2012, 02:57
If you look at the guy closest, you can see his body movement. He is easiest to spot the movement of as he is mid step in the first pic, with changed body balance and feet setting in the following 2 pics.
The explosion look like I would expect.
Might of course be fake, but would have fooled me...
Kadagar_AV
09-09-2012, 03:02
an interview with the photographer
http://www.channel4.com/news/images-of-war-the-lasting-legacy
If you look at the guy closest, you can see his body movement. He is easiest to spot the movement of as he is mid step in the first pic, with changed body balance and feet setting in the following 2 pics.
The explosion look like I would expect.
Might of course be fake, but would have fooled me...
Look at the guy closest to the explosion, all others are sillouettes yet the light-source is strongest with him, there are also no shadows
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.