World Politics - Syria [Archive]

Brenus

03-23-2013, 09:54

The frenzied interventionism that characterized the Western foreign policy of the last decade is an almost natural extension of the "right of interference" concept developed by Kouchner in the 80s-90s. I must say that I was seduced by the idea. I participated in a symposium at the University of Law of Aix en Provence to discuss it.
This is only later, confronted with the problem(s) in Yugoslavia that I began to doubt. I saw live how the 'good' were chosen, and the 'baddies' referred to the mob. The reality is that the “right” of intervention is neither more nor less than the direct heir of the gunboat policy.
To mention only the French examples, we invaded and colonized Congo to free the slaves (noble cause if it was), the Viet Nam to protect the Catholic minorities oppressed by the Emperor of Annam, and finally a large part of Africa to free the peoples of their tyrants and replace it with an administration that will sell the workforce to mining and forestry companies (In short). I will add the expedition to Mexico by Napoleon III for non-repayment of debt (Cyprus should beware) and regime change. The only result will be the battle of Camerón, who will become one of the Founder Myth of the Foreign Legion. So, we can say that, as early as the 19th century, we had the instruments, models, to justify our intervention:
- Human Rights,
- Minorities Right,
- Democratization and Regime Change,
- Higher interests of the nation.

The example of Syria and Assad follows the pattern already in use. No one questions why some people choose to support a dictator or a tyrant. Because the answer would be that others (the goods) want to kill them, as they did in the past. The Alawis (not considered as Muslims) are allied with those who protected them from their killers, as the Assyro-Chaldeans teamed up to Saddam. Less dramatic but just as real, the Jewish and Protestant France communities are fundamentally Republican because they were more than abused by the monarchy.
How we refer to the good, ignoring the recent past, leads to a race to the media popularity by lynching, and win the one with the best communication. The counterpart of this process is the 'demonization' of the 'baddies '. This will be well reinforced by Judeo-Christian morality, in which the victim is always perceived as innocent, and therefore the villain an abject executioner without real legitimate claims... And to be sure of our good right, in an exercise in self-justification, we create a court such as The Hague, version modernized of the 'white man's burden ".

Ibn-Khaldun

03-23-2013, 10:18

True freedom is payed for in blood, and signed for with wisdom in victory.

I've heard and read comments (this is not my opinion) about this civil war in Syria that say something like this: "Thousands die = no freedom .. we sing few songs = freedom"

But I agree with you. If anyone interferes things might(and probably will) turn worse.

gaelic cowboy

03-23-2013, 23:46

True freedom is payed for in blood, and signed for with wisdom in victory.

the other way of thinking is

"the altar of liberty totters when it is cemented only with blood," Daniel O'Connell (6 August 1775 – 15 May 1847)

Hax

03-25-2013, 10:18

in which the victim is always perceived as innocent,

Except where it concerns rape.

Seamus Fermanagh

03-25-2013, 13:26

the other way of thinking is

"the altar of liberty totters when it is cemented only with blood," Daniel O'Connell (6 August 1775 – 15 May 1847)

Great man though he was, Dan didn't succeed. DeV and Collins did.

The tree must be refreshed with blood at times, but -- in this we agree -- it cannot be the only nutriment.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-25-2013, 23:07

Wretched though they were.

It took a long time for Ireland to recover, and it's debatable that independence was best for Her in the long run.

The Big problem with Syria, though, is that most of the decent people are dead or embittered now. By supporting the Rebels in Libya we gave moderates some credibility (because they mobalised international firepower) and we prevented the entire populace from being drawn into the fighting, and thence brutalised. We should have done the same in Syria, but we didn't and now it's just not worth it.

a completely inoffensive name

03-31-2013, 04:47

Who here actually thinks that this situation will be anything other than a violent civil war that will result in the victory of the incumbent dictator or the victory of a new dictator?

Brenus

03-31-2013, 10:50

“If anyone is going to intervene in Syria, I say we make France do it.” No no no no… If you want to do it, ask your usual best friend and the special relationship… In both case I am done as it would be either my family or pay with my taxes…

HoreTore

03-31-2013, 20:45

Awww, c'mon. You already did it to one of your ex colonies. What's another? :creep:

Yeah, all the cool nations are doing it. Don't you want to be cool too?

Brenus

03-31-2013, 22:20

“You already did it to one of your ex colonies”: Rhaa, again a common misconception and deception propagated by the Anglo-Saxon Media …
France bombed Serbia (Kosovo), Bosnia (Serbs), followed in Afghanistan, Libya, and had numerous interventions in Arica, most of them without any backing or UN resolutions… And what did we get for it: Surrendering Cheese Eaters Monkeys… And all the very funny jokes, and freedom frites, wine poured in the gutters etc… So as the US and the special relationship country showed no gratitude to whatever France does to follow orders, ya basta, and that is it.

I say bring the boys home, and let the goods to do what mistakes they want without the Foreign Legion that could be better employed in restoring electricity (in France, when EDF was still the property of the ones who paid for it, the French Taxes Payers) and building roads and schools in Africa. If someone decides to help the Islamists to kill the non-Muslim in Syria (as they were doing before the Assad Dynasty), well, I say without France. In a Civil War, the winners are always the best equipped, and not always the good. Not that I support the Assad Dynasty…

Unfortunately, François III the Mou will probably follow as he has no idea what to do to resolved the climbing social crisis in France and will try to divert attention. The French are not know to go down quietly, and a record number of unemployed and poor in a Country that was never so rich (European Champion for Millionaires in USD) is a kind of situation, err, sensitive, in my country of birth.

Pannonian

04-01-2013, 03:20

I say bring the boys home, and let the goods to do what mistakes they want without the Foreign Legion that could be better employed in restoring electricity

Isn't the Foreign Legion's traditional role to get killed in foreign adventures without risking the lives of French voters? Get them involved in bloody enough foreign wars, and you'll be evening up the German-French population ratio.

Brenus

04-01-2013, 09:19

“Isn't the Foreign Legion's traditional role to get killed in foreign adventures without risking the lives of French voters? Get them involved in bloody enough foreign wars, and you'll be evening up the German-French population ratio.”
It was. In fact, the Foreign Legion was created by the King to get read of immigrants… And it was not really popular as was completely useless (yes, even at these times)…

:yes:You are still living on old clichés pre and after WW2, about Germans (Pre: Anti-Nazi, after: former Nazi). And from when the French Government was shying away to spent the French Voters Blood (see WW1 and WW2 casualties list)? That is part of what left from the “bashing the French” campaign. The French do wars with foreigners… Yeah, right…

The French Foreign Legion (as there is a Spanish one, due to the gift from the French King to the Spanish King of half of the Legion), not being part of the “regular” French Army can be deployed without declaration of war and vote from the French Parliament… Reason why it still exist, probably… And now, the Legion is part of the French Culture, I suppose.
The Legion is the negative picture of the European Political Landscape: Italians, Germans around the WW2, Yugoslav in the 70, Brits, Americans and Irish in the 80, Yugoslav again in the 90…
I think it is the most filmed and romanticised unit in the World.

Montmorency

04-01-2013, 16:04

I think it is the most filmed and romanticised unit in the World.

US Marines beat them on that score.

You have to admit that the sheer senselessness of the Legion's ethics and deeds is awesome, in the old sense of the word.

As for the contemporary legion, my impression was that it's mostly composed of Latin-Americans and Eastern Europeans...

Brenus

04-01-2013, 18:34

“US Marines beat them on that score.” How and when?
When someone had his heart broken, does he join the US Marine? Nope. When you want to forget do you join the US Marines or the Legion? When Death wants to forget, did he join the Ktlachian Foreign Legion or the Klatchian Marine Corps? Did Indiana Jones join the US Marines (in the series)? Perhaps there are films and movies about the US Marines, but the Corps is not as romanticised as the Legion. You won’t find the equivalent of “Mon Légionnaire” song for the US Marines…
You might have more movies about US Marines but the Corps will still have to beat the Legion’s aura. Even foreign countries made movies about the Legion, only US does it for the US Marines…

Greyblades

04-01-2013, 20:45

The romanticisation of the US marines is only a phenomenon amoung their own countrymen, the legion is romantisized in all of europe and beyond.

HoreTore

04-01-2013, 21:38

What's hilarous is the number of Norwegians who join the Navy, thinking it's super-awesome because our names for "navy" and "marine" are the same("marinen").

Then they proceed to spend their conscript year on guard duty in front of a beached ship, occasionally getting to clean it....

Pannonian

04-02-2013, 04:10

“Isn't the Foreign Legion's traditional role to get killed in foreign adventures without risking the lives of French voters? Get them involved in bloody enough foreign wars, and you'll be evening up the German-French population ratio.”
It was. In fact, the Foreign Legion was created by the King to get read of immigrants… And it was not really popular as was completely useless (yes, even at these times)…

:yes:You are still living on old clichés pre and after WW2, about Germans (Pre: Anti-Nazi, after: former Nazi). And from when the French Government was shying away to spent the French Voters Blood (see WW1 and WW2 casualties list)? That is part of what left from the “bashing the French” campaign. The French do wars with foreigners… Yeah, right…

I was actually jokingly referring to the Legion's earliest days, when it was sent into Spain because the defence minister at the time (Soult?) saw it as a way to meet foreign policy commitments without upsetting the French voters. While later incarnations of the Legion weren't viewed quite so cynically as expendable cannon fodder, AFAIK they were still the front line in France's foreign adventures, probably for the same reason (the Legion can get sent anywhere without needing to consult too many bodies).

Brenus

04-03-2013, 07:54

a completely inoffensive name

04-03-2013, 08:07

The Marines are romanticized for no good reason at all. Much to the chagrin of everyone in the far larger and more active Army. Can't stand em.

I have a close friend who has been preparing to join the marines for like...5 years now? He spent two years at community college because he said it would give him better opportunities in the military to have some education than just high school. While working his part time job, he has been physically training himself so he can excel in the actual military. When he took that test all recruits take to determine what they are suited for (Just googled it, the ASVAB test), he did well enough that he had options. He plans on making the military his career and staying for 25+ years.

So what does he do after all that planning and hard work? He ends up getting the urge to join the marines as a grunt. His military adviser (a recruiter he became good friends with I think) told him to rethink that decision. But nope. It HAS to be the marines. And he HAS to start out as a grunt.

Pannonian

04-03-2013, 10:05

“I was actually jokingly referring to the Legion's earliest days, when it was sent into Spain because the defence minister at the time (Soult?) saw it as a way to meet foreign policy commitments without upsetting the French voters.” Err, Soult (Napoleon -1815), Foreign Legion (King Louis Philip - 1831) so not possible. And when did Napoleon was afraid to spill the blood of the French (who were not voting at the time)?
You might mix-up with his nephew Napoleon III.

However, the “German” Legion was only after WW2. So I am not sure I buy your explanation. I am sure it was a joke, but, probably not knowingly, you used the “bash the French” rhetoric.

If it's bash the French, it was unknowing. The German bit was merely referring to the Legion's own preference, for a while, for Germans over other nationalities.

Just looking at the timelines, I could have remembered rightly after all. The Legion was sent to Spain in 1835 to join their war there, while Soult was Minister of War from 1830 to 1834.

Seamus Fermanagh

05-06-2013, 02:28

Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/05/syria-accuses-israel-declaring-war-strikes)

So, take your pick...

1) Israel's strikes are just what they are claimed to be, surgical efforts to remove weapons that threaten Israel's security.

2) Israel's limited efforts to ensure that Assad's government loses in the long run.

3) Israel's efforts as a proxy for US efforts to remove Assad from power without seeming to take sides in anothe arab conflict.

4) Provide you own alternative.

My current thoughts are a combo of 1 and 2 with the added benefit that Israel knows the US will be labeled as supporting the effort, at least on the arab street, edgin up the pressure for Obama to engage.

Papewaio

05-06-2013, 03:58

Seems pretty short term. Given their anti-missile batteries are pretty good.

Remove a possible small threat to unite multiple large ones.

Fragony

05-06-2013, 08:21

I have absolutely no idea, I follow the news but I have no idea what's real and what's not, or who is who. Supposedly it was a weapon transport from Iran that was bombed, but who knows

Brenus

05-06-2013, 09:37

Israel thinks the Islamists will succeed, so Israel remove weapons they will use or give or sell.

Lemur

05-06-2013, 14:51

Of the options given, I would seriously doubt #3. Israel isn't that kind of ally, for a variety of reasons.

PanzerJaeger

05-06-2013, 16:01

HopAlongBunny

05-06-2013, 16:14

Somewhat of all 3. It allows them to neutralize a threat at little cost, shades the relationship somewhat with Assad. Without declaring support for overthrow it gives Israel some credit with the rebel forces; might be important should the rebels win.

Israel serves notice that it can and will act if it's interests are at stake; if that also lends support to US aims to see Assad step down, so much the better.

Rhyfelwyr

05-06-2013, 16:18

It's such a bizarre web of alliances, who knows?

It's hardly in Israel's interests to support either side. While the FSA has secular elements within it, a victory for them would at best mean Islamists getting a lot of power and possibly a majority with a democratic set up. At worse, it could result in the Nusra Front and the more Islamist FSA elements creating a Salafist theocracy.

On the other hand, Assad who supports Hezbollah and pan-Arab nationalist movements.

So I'm not sure how to interpret Israel's actions. Maybe they are just going to use the instability to take potshots at their enemies while they can get away with it.

Lemur

05-06-2013, 16:18

By now I would think it's crystal clear that once a rebellion/revolution is in progress, you really, really don't get to decide how it plays out. Not if you're the US, the EU, Israel—frankly, not if you're anyone but one of the thousands of armed men and women on the ground.

We might be able to have a bit of say about whether Assad falls or not, but even there I suspect actors on the ground will have far more influence than anything the West can bring to bear.

http://youtu.be/0cbw_ukb-B4

Fragony

05-06-2013, 16:26

Despite what they say, Western governments, including Israel, want Assad to remain in power. If there was an ulterior motivation beyond the destruction of a weapons shipment, I wouldn't be surprised if it was to lend support to the government's narrative of an Israeli backed insurgency.

They also give stuff to the insurgents. A thought that just came to mind 5 seconds ago, what if the country was supposed to be split up

Kralizec

05-06-2013, 16:48

Hussein? :mellow:

#1 seems likely enough. Israel thought that the materials were going to be shipped towards Lebanon and took them out.

Or with a twist, kind of a cross between 1 & 2:
It's not that Israel suspects Assad of trying to transport high-grade weapons to Hezbollah, but that they've come to realize that Assad's position grows worse, and that he can no longer garantue his own ownership of these weapons. Israel thus decides to take out as many of these arms as possible before the civil war is concluded. If the rebels come out on top, maybe they can polish up their story with some post fact rationalisation that doing so saved Syrian lives.

Option 3 seems extremely unlikely. Israel would be trading a predictable and mostly sensible enemy (Assad) for an unknown future Syrian government that might turn out to be more agressive towards them. They might do this if they had their own reasons, but I doubt that they'd do it for the benefit of anyone else.

Lemur

05-06-2013, 21:15

Anyway, I'm with this guy: A Syrian War Would Be an Inexplicable Blunder (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/a-syrian-war-would-be-an-inexplicable-blunder/).

Israel will do as it pleases, with no regard for the impact on the USA's interests. And then Israel will expect us to pay for everything. That is our relationship; less of an alliance of equals, more of a surly teen v. parent kinda thing.

And anyone who claims to know how a revolution will turn out is an astonishing idiot.

Rhyfelwyr

05-06-2013, 21:54

Turns out it was the Rebels using sarin gas (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188)

Tellos Athenaios

05-06-2013, 23:27

Off topic.

Papewaio

05-06-2013, 23:44

I know how the revolution will turn out.

Lots of blood and guts spilled by Syrians in general with lots of stern letters from the UN and paternalistic cannily specific intelligence on movements of WMD.

Slyspy

05-06-2013, 23:45

Turns out it was the Rebels using sarin gas (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188)

Only maybe it wasn't. Nobody knows, including the UN's investigator.

Strike For The South

05-07-2013, 00:19

What fun are toys if you can't use them?

PanzerJaeger

05-07-2013, 01:13

We've left the rebels out to dry for so long...

"We" haven't done anything to the Syrian rebels. You have to escape the mindset that we have an obligation to intervene on behalf of these people, despite the constant barrage of one-sided, sympathetic media coverage coming out of the country. The rebels have a long list of wealthy benefactors of their own, nations and leaders with far more moral authority and insight to act in the region than distant Western powers. If Saudi Arabia is not willing to bankroll this insurgency, why should we? And more importantly, what does that tell us about the true level of support the rebellion has among sympathetic states?

Right now, Assad is winning by not losing, which is the best possible outcome to this situation.

Strike For The South

05-07-2013, 02:54

*If your point is that the Rebels can't be trusted, I agree. I also think that had the UN intervened earlier and more decisively, the Rebels might be trustworthy. If your point is that this extended period of warfare is a good thing because it ties up two of our enemies, then I say shame on you. That kind of warfare hurts civvies more than anybody

If you were a dog, I would rap you nose.

The rebels are fascists. To be more clear, the only rebels with any organization are fascists and if they topple Assad the only thing we will get is more of that sweet, sweet Islamic fascism. If we had sent in "the UN" earlier you know what we would have? Better armed and better organized fascists. The Israelis know this and are simply destroying the means for whichever side eventually comes out on top.

There is an insane notion that these Arab spring rebels are running around singing the star spangled banner and shouting Liberté, égalité, fraternité. They are not. They are shouting for stoning and foot-length dresses. They have no notion of our western style of liberalism. It smacks of Western arrogance, the assumption that these rebels fight to be like us. I know the media tries to shove those lines down our throat but in the end it's just feel good bullshit because when you rise against a strongman you have to be fighting for democracy.

Strike For The South

05-07-2013, 03:19

The rebels have gone through lots of phases since the conflict began, and for a lot of it they were nothing but a popular uprising against dictatorship with many different groups encompassing that particular cause. By not offering legitimacy to the anti-dictatorship cause (because China and Russia kept saying "Eh, veto") we now have a situation where the uprising has all kinds of sectarian overtones, and a large jihadist footprint.

Which in short order was commandeered by the fascists, just like all these other uprisings

.
..Rap my nose? :inquisitive:

rap/rap/

Verb

Strike (a hard surface) with a series of rapid audible blows, esp. in order to attract attention: "he stood up and rapped the table".

Noun

A quick, sharp knock or blow.
The smallest amount (used to add emphasis to a statement): "he doesn't care a rap".

Synonyms

verb.
knock - tap - hit

noun.
knock - tap

HopAlongBunny

05-07-2013, 04:59

Was it ever a "democratic" revolution?

My understanding is that the Sunni majority wishes to usurp the Alawite minority in power. Essentially swap one ruling elite for another.

The diverse minority populations that make up almost half of the country appear to have little to gain from the swap; it is also unclear how the new regime would walk the tight-rope between an "Islamic" state and a newly fledged democracy.

Empire*Of*Media

05-07-2013, 08:52

Fragony

05-07-2013, 08:58

if Israel & USA would Invade Iran and Kick The Islamic Regime out !! now Assad would have gone 1 Year ago like anywhere else !!
the Source of These Bloodsheding its The Islamic Regime of IRAN !! Iranians Too Wanted Aid by West in 2009 Revolt !! but what the west did was seeing its profits & Benefits !! USA & European Union want their benefits in anything !! and they claim "DEMOCRACY" !! this word its a huge DECEPTION !!

Missed opertunity to not aid the Iranian people for sure. Things would have looked a lot better if we would have. Not sure who exactly Iran is supporting Assad or the rebels, but they sure have a big hand under the skirt

Husar

05-07-2013, 10:56

Since when does democracy say anything about which foreign policy a nation has to follow? :inquisitive:

Europe doesn't even have enough weapons to help anyone, remember when we ran out of bombs in Libya?

The only ones with enough explosives to do something are the USA and Israel, but Russia seems determined to stay with Assad.
If you have a problem with the UN doing nothing, ask yourself why Russia vetoed every idea of doing anything and why any nations have to have veto rights in the first place. The UN should be more like the senate of the old republic but since people don't even like the EU, I suppose they would hate that even more. So instead we give some nations veto powers, make sure the UN never gets anything done and then complain that it never really does anything...

Greyblades

05-07-2013, 11:07

Oh god no, why would we want the old Republic's senate? They let a gungan give palpatine war powers for goodess sake!

Lemur

05-07-2013, 14:15

Video of one of the strikes in Syria.

http://youtu.be/f_j8ID-m1pU

Sir Moody

05-07-2013, 14:53

Missed opertunity to not aid the Iranian people for sure. Things would have looked a lot better if we would have. Not sure who exactly Iran is supporting Assad or the rebels, but they sure have a big hand under the skirt

Iran supports Assad

the Saudis support the Rebels

why? Iran is Shia as is Assad, Saudi is Sunni as are most the rebels... a good old religious proxy war

Rhyfelwyr

05-07-2013, 16:40

Off topic.

Surely if the Rebels are using chemical weapons then that will have an impact on how Israel can (or cannot) justify its actions?!

Kralizec

05-07-2013, 16:57

It goes deeper than that, allthough much of it does seem to boil down to religious differences.

IIRC Rafik Hariri (a Lebanese politician who was murdered) was a close friend of the Saudi royal family. Syrian involvement was always suspected, but I believe it was never proven.

Syria was one of the few (the only one?) which didn't lend Iraq any help when it invaded Iran. Syria and Iran became progressively friendlier afterwards. Besides that the Syrian regime and Iran have no religious hostility between them, another obvious reason was that Iraq and Syria did not get along for the rather mundane reason that they both tried to achieve a leading role in the Arab world.

Syria actively meddles in Lebanese affairs, but outside that I don't think they've tried to stir up the Shia in other Arab countries. Most gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, have Shia minorities under the boot. Iran does seem to take an active interest in these Shia, for which it is regarded with suspicion (and fear) by most of the Arab countries. Except Syria.

Seamus Fermanagh

05-07-2013, 18:17

Missed opertunity to not aid the Iranian people for sure.

The only support that would have made a difference in the 2009 revolt in Iran was armed intervention. Other sorts of support, moral and otherwise, were extended but the rebellion was squelched pretty quickly.

Sometimes, foreign policy decisions come down to very simple metrics.

How many dead Nederladers were you willing to pay to assist the cause of Iranian freedom?

Brenus

05-07-2013, 19:42

“Since when does democracy say anything about which foreign policy a nation has to follow? “ Since when it didn’t? If a country policy is against your own interests, you bomb and invade. Ooops, sorry, you intervene and liberate…

“Europe doesn't even have enough weapons to help anyone, remember when we ran out of bombs in Libya?” Good opportunity to re-launch the production and to save jobs (and to make money: by the way, the French auto-proclaimed Socialist Party will soon enough privatise armament industry).

“If you have a problem with the UN doing nothing, ask yourself why Russia vetoed every idea of doing anything and why any nations have to have veto rights in the first place. The UN should be more like the senate of the old republic but since people don't even like the EU, I suppose they would hate that even more. So instead we give some nations veto powers, make sure the UN never gets anything done and then complain that it never really does anything...” They learned their lessons. Agree with deny fly zone then you’ve got a US base near your borders 2 years after…
And try to have a UN resolution on Israel, and see who is vetoing…

Hax

05-07-2013, 23:03

I would be rather careful when it comes to stressing the religious ties between Iran and Syria. I've argued in the past that any Iranian support of Hamas was relatively unlikely due to their different religious backgrounds, however I feel that I would not do so again: I feel that in many cases, religion will adapt itself to the geopolitical reality of a certain region, and although it may exert some influence over the formulation and phrasing of certain political ideas, within states (and certainly in the post-colonial Middle-East) it doesn't play that big a role. I feel that many times, the Shi‘a-Sunni is utilised in order to create a dichotomy that is easy to understand and apply, but it doesn't really reflect the geopolitical reality.

if Israel & USA would Invade Iran and Kick The Islamic Regime out !! now Assad would have gone 1 Year ago like anywhere else !!

Who are you?

Rhyfelwyr

05-07-2013, 23:30

I would be rather careful when it comes to stressing the religious ties between Iran and Syria.

I recall reading that Syrian Alawites have, despite their Shia roots, over time become much more Sunni in their outlook. IIRC the article actually said they were all but indistinguishable from regular Syrian Sunnis (Salafists etc excluded).

Wish I had the article to hand, but I don't. :shrug:

HopAlongBunny

05-08-2013, 04:29

Relax. Perhaps all is proceeding as planned :evilgrin:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/05/2013567200437919.html

Empire*Of*Media

05-08-2013, 08:40

Missed opertunity to not aid the Iranian people for sure. Things would have looked a lot better if we would have. Not sure who exactly Iran is supporting Assad or the rebels, but they sure have a big hand under the skirt

Its For Sure ISlamic Republic (DONT SAY IRAN !!) Supports Assad !! Assad is Shia And Their puppet ! ISlamic Republic Of Iran Has Significant Benefits & Profits in Syria !!
Why Russia & China Vetoed the UN ?! Why They Specially Russia Support Assad ?!! Because Islamic Republic Bribes Them !! Assad Has Nothing for Russia !! only It Is Iran That will do anything at all cost to dont let Assad Fall !! I Dont know why you dont know these !!!!!

And Hey! If you say Europe & USA dont want to cost anything for Iran!! let me tell you that they brought this cruel Islamist bloodthirsty totalitarian dictatorial regime !! it was i think 1953 that USA & Britain Removed The Beloved pacificist & Democracy bringer: Mosaddeq with a military Coup designed by CIA & MI6 because their profits & Benefits were in danger by him in Times of Pahlavi Dynasty !! he wanted a free & Advanced Iranian but they wanted Iran as a Profit Machine tool & Be Slaved for them !! and when they saw Mohamad Reza SHAH dont want to tribute USA & Britain anymore, they arranged & designed a Islamic Revolution & Brought Khomeini to power in 1979!!(as we see they made a huge mistake that Khomeini rfuse to serve US & Britain anymore and destroyed all of its enemies & Killed lots of Innocent people and stablized a killer regime!)
have you forgotten US & Europe Colonization in world !??
have you forgotten Vietnam ?
Do you Know They (Imperialism of US & Britain & Europe) splited Deutschland teroritories and Specially Kurdistans Independence Gaved to 4 Racist & Cruel Criminal of Turks & Arabs & Persians in Treaty of Severe in 1920??
and .................. will be too much to tel !! just wanna say that Imperialists governments of Europe & USA want Benefit & Controling Minds of People !! DEMOCRACY is a huge Deception and JOKE !! now the Direct Colonization has ended and the mind colonization has been started !! the example is the Hollywood !!!
i have much more to tell with proof but this place is too small to tell all the truth !!

Relax. Perhaps all is proceeding as planned :evilgrin:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/05/2013567200437919.html

Exactly !! The New Middle East Designing By The Zionists Israel !! The Grand Master of USA !!

Fragony

05-08-2013, 09:07

The only support that would have made a difference in the 2009 revolt in Iran was armed intervention. Other sorts of support, moral and otherwise, were extended but the rebellion was squelched pretty quickly.

Sometimes, foreign policy decisions come down to very simple metrics.

How many dead Nederladers were you willing to pay to assist the cause of Iranian freedom?

Yeah that's a tricky question. But the Dutch army also lost troops in Iraq and Afghanistan while they could have been fighting Iran, which would have made more sense on the long term. Iranians are no donkey-herders they are our natural allies

Hax

05-08-2013, 09:08

I recall reading that Syrian Alawites have, despite their Shia roots, over time become much more Sunni in their outlook. IIRC the article actually said they were all but indistinguishable from regular Syrian Sunnis (Salafists etc excluded).

Wish I had the article to hand, but I don't. :shrug:

Well, when it comes to actual practice, the differences between Shi'ites and Sunnites are pretty much neglectable. In its modern context, it's become much more a political allegiance than anything else.

Fragony

05-08-2013, 09:24

Well, when it comes to actual practice, the differences between Shi'ites and Sunnites are pretty much neglectable. In its modern context, it's become much more a political allegiance than anything else.

Oh common, completily ignore the demographics and 1600 years of war between them why not. There is a very big difference as there is a major dispute over religious leaderhip after Ali as he was the last descendent of Mohammed.

Hax

05-08-2013, 09:44

Which had virtually zero impact when it concerns the day-to-day life of Sunnis and Shi'a's. Of the few Shi'i states that have been existence only one (the Safavids) imposed their religion on the population and sought to proselytise them.

If you'd actually analyse the demographics, you'll notice that there hasn't been that much of a shift in the Sunni-to-Shi‘i ratio, but do you actually believe that mixed areas such as the Levant and Iraq were in constant conflict with one another? The historical reality is that even when Shi‘a states were nominally in control of an area (such as the Buyids, the Fatimids, and the Isma'ilis in Alamut) they were not really interested in spreading their particular interpretation of Islam.

There is a very big difference as there is a major dispute over religious leaderhip after Ali as he was the last descendent of Mohammed.

No. Just no.

The political dispute concerned the succession of Muhammad, not ‘Ali. With Muhammad's death, several candidates were put forward: the greater part of the Muslims chose Abu Bakr, but a minority suggested that ‘Ali (who wasn't Muhammad's descendant, but his nephew and the husband of Muhammad's daughter) would be better. This did not immediately result in a schism, which of course came (as you rightly point out) the moment Ali was assassinated, which (according to Shi‘i views) led to the usurption of power by Mu‘awiya. At this moment, the split was still purely political, it is only from the 9th century onwards that we find spiritual motivation to declare that leadership is passed on by blood (possibly through influence of Zoroastrian ideas of Kingship).

Fragony

05-08-2013, 09:51

Which had virtually zero impact when it concerns the day-to-day life of Sunnis and Shi'a's. Of the few Shi'i states that have been existence only one (the Safavids) imposed their religion on the population and sought to proselytise them.

If you'd actually analyse the demographics, you'll notice that there hasn't been that much of a shift in the Sunni-to-Shi‘i ratio, but do you actually believe that mixed areas such as the Levant and Iraq were in constant conflict with one another? The historical reality is that even when Shi‘a states were nominally in control of an area (such as the Buyids, the Fatimids, and the Isma'ilis in Alamut) they were not really interested in spreading their particular interpretation of Islam.

No. Just no.

The political dispute concerned the succession of Muhammad, not ‘Ali. With Muhammad's death, several candidates were put forward: the greater part of the Muslims chose Abu Bakr, but a minority suggested that ‘Ali (who wasn't Muhammad's descendant, but his nephew and the husband of Muhammad's daughter) would be better. This did not immediately result in a schism, which of course came (as you rightly point out) the moment Ali was assassinated, which (according to Shi‘i views) led to the usurption of power by Mu‘awiya. At this moment, the split was still purely political, it is only from the 9th century onwards that we find spiritual motivation to declare that leadership is passed on by blood (possibly through influence of Zoroastrian ideas of Kingship).

Really studying arab, the 5 good khalifs. Ali was the last of them. That's the schism

Edit, I see now that I misread your post. But it's still ball between these factions as can be seen in Iraq, wouldn't call it political though but it can be argued after Damascus became the capital

Before anyone says it, I know Damascus lays in Syria

Hax

05-08-2013, 10:41

Really studying arab, the 5 good khalifs. Ali was the last of them. That's the schism

Four rightly-guided Caliphs: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and ‘Ali.

And it's called Arabic.

Husar

05-08-2013, 12:22

have you forgotten US & Europe Colonization in world !??

No!! Have you forgotten the use of a full stop/period!??

It's nice of you to join our discussion but I think you're being a bit extreme.
You tell us that we know not enough about the region you come from and then claim to know exactly what our governments are up to and how bad they really are. I could just as easily claim that you don't know enough about democracy to know whether it is a deception or not.

Fragony

05-08-2013, 12:54

Four rightly-guided Caliphs: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and ‘Ali.

And it's called Arabic.

Ok 4, yes I screwed up apoligies, the 5 good emperors was Rome I got confused

Empire*Of*Media

05-08-2013, 14:56

No!! Have you forgotten the use of a full stop/period!??

It's nice of you to join our discussion but I think you're being a bit extreme.
You tell us that we know not enough about the region you come from and then claim to know exactly what our governments are up to and how bad they really are. I could just as easily claim that you don't know enough about democracy to know whether it is a deception or not.

oh Really ?!! so you know more Huh ?!! i told only a bit JUST A "BIT" of their colonization(Vietnam-Coups in Iran & Fall of democracy-engineering an Islamic Revolution-Backtracking the Treaty & Promises & Betraying The KURDs & Torning them to 4 Great Criminal Dictators) That this was only for the US and still i didnt told about the old fox Britain!! if i would be Face To Face i could tell you all in here its not capable to tell all, but the most funny & Intresting is, you cant believe those !! because i brought you Proof but your Eyes And Ears are Closed and your mind controlled !! i didnt refer to you but those governments not your governments !! they are the 1% percent controlling the world and engineering its future and you just exist!! we are nothing against them!! you in so called "1st World" just have almost NO WORRY about your life!! the material matters are fixed and developed year by year for you!! you dont know what is going on in other part of the world !! and its not important for you!! because you live in a comfort worry-free Life and if comes to you you will run of it!! why should the colonizations of Imperialists be important for you ?! FreeMasons & Zionists have the world for 200 years in secrecy!! they created the World War I & II!! you think that 2012 the Armagedon or The End, was a joke !!? no no!! that was the beginning of a great "NEW WORLD ORDER" !!
jonathan Cook wrote in 2008 that The Grand Master Of USA & Britain, Israel would create an Arab Spring that and Syrian Civil War to weaken the whole middle east !! then the Inflation and Social Disobedience will be Started In Iran!! Then Maybe we Call it the Third WORLD WAR started that not only middle east but korea ,Russia ,Armenia,Japan,China and.....will be involved!! afterward, the maps of world specially the middle east will be very much Changed !!
and manyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy writers and western Theorists that telling about the The ELITE and The NEW WORLD ORDER and Creating So called Better world !!
there can be seen the truth!! but despite controlling you dont want to see !! dont want to get it !!
And Excuse me to Be So Straight ! i dont hate you or your people !! i hate those that sheds the blood of innocents and colonize the world and controlling the world and call themeselves THE BRIGHTER WORLD !! The Savior Of Humanity!!(Like What They Infuse to us by the HollyWood Movies)
Hope For Freedom and Peace in Humanity !!

Fragony

05-08-2013, 15:09

Come to think of it Hax, was I really wrong and aren't there in fact 5 as Mohammed was the first. Don't hit me if I am wrong, I'm not sure

lars573

05-08-2013, 17:57

Paradox

05-08-2013, 20:11

Well, when it comes to actual practice, the differences between Shi'ites and Sunnites are pretty much neglectable. In its modern context, it's become much more a political allegiance than anything else.
It might be in the Levant, but the differences are quite clear when it comes to practice. Just because some of them have basic rights in Sunni states (ie somewhat the Gulf), doesn't mean that the Mu'awiya story is the only thing the Sunnah give them a pass on. It's hard to get in a conversation with anyone these days without them bringing up a Shia rumor that isn't even true, and there's always that saying: "rather a Jew than a Shii."

Conradus

05-08-2013, 20:44

Am I the only one who can't read those wall of text by Empire of without trying at least 5 times? And I still don't get half of it.

HopAlongBunny

05-08-2013, 22:01

Am I the only one who can't read those wall of text by Empire of without trying at least 5 times? And I still don't get half of it.

You are not alone ~:grouphug:

Papewaio

05-09-2013, 01:03

I think I need to take a Lamaze class to read that wall of text... And breath...

Husar

05-09-2013, 01:17

Am I the only one who can't read those wall of text by Empire of without trying at least 5 times? And I still don't get half of it.

I can read it but its all full of more or less the same conspiracy theories and anti-semitism, made hilarious by an overuse of exclamation marks.
You're not missing a lot.

It's not that I hate you Medya, I just completely disagree with the extent of your position. There are some points about deception and so on but you go way too far and it's not unknown in the western world that people try to deceive others.

The whole Israel is the puppet master of the USA thing is anti-semitic as I mentioned and not really true. They have a huge influence but you go way too far in your rant. And your entire post reads like a furious rant because of the overuse of exclamation (and question) marks.

It simply doesn't make you come across as serious. The immediate reaction is that someone who is so furious does not really think things through because of the overwhelming emotion involved. And even if I ignore your exclamation marks, that is exactly how your post reads, overly emotional and not very well reflected. :shrug:

Strike For The South

05-09-2013, 01:26

oh Really ?!! so you know more Huh ?!! i told only a bit JUST A "BIT" of their colonization(Vietnam-Coups in Iran & Fall of democracy-engineering an Islamic Revolution-Backtracking the Treaty & Promises & Betraying The KURDs & Torning them to 4 Great Criminal Dictators) That this was only for the US and still i didnt told about the old fox Britain!! if i would be Face To Face i could tell you all in here its not capable to tell all, but the most funny & Intresting is, you cant believe those !! because i brought you Proof but your Eyes And Ears are Closed and your mind controlled !! i didnt refer to you but those governments not your governments !! they are the 1% percent controlling the world and engineering its future and you just exist!! we are nothing against them!! you in so called "1st World" just have almost NO WORRY about your life!! the material matters are fixed and developed year by year for you!! you dont know what is going on in other part of the world !! and its not important for you!! because you live in a comfort worry-free Life and if comes to you you will run of it!! why should the colonizations of Imperialists be important for you ?! FreeMasons & Zionists have the world for 200 years in secrecy!! they created the World War I & II!! you think that 2012 the Armagedon or The End, was a joke !!? no no!! that was the beginning of a great "NEW WORLD ORDER" !!
jonathan Cook wrote in 2008 that The Grand Master Of USA & Britain, Israel would create an Arab Spring that and Syrian Civil War to weaken the whole middle east !! then the Inflation and Social Disobedience will be Started In Iran!! Then Maybe we Call it the Third WORLD WAR started that not only middle east but korea ,Russia ,Armenia,Japan,China and.....will be involved!! afterward, the maps of world specially the middle east will be very much Changed !!
and manyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy writers and western Theorists that telling about the The ELITE and The NEW WORLD ORDER and Creating So called Better world !!
there can be seen the truth!! but despite controlling you dont want to see !! dont want to get it !!
And Excuse me to Be So Straight ! i dont hate you or your people !! i hate those that sheds the blood of innocents and colonize the world and controlling the world and call themeselves THE BRIGHTER WORLD !! The Savior Of Humanity!!(Like What They Infuse to us by the HollyWood Movies)
Hope For Freedom and Peace in Humanity !!

Do you get the Ironman movies in Kurdistan?

Seamus Fermanagh

05-09-2013, 02:27

Am I the only one who can't read those wall of text by Empire of without trying at least 5 times? And I still don't get half of it.

At a guess, he/she is operating in a second, possibly third language. With that factored in, the quality of expression isn't that horrid. Moreover, over the years, I've graded 2 or 3 native-born Americans whose command of the language wasn't any better....and one that was worse. Please remember that I teach at university.

Finally, you can probably get a good gist of Empire's position by scanning Sarmatian's "anti-USA policy/Stop thinking you are superior posts" -- though Sarmatian doesn't subscribe to variants of the Protocals of Zion as Empire apparently does.

Empire*Of*Media

05-09-2013, 09:06

well i dont know why you dont get my posts and cant see what i told about truth?!!!
im not anti semetic !!! before you speak know what does it mean !! Semetic means Race From SAM !! an ancient prophet of jews !!
im not anti jewish !!! im not muslim to hate jews !! i hate zionists !! and FreeMasons !! those that control the world !! whatever you tell me like George w. bush, Conspiracy theorist, i still tell you they control you!! im not far from western world !! my brother have a PHD in Germany !!i went there 1 time !! and i dont mean by 1time i got it !!
look there are many things to tell !! but seem you dont want to know or cant know !!
in your posts i never saw anyone to reply about the allies Seperation of Kurdistan & Present them to 4 cruel governments, cuz of their benefits!!! i didnt heard any of you tell about the coupe that USA & Britain arranged to shut down Democracy of Iran and after some years shoot out the King then bring an Islamic Killer Regime!! vietnam.......laos........uganda.......rwanda.......cuba....chile &........and many many !!!!!! the matter is that their policy has changed and dont directly manipulate & Interfere in the world !! Like Middle East changes recently !! like hollywood (i know you get cinfused about this and dont accept!)!!
anyway i thought i can have discussion with you !! i thought at least from this hell i live your world is better !!! i thought i can confabulate with you about our Pains that how first islam then the imperialists throwed us to worse than hell and will use & abusage us!! but now i see its wrong !! anybody has the POWER and the fearing tools and some lies to spread, Like Romans-Ancient Greeks-Islam-Mongols-Turks &......Great Britain-USA-Israel-Islamic Republic&.......can show themselves to the world and the world follows them blindly !!
anyway..........:blank:

Hax

05-09-2013, 13:10

It might be in the Levant, but the differences are quite clear when it comes to practice. Just because some of them have basic rights in Sunni states (ie somewhat the Gulf), doesn't mean that the Mu'awiya story is the only thing the Sunnah give them a pass on. It's hard to get in a conversation with anyone these days without them bringing up a Shia rumor that isn't even true, and there's always that saying: "rather a Jew than a Shii."

I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment of the theological differences between Sunnis and Shi'ites, I merely disagree with the idea that these differences played a very large role in the actual day-to-day life of Muslims up until around 150 years ago. Sure, there have been historical cases in which these differences were emphasised for political reasons, but generally, most Muslims didn't really care, at least up until the 20th century.

Come to think of it Hax, was I really wrong and aren't there in fact 5 as Mohammed was the first. Don't hit me if I am wrong, I'm not sur

Yes, you are wrong. The word caliph (ar. خلیفة) can mean either "successor", "substitute", or "lieutenant" and refers to the successors/substitutes of Muhammad. If my memory is correct, the difference between a Prophet and a Caliph is defined by their attributes: a Prophet has both spiritual and political power, whereas a Caliph can only have political power (i.e. he cannot claim to receive messages from God). Interestingly, we note that several Caliphs styled themselves khalifat-u allah meaning "substitute of God", which according to most contemporary Islamic jurists would constitute heresy. This title was likely adopted through Persian influence.

Semetic means Race From SAM !!

Actually, it just means "a speaker of a Semitic language". Also, the 19th century called, they want their science back.

Fragony

05-09-2013, 13:27

Looked it up, you are absolutily right and I suck bowlingballs through a straw for getting it wrong. 4 Rightious caliphs it is

Seamus Fermanagh

05-09-2013, 14:17

Looked it up, you are absolutily right and I suck bowlingballs through a straw for getting it wrong....

If you truly have this capability, then I can probably put you in touch with a few lads who'd like to get to know you better......

Fragony

05-09-2013, 14:21

If you truly have this capability, then I can probably put you in touch with a few lads who'd like to get to know you better......

Doubt it, it means I suck really bad

Sarmatian

05-09-2013, 22:13

If you truly have this capability, then I can probably put you in touch with a few lads who'd like to get to know you better......

Screw that, we'll film him, get 25 millions views on youtube and then sell him off to the latest reality show.

Beskar

05-14-2013, 18:56

Fragony

05-14-2013, 19:37

Onomnomnom!

Sarmatian

05-15-2013, 00:15

Finally, you can probably get a good gist of Empire's position by scanning Sarmatian's "anti-USA policy/Stop thinking you are superior posts" -- though Sarmatian doesn't subscribe to variants of the Protocals of Zion as Empire apparently does.

I somehow missed this earlier, and I'm not sure if I should feel insulted by it.

Do you really see me as more coherent version of him?

Papewaio

05-15-2013, 00:46

Well you couldn't be considered less coherent...

Greyblades

05-15-2013, 01:10

It looks like the rebels took a leaf out of an African Tribal text book and started to eat the hearts of their enemies for strength.

Source (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22519770)

People who do things like this.. seriously.
I, um... I dont know why but I'm conflicted on this. On one hand: cannibalism, on other hand: kinda badass.

Ibn-Khaldun

05-15-2013, 01:47

Oh common, completily ignore the demographics and 1600 years of war between them why not. There is a very big difference as there is a major dispute over religious leaderhip after Ali as he was the last descendent of Mohammed.

Really?! Islam was around in the 5th century?!

Fragony

05-15-2013, 05:11

Ok 1500

Hax

05-15-2013, 15:49

Actually, closer to 1100 years, if you want to make a case for that. It can be argued that Islam was only formalised as a separate religion around the 10th century.

Fragony

05-15-2013, 23:14

Actually, closer to 1100 years, if you want to make a case for that. It can be argued that Islam was only formalised as a separate religion around the 10th century.

I'd love to hear that one

Empire*Of*Media

05-16-2013, 13:20

is criticism of Islam Forbidden in here ?!

Rhyfelwyr

05-16-2013, 15:05

is criticism of Islam Forbidden in here ?!

Yes, any negative comments about the Prophet Muhammad are punished with a perma-ban.

Hax

05-16-2013, 15:07

What makes you think that?

Fragony

05-16-2013, 15:21

is criticism of Islam Forbidden in here ?!

I would have been banned years ago if it was, freedom of speech goes very far here

drone

05-16-2013, 15:41

Criticism of religion is allowed. You are allowed to pick apart scriptures, dogma, religious figures, etc. with reasoned arguments, but if you start off with "All Muslims are evil" it's not going to go over very well.

Sarmatian

05-16-2013, 15:57

Except if it's Buddhists. They ARE evil.

Fragony

05-16-2013, 16:01

It's just Hax who ruins it for the rest of them, most are ok

Rhyfelwyr

05-16-2013, 16:34

I was winding up the new guy, y'all should know that by now!

Empire*Of*Media

05-17-2013, 09:09

I Mean criticism of ISLAM!! not Muslims!! Muslims are Hypnotized by Kuran !! They have no Fault !!

I would have been banned years ago if it was, freedom of speech goes very far here

yea, its strange that european governments despite dont like Islam because they bother europe, but they let them do anything!!
but in any muslim country i mean all of them, cant tolerate NON-MUSLIMS!! i was an ex-muslim myself, and know better than any of you, how much their hatred is high!! but good thing is Muslim Kurds are somehow not REAL MUSLIM!!, i mean they dont hate non-muslims and will not kill,stone,or suicide bombing!!!(Except some Damn fooled Extremist)
and........many needs discussion!

and i dont know do what Rhyfelwyr says or drone??!!!

Rhyfelwyr

05-17-2013, 18:37

and i dont know do what Rhyfelwyr says or drone??!!!

I was kidding, you are free to criticize religion as long as you are not hateful about it.

a completely inoffensive name

05-18-2013, 09:04

is criticism of Islam Forbidden in here ?!

I hope you find solace in hell for your insolence. praise be to Allah.

Empire*Of*Media

05-18-2013, 12:57

I hope you find solace in hell for your insolence. praise be to Allah.

ah! it doesnt matter its your Islamic trait! its your answer to any objection and Criticism of islam!! because you know you dont have anything, then you offense and assault and excommunicate !! but i dont know in where i have even Spoke about islam, and i just asked, that your hatred goes upper than aerosphere!!

but anyway. if in Islamic Opinion and Beliefs, im heretic and Murtad, so yes im proud to have solace in your so called hell!! i die happy in Humans Freedom and Peace !!

gedingradski

05-18-2013, 16:42

One of the more apalling aspects of this conflict is how much it resembles a Cold War flashpoint. External powers supplying rebel/government forces with aid but not entering themselves or providing any meaningful direct military support.

Not that I blame them. This thing would go down worse than Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo combined.. still might..

Maybe I've come a little late to conversation, but I don't think getting heated over the topic of religion is going to help this discussion, this conflict or any discussion/conflict ever. I recognise the big part religion has with this war (i.e. politico-religious-ethnic(?) sectarianism within Syria that led to the conflict in the first place), but it is further making the situation worse for the rebels. More fundamentalists are getting involved in the fighting and this is making many of the external powers and interest groups less inclined to help. In fact, the last UN vote saw less 'Yes' votes for a motion against Syria (i.e. angry letter), same amount of 'No' votes, but I think the point is that many countries are positioning themselves for a post-war Syria with Assad still in place. Is this because they don't think the rebels will win and want to distance themselves politically? Or are they concerned that if the rebels win what will be left will be a lawless moonscape run by religious fundamentalists? Maybe both?

Unfortunately, I don't think we've seen the worst. Last I saw the estimated civilian deaths in Syria are over 90,000 in 2 years... compared with civilian deaths in Iraq for the last 10 years at around 115,000... and no end in sight. Just more hatred, more killing, more futures and lives wasted.

Sir Moody

05-20-2013, 11:05

ah! it doesnt matter its your Islamic trait! its your answer to any objection and Criticism of islam!! because you know you dont have anything, then you offense and assault and excommunicate !! but i dont know in where i have even Spoke about islam, and i just asked, that your hatred goes upper than aerosphere!!

but anyway. if in Islamic Opinion and Beliefs, im heretic and Murtad, so yes im proud to have solace in your so called hell!! i die happy in Humans Freedom and Peace !!

yeesh I know English isn't your first language but you really need to learn sarcasm - ACIN was baiting you with a blatantly outrageous statement to get the response you gave him... calm down a little

back on to Syria - I see there are reports that Shia fighters from Iraq have been crossing the border and joining the Pro Assad militias... unofficial sources say "thousands" but I am guessing they are exaggerating...

Not a promising development... it is only going to get worse if foreign fighters start getting involved for purely religious reasons...

Empire*Of*Media

05-20-2013, 12:04

yeesh I know English isn't your first language but you really need to learn sarcasm - ACIN was baiting you with a blatantly outrageous statement to get the response you gave him... calm down a little
yea !! i didnt continue english for almost 8 years! and thats pretty lots of years to forget english, if no i hadnt Kurdish-English Dictionary, i couldnt post!!!! can i ask why your language is so complicated and hard!!!!!! what is this language!! i wish German was a universal language, i know german is very hard, but at least doesnt have exceptions in any situations like English!! why the world should obey the colonization of the British New World Order !!!

Hey Be Coooool!! Dont Be Angry !! i was just Joking !!!!! ~:)

but i dont know where i have responsed furiously ?!!

Sir Moody

05-20-2013, 12:12

Hey Be Coooool!! Dont Be Angry !! i was just Joking !!!!! ~:)

but i dont know where i have responsed furiously ?!!

Don't worry you don't come across as angry just... enthusiastic... very enthusiastic.

Lemur

05-20-2013, 18:08

Helpful guide to the players courtesy of The Economist:

https://i.imgur.com/EIKj670.png

TinCow

05-20-2013, 21:01

can i ask why your language is so complicated and hard!!!!!! what is this language!! i wish German was a universal language, i know german is very hard, but at least doesnt have exceptions in any situations like English!! why the world should obey the colonization of the British New World Order !!!

It's due to the history of the English people. It started off similarly to (old) German, but was heavily corrupted at the root level by the major players in English history, most notably the Normans and the Norse. As a result, it developed a pattern of absorbing foreign words at an unusually high rate, and has continually added in new words and grammatical rules from many other languages right up to the present day. As a result, English has some basic rules, but also an incredibly large number of exceptions that result from about a millennium of foreign influence. It is thus one of the most international languages in the world, in that it contains elements from many different cultures. Unfortunately, this makes it extremely counter-intuitive and confusing for people learning it as a second language. It is certainly not the ideal language to be used as the international norm, but it's a bit too late for that now. Blame the British for its global prevalence today; its current global use is the result of British colonialism.

Beskar

05-20-2013, 21:32

It is certainly not the ideal language to be used as the international norm, but it's a bit too late for that now. Blame the British for its global prevalence today; its current global use is the result of British colonialism.

It is more the American dominance in the world stage, but you could count that as an extension of British Colonialism.

drone

05-20-2013, 21:35

Helpful guide to the players courtesy of The Economist:
First thing that comes to mind...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS-0Az7dgRY

TinCow

05-20-2013, 21:51

It is more the American dominance in the world stage, but you could count that as an extension of British Colonialism.

I disagree. Certainly American post-WW2 dominance has helped solidify it, but English had already taken a heavy lead prior to that date. For obvious reasons, English became the dominant language of business and government in all British colonies. Most notably, this included significant portions of Africa and Asia. Its impact was particularly significant in India, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Southeast Asia, all of which contained so many native languages that communication was already a significant issue. The use of English by the British rulers of those areas gave all of those peoples a single language to learn to succeed at the highest levels of those societies and, as a result, the language was adopted by the powerful and influential in many of those nations. It remained in use for those purposes even after the British pulled out, simply because a common language was immensely useful. You certainly cannot cite US influence as the cause of the dominance of English in India in 1947.

The fact is that English was already entrenched across the globe at the end of WW2, before American influence propelled it further. I would agree that it likely would not have spread as fast without US influence, but I think it still would have become the global common language even without it. The development of a common language was inevitable once globalization began, and the common language that was chosen was always going to be the most wide-spread language at the time that that movement began. That language was clearly English right from the start of the 20th Century, and that was entirely due to the British. If you want to alter the timeline and have another language develop as the global common language, I think you would have to go back in time and have France win the Napoleonic Wars or something similar.

gedingradski

05-21-2013, 02:24

Wouldn't get too far ahead of yourself... sure the US economy and manufactoring was something to behold and North American culture was growing in its dominance from that period, but I think fundamental political and economic practises were (and are) still very different. One of the key differences is the socialistic leanings of most European governments, which is definitely NOT how USA turned out... I think its a pity that they didn't put all that wealth and prosperity of the post-war period into establishing a solid social support structure (though plenty were trying at the time). It would have been one of things you look back on and couldn't think of how you would have done without it... reality is different of course..

gedingradski

05-21-2013, 06:33

Hmm... I think a fair few people may disagree with the notion that Europe was rebuilt by the US army... You may have a case for Berlin (part of it anyway) but there's much more to Europe than that one city and I'd disagree with you on the idea in general...
The concept that America single-handedly saved Europe from the Nazis is really only perpetuated in American culture. If one were to make such black and white projections of history one would conclude that America AND Russia saved the rest of Europe, but I doubt that would get much traction in the US and I also think its more complicated than that.

Nonetheless, I live in Australia and we have universal healthcare, free schools, welfare for the unemployed, disabled and other disadvantaged groups, etc., etc. and as far as I know we didn't need the US army to do help us do that... not to mention every other country in the world that manages to provide social support for its citizens without turning it into a hysterical politcal issue...

This does raise an interesting point when considering Syria. What is the likely outcome of a larger organised force entering now, like UN or NATO? Who would they fight? What would be the legal framework for action at this point? Personally, I can't see any ethical or legal reasons to support any of the players in this conflict. And that may well be how it turns out... continue until no one is left standing...

Empire*Of*Media

05-21-2013, 08:28

It's due to the history of the English people. It started off similarly to (old) German, but was heavily corrupted at the root level by the major players in English history, most notably the Normans and the Norse. As a result, it developed a pattern of absorbing foreign words at an unusually high rate, and has continually added in new words and grammatical rules from many other languages right up to the present day. As a result, English has some basic rules, but also an incredibly large number of exceptions that result from about a millennium of foreign influence. It is thus one of the most international languages in the world, in that it contains elements from many different cultures. Unfortunately, this makes it extremely counter-intuitive and confusing for people learning it as a second language. It is certainly not the ideal language to be used as the international norm, but it's a bit too late for that now. Blame the British for its global prevalence today; its current global use is the result of British colonialism.

yes your right ! but i again think German or anyother must have benn International 1st language !! now i could have conversation with you very easily!!!!! and your right again! the british shimed the way and USA asphalted it! im just surprised how those british imposed & Inflicted those poor Indians & Africans to forcibly learn that hard english!! its just too much unjustice!! but i can see The USA too is continuing that way too but in a more smoothy way, like for example, HOLLYWOOD !! The Great controled Culture Changer of makind!!

Hmm... I think a fair few people may disagree with the notion that Europe was rebuilt by the US army... You may have a case for Berlin (part of it anyway) but there's much more to Europe than that one city and I'd disagree with you on the idea in general...
The concept that America single-handedly saved Europe from the Nazis is really only perpetuated in American culture. If one were to make such black and white projections of history one would conclude that America AND Russia saved the rest of Europe, but I doubt that would get much traction in the US and I also think its more complicated than that.
This does raise an interesting point when considering Syria. What is the likely outcome of a larger organised force entering now, like UN or NATO? Who would they fight? What would be the legal framework for action at this point? Personally, I can't see any ethical or legal reasons to support any of the players in this conflict. And that may well be how it turns out... continue until no one is left standing...

Imperialists, They loved the war to be started (USA & BRITISH) to fulfill another of their important phases to create NEW WORLD ORDER not only in Europe but in the world and specially creating USA !! we see the transfering of supreme power from old Imperialist bitain to new Imperialist USA!! and why i said specially Israel?! because the next supreme power that must be transfered from USA to them, maybe its Israel when that time we have The Unite and One Money in The World and thats Electronic money that its distributor is MONDEX Smartacrds that is in all of advanced countries, when that BioChip MUST BE iserted in ForeHead or Right Hand, for onther from latest New World Order Planing, as it was precautioned in the revelations 13: 16-17 2000 years ago!! (You Can Google, VERCHIP or Mondex Smartcards).

and friend, USA, NATO ,UN, EU, all are one with one way, and they attacked Lybia because 1. libya had huge amount of Oils in the world while syria doesnt. 2. Muamar Gadafi wanted to uncover some of their secrets, he knew, and they just puted an stop to him, and said: oops soryy! it was not us! just Coincidence !!!!:rolleyes:

gedingradski

05-21-2013, 10:02

...BioChip MUST BE iserted in ForeHead or Right Hand, for onther from latest New World Order Planing, as it was precautioned in the revelations 13: 16-17 2000 years ago!!...

..not gonna touch that one...

and friend, USA, NATO ,UN, EU, all are one with one way, and they attacked Lybia because 1. libya had huge amount of Oils in the world while syria doesnt. 2. Muamar Gadafi wanted to uncover some of their secrets, he knew, and they just puted an stop to him, and said: oops soryy! it was not us! just Coincidence !!!!:rolleyes:

While those organisations do share a number of member nations as well as some overlap in political agendas, they aren't the same thing... this is bordering on the realm of 'world-governments' and 'secret societies' which frankly I do not have much truck with...

In response to your points:
1. There is oil in Syria, it constitutes around a quarter of their economy (major exports go to your good friend Germany, as a matter of fact); though globally they are small producers.
2. I highly doubt Muamar knew anything that "they" wanted to put a stop to. My recollection of events was that the civil war began before "they" got involved, plus "they" only provided weapons and a no-fly zone (maybe some secret operations, but I doubt it). So trying to paint the Libyan civil war as some elaborate exercise to remove Gaddafi, I think is a little insensitive to the people that suffered under his regime for 30-odd years as well as the tens of thousands of people that died during the conflict.

But why was there intervention in Libya and not Syria (thus far)? Lets consider a few key differences:
1. Syria has much closer ties with Russia, China and Iran (the first two have a lot of politcal sway and the last is too unpredictable to account for militarily and politically),
2. The region is very 'hot' at the moment with even more militant groups and their funding organisations active and more mobile than they have been in the past,
3. Geographic proximity to Russia and Iran may also be a consideration, at least Libya was more 'containable' (though that certainly didn't turn out to be the case...),
4. USA, UK, France (and others) all had long standing grievances with Gaddafi, much less so with Assad,
5. The rebel groups in Libya were more organised and forthcoming with external powers from the beginning.

The biggest reason (in my opinion) is because the Assad regime is not sufficiently isolated. There is a potential trigger for other powers to become involved in favour of Assad against other external powers backing the rebels, which is obviously a very bad outcome. On top of that, there are plenty of indications that this could turn into another Iraq (but worse) and no one, anywhere can afford it, Syrians the least.

Fragony

05-21-2013, 10:18

I Mean criticism of ISLAM!! not Muslims!! Muslims are Hypnotized by Kuran !! They have no Fault !!

yea, its strange that european governments despite dont like Islam because they bother europe, but they let them do anything!!
but in any muslim country i mean all of them, cant tolerate NON-MUSLIMS!! i was an ex-muslim myself, and know better than any of you, how much their hatred is high!! but good thing is Muslim Kurds are somehow not REAL MUSLIM!!, i mean they dont hate non-muslims and will not kill,stone,or suicide bombing!!!(Except some Damn fooled Extremist)
and........many needs discussion!

and i dont know do what Rhyfelwyr says or drone??!!!

I meant on this site, if you keep it civilised you can get away with almost anything. I went too far a few times and got a few warnings for being too offensive but it never got me into trouble

HopAlongBunny

05-21-2013, 10:28

The West is probably just happy this is "Russia's baby". The veto blocks any Security Council sanctioned actions (one bullet dodged) and there is just no compelling reason for unilateral action.

With the divisions, Russia just might be on the right side policy-wise; back the existing regime and hope for a return to stability or prop them up long enough for everyone to get sick of killing each other.

I wish the Syrian people peace and prosperity; I just don't see how any external power can stop the bloodbath.

Sir Moody

05-21-2013, 10:34

..not gonna touch that one...

While those organisations do share a number of member nations as well as some overlap in political agendas, they aren't the same thing... this is bordering on the realm of 'world-governments' and 'secret societies' which frankly I do not have much truck with...

In response to your points:
1. There is oil in Syria, it constitutes around a quarter of their economy (major exports go to your good friend Germany, as a matter of fact); though globally they are small producers.
2. I highly doubt Muamar knew anything that "they" wanted to put a stop to. My recollection of events was that the civil war began before "they" got involved, plus "they" only provided weapons and a no-fly zone (maybe some secret operations, but I doubt it). So trying to paint the Libyan civil war as some elaborate exercise to remove Gaddafi, I think is a little insensitive to the people that suffered under his regime for 30-odd years as well as the tens of thousands of people that died during the conflict.

But why was there intervention in Libya and not Syria (thus far)? Lets consider a few key differences:
1. Syria has much closer ties with Russia, China and Iran (the first two have a lot of politcal sway and the last is too unpredictable to account for militarily and politically),
2. The region is very 'hot' at the moment with even more militant groups and their funding organisations active and more mobile than they have been in the past,
3. Geographic proximity to Russia and Iran may also be a consideration, at least Libya was more 'containable' (though that certainly didn't turn out to be the case...),
4. USA, UK, France (and others) all had long standing grievances with Gaddafi, much less so with Assad,
5. The rebel groups in Libya were more organised and forthcoming with external powers from the beginning.

The biggest reason (in my opinion) is because the Assad regime is not sufficiently isolated. There is a potential trigger for other powers to become involved in favour of Assad against other external powers backing the rebels, which is obviously a very bad outcome. On top of that, there are plenty of indications that this could turn into another Iraq (but worse) and no one, anywhere can afford it, Syrians the least.

all good reasons however there is another reason we haven't got involved - the Syrian Army isn't antiquated

Libya had horrifically out of date air defenses and thus we had pretty much air dominance once the pathetically small air force was crushed

Syria has a large and modern Air force as well as an almost up to date Air defense (courtesy of the Russians) - intervention would be costly and right now with all the points you mentioned and the fact we aren't even sure we want the rebels to win mean we wont do anything - for now

gedingradski

05-21-2013, 11:31

Syria has a large and modern Air force as well as an almost up to date Air defense (courtesy of the Russians) - intervention would be costly and right now with all the points you mentioned and the fact we aren't even sure we want the rebels to win mean we wont do anything - for now

Yes, excellent point. I doubt anyone wants to get too aquianted with modern Russian AA defense systems.

Empire*Of*Media

05-21-2013, 20:30

I meant on this site, if you keep it civilised you can get away with almost anything. I went too far a few times and got a few warnings for being too offensive but it never got me into trouble

do you have proofs and reasons to criticize Islam?! you know, Islam is much more complicated than you think, if dont have anything to say, then you can easily convert to Islam!! because it is too much powerful than Christianity!!

Empire*Of*Media

05-21-2013, 21:02

..not gonna touch that one...

While those organisations do share a number of member nations as well as some overlap in political agendas, they aren't the same thing... this is bordering on the realm of 'world-governments' and 'secret societies' which frankly I do not have much truck with...

In response to your points:
1. There is oil in Syria, it constitutes around a quarter of their economy (major exports go to your good friend Germany, as a matter of fact); though globally they are small producers.
2. I highly doubt Muamar knew anything that "they" wanted to put a stop to. My recollection of events was that the civil war began before "they" got involved, plus "they" only provided weapons and a no-fly zone (maybe some secret operations, but I doubt it). So trying to paint the Libyan civil war as some elaborate exercise to remove Gaddafi, I think is a little insensitive to the people that suffered under his regime for 30-odd years as well as the tens of thousands of people that died during the conflict.

But why was there intervention in Libya and not Syria (thus far)? Lets consider a few key differences:
1. Syria has much closer ties with Russia, China and Iran (the first two have a lot of politcal sway and the last is too unpredictable to account for militarily and politically),
2. The region is very 'hot' at the moment with even more militant groups and their funding organisations active and more mobile than they have been in the past,
3. Geographic proximity to Russia and Iran may also be a consideration, at least Libya was more 'containable' (though that certainly didn't turn out to be the case...),
4. USA, UK, France (and others) all had long standing grievances with Gaddafi, much less so with Assad,
5. The rebel groups in Libya were more organised and forthcoming with external powers from the beginning.

The biggest reason (in my opinion) is because the Assad regime is not sufficiently isolated. There is a potential trigger for other powers to become involved in favour of Assad against other external powers backing the rebels, which is obviously a very bad outcome. On top of that, there are plenty of indications that this could turn into another Iraq (but worse) and no one, anywhere can afford it, Syrians the least.

good proofs, actually i brought Qazzafi knew some secrets, i Quoted from an Arab jurnalist in Al Jazeera English, but while some of your proofs are right, but for many you just see the Apearances! of course im not Mossad to bring you the classified and top secrets of Nato EU UN & and imperialists like USA & Britain.
but it needs a little thinkink and researching about many things, they are all in a way of New World Order, you believe it or not, they are doing their work, but of course war in Syria has too much profits for USA & Nato & Israel!! how they sell their old fashioned guns!!(like the LORD movie!!) and of course to more weaken Islamic Republic of Iran, and then the raising of a SuperPower Israel!! so the New World Order will go much Further!! if they wanted to invade Syria they could! like Iraq & Afghanistan & etc they. they want to fix the problem slowly and undirectly. because they have taughted lesson from Iraqs War's Consequences. the fact is, when they comfortably think what has the most benefits for them to do, in that coursed land, the apart from men, children and women are suffering a beautiful hell that no one except Kurds suffered in history!!
in the end, they dont want freedom for people, they just see where & what has the most profits & Benefits!! yes!! its an Imperialistic Trait !!

rvg

05-23-2013, 02:33

rvg

05-23-2013, 14:19

I'm not entirely convinced that Empire, Truth, and Relism aren't all just the same troll, myself. :shrug:
If it is the same guy, he's pretty good at what he does. His Kurdish incarnation is very entertaining.

Empire*Of*Media

05-23-2013, 17:27

If it is the same guy, he's pretty good at what he does. His Kurdish incarnation is very entertaining.

hey whats going on in here !?!?!? who's Total Relism ?!?!? please somebody explain for me !!

rvg

05-23-2013, 17:29

who's Total Relism ?!?!?

Some Turk.

Empire*Of*Media

05-25-2013, 12:18

Some Turk.

a Catholic Turk ?!!!!!
and whats that with my name ?!

rvg

06-05-2013, 13:28

Looks like Syrian forces in conjunction with Hezbollah have recaptured the city of Qusair. Geez, never in my life did I think I'd ever support a military operation conducted by Hezbollah, yet here I am. Go Bashar! Crush those rebels.

Fragony

06-05-2013, 16:56

If anyone can explain this I'd apreciate it, I am absolutily lost

rvg

06-05-2013, 16:58

Lost in what sense?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

06-05-2013, 17:17

This is even better than truthl33t.

Oh, and speaking of Syria, we need to establish a "Friends of Bashar" organization pronto. Playtime with the rebels is over, time for Bashar to bring Syria in its entirety under his tender, loving care.

Well - you know - letting the Rebels become embittered and vengeful has made this a lose-lose all around.

Libya worked because the West went in quick and stopped the Civil War from engulfing the entire country - and reduced the wholesale destruction of the country by limiting the duration of the fighting. Ergo, there was still some normalcy to return to - once they'd persuaded the national footie team's goalkeeper to put down his AA gun and put his gloves back on.

Syria has become a worse wasteland than Israel made of Lebanon, and we will be remembered as the people who didn't help them.

Assad's finished, long term, but once Syria comes through this it won't even be as Civilised as Iraq.

As far as Air Defences go - it's about time NATO had an actual workout, there's been no proper testing of kit since the Falklands - when a lot of said kit was shown to be sub-par.

Fragony

06-05-2013, 17:22

Lost in what sense?

The 'I absolutely have no idea what's happening right now' variation

rvg

06-05-2013, 17:28

Well - you know - letting the Rebels become embittered and vengeful has made this a lose-lose all around.
I think that Bashar stands to lose less from this attrition than the rebels do. As rebel tactics get uglier and uglier, they will lose support from the west, i.e. they lose.

Libya worked because the West went in quick and stopped the Civil War from engulfing the entire country - and reduced the wholesale destruction of the country by limiting the duration of the fighting. Ergo, there was still some normalcy to return to - once they'd persuaded the national footie team's goalkeeper to put down his AA gun and put his gloves back on.
Libya had one advantage that Syria does not have: it's universally Sunni. No religious minorities to worry about. Its sectarianism is purely tribal and thus much easier to deal with, since it's all about money.

Syria has become a worse wasteland than Israel made of Lebanon, and we will be remembered as the people who didn't help them.
It will be rebuilt. As long as the islamists are kept at bay, this is the better scenario.

Assad's finished, long term...
People have been saying this for a year and a half now.

As far as Air Defences go - it's about time NATO had an actual workout, there's been no proper testing of kit since the Falklands - when a lot of said kit was shown to be sub-par.
I don't think so. We won't lift a finger without a proper UN resolution, and thankfully the Russians have had the good sense of opposing all this nonsense.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

06-05-2013, 17:38

I think that Bashar stands to lose less from this attrition than the rebels do. As rebel tactics get uglier and uglier, they will lose support from the west, i.e. they lose.

Libya had one advantage that Syria does not have: it's universally Sunni. No religious minorities to worry about. Its sectarianism is purely tribal and thus much easier to deal with, since it's all about money.

It will be rebuilt. As long as the islamists are kept at bay, this is the better scenario.

People have been saying this for a year and a half now.

I don't think so. We won't lift a finger without a proper UN resolution, and thankfully the Russians have had the good sense of opposing all this nonsense.

You think Lbya doesn't have sectarian problems?

Are we forgetting the Christian the Jews?

Not to mention the African/Arabic issue?

Assad has been confirmed to being using Sarin - that's WMD territory we're in now.

You're taking a local, short-termist, perspective.

In the short term Assad may win, may hold on for another 5-10 years but in 20 years he will fall - what sort of country Syria will be when that happens is being decided now.

There's a good chance that in 10 years Libya will be similar to Turkey now, there's a good chance Syria will be like Somalia five years ago. You remember Solalia, the last Islamic country we tried to ignore.

Pannonian

06-05-2013, 17:43

Well - you know - letting the Rebels become embittered and vengeful has made this a lose-lose all around.

Libya worked because the West went in quick and stopped the Civil War from engulfing the entire country - and reduced the wholesale destruction of the country by limiting the duration of the fighting. Ergo, there was still some normalcy to return to - once they'd persuaded the national footie team's goalkeeper to put down his AA gun and put his gloves back on.

Syria has become a worse wasteland than Israel made of Lebanon, and we will be remembered as the people who didn't help them.

Assad's finished, long term, but once Syria comes through this it won't even be as Civilised as Iraq.

As far as Air Defences go - it's about time NATO had an actual workout, there's been no proper testing of kit since the Falklands - when a lot of said kit was shown to be sub-par.

Why should it be our responsibility to help them, when it seems every successful revolution in the Muslim countries tends to go religious fundie afterwards? And if we want to test our kit, why not look for another opportunity where we might actually profit from intervention?

rvg

06-05-2013, 17:46

You think Lbya doesn't have sectarian problems?
She does. Tribal sectarian problems. Everyone wants their piece of the oil revenue pie. Not that difficult to solve.

Are we forgetting the Christian the Jews?
Of course I am. The 1000 Jews who live on that dinky little island and a handful of Christians do not matter in the grand scheme of things for Libya. In Syria minorities are big enough to matter.

Not to mention the African/Arabic issue?
Most Africans have already been expelled or massacred, so it's no longer an issue.

Assad has been confirmed to being using Sarin - that's WMD territory we're in now.
Only if we want to be there. I do not. I doubt Obama does either.

You're taking a local, short-termist, perspective.
How so?

In the short term Assad may win, may hold on for another 5-10 years...
5-10 years is not a trivial amount of time. In that timeframe he may crush the rebellion completely.

There's a good chance that in 10 years Libya will be similar to Turkey now,
I'd love to see that happen. Really, I would. I don't think it will though.

there's a good chance Syria will be like Somalia five years ago. You remember Solalia, the last Islamic country we tried to ignore.
Negative. Syria has oil.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

06-05-2013, 17:52

Why should it be our responsibility to help them, when it seems every successful revolution in the Muslim countries tends to go religious fundie afterwards? And if we want to test our kit, why not look for another opportunity where we might actually profit from intervention?

Why does it go religious fundie?

Usually because the alternative presented is the "Great Satan".

If we made a point of smacking Dictators around when they get like this we would be more popular.

Both the Syrians and the Iranians before them voiced feelings of being "abandoned" when they protested in favour of Western-ish ideals of at least a less-oppressive government and more freedom of expression. We ignore them, we won't give them arms or funds, and as a result they turn to the Islamic militias.

We should have blockaded Assad, prevented new munitions getting to him from Russia or elsewhere and out politicians should, at the least, be constantly screaming in the UN about his Air Force, which could at least be interdicted. You wouldn't even need to send aircraft - a couple of Dauntless class destroyers sat off the coast could destroy aircraft as they launched.

The Last 50-75 years policy of supporting "strongmen" so long as they enforced a veneer of Western society and wore suits has been an abject failure. It gave us the Shah in Iran, Saddam Hussain, two Assads...

It's time for a new strategy - one that involves the use of surgical force against a regime that turns guns on the populace.

rvg

06-05-2013, 17:53

To build a rapport between westerns and middle-easterners, we have to find a common cause...

Why do we need to build rapport?

Pannonian

06-05-2013, 17:56

To build a rapport between westerns and middle-easterners, we have to find a common cause. If resisting dictatorship and demanding more democracy isn't a common cause... I don't know what is. But, because we can't look past realpolitik for ten minutes, the Syrian people are going to suffer and the rift between the middle-east and the west will only get worse. Way too late to change that now.

We've already given them plenty of opportunity for that in Iraq. How's the rapport between the west and the middle east over that issue? Everywhere we've intervened in the name of democracy, the subsequent turn has been towards fundieism. Why not try the Chinese approach of being open and frank about establishing relations for the purpose of trade rather than ideology?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

06-05-2013, 17:57

Why do we need to build rapport?

Why not?

They have oil - you can also grow excellent coffee in the Levant, but the constant wars have burned the plantations down to almost nothing. Then there's the old chestnut of being able to visit the Holy Land without getting killed - not to mention the wasted opportunities in Science and Literature for collaboration.

Do you realise that Iranian poets and Scientists are some of the best in the world?

Those guys are building nukes under a blockade, it's harder for them than it was for the US/American team during WWII!

rvg

06-05-2013, 17:58

Because World Peace is a good thing?
World Peace is a great thing about on par with me winning the next jackpot. Sadly the odds are also similar.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

06-05-2013, 17:59

We've already given them plenty of opportunity for that in Iraq. How's the rapport between the west and the middle east over that issue? Everywhere we've intervened in the name of democracy, the subsequent turn has been towards fundieism. Why not try the Chinese approach of being open and frank about establishing relations for the purpose of trade rather than ideology?

Faulty example - we failed to intervene in 1991/2 when we said we would. As a result Saddam destroyed the marshes - 2003 barely balanced the debt, and then the occupation was badly handled because the Bush administration had to go all "Facist purge" whilst forgetting that we had to occupy Germany for a decade with thousands of troops, many conscripts.

rvg

06-05-2013, 18:02

Why not?
What's the practical purpose of that? Love or hate has little to do with business.

They have oil - you can also grow excellent coffee in the Levant, but the constant wars have burned the plantations down to almost nothing.
I can live with the Venezuelan coffee.

Then there's the old chestnut of being able to visit the Holy Land without getting killed - not to mention the wasted opportunities in Science and Literature for collaboration.
It's okay, we've gotten by so far just fine.

Do you realise that Iranian poets and Scientists are some of the best in the world?
Will Iranian poetry make me a richer man? If not, then meh.

Those guys are building nukes under a blockade, it's harder for them than it was for the US/American team during WWII!
Shows us where their priorities lie.

rvg

06-05-2013, 18:12

So Greed is your only geopolitical motivator...
Greed? Certainly not personal greed. It's more of a general disenchantment in humanity in general, and in the humanity inhabiting the Middle East and South Asia in particular. It's not that I wish them ill, it's that I just don't care. They wish to kill each other? Let them. In the Syrian conflict specifically, I support Bashar because Syrian Christians support Bashar. They're the only people in that conflict that I care about. Their interests are my interests.

Pannonian

06-05-2013, 18:18

Faulty example - we failed to intervene in 1991/2 when we said we would. As a result Saddam destroyed the marshes - 2003 barely balanced the debt, and then the occupation was badly handled because the Bush administration had to go all "Facist purge" whilst forgetting that we had to occupy Germany for a decade with thousands of troops, many conscripts.

They shouldn't moan about not getting what they wanted from outsiders when they wanted it. If they give it to them at a later date, rather than whine about not getting it first up, they should make the most of what they got this time round. If they want to moan about the late delivery, then maybe we shouldn't bother with the delivery at all, and leave them to deal with things on their own. We wouldn't have lost anything if we'd never intervened to get rid of Iraq's dictator, so the next time they want us to help, maybe they should think about how they reacted this time round.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

06-05-2013, 18:20

Greed? Certainly not personal greed. It's more of a general disenchantment in humanity in general, and in the humanity inhabiting the Middle East and South Asia in particular. It's not that I wish them ill, it's that I just don't care. They wish to kill each other? Let them. In the Syrian conflict specifically, I support Bashar because Syrian Christians support Bashar. They're the only people in that conflict that I care about. Their interests are my interests.

Me, I want a quiet life - that's why I don't often voice just how loathsome and alien I find much of US political and social life.

Your perverse election of law enforcement a judicial officials, your failure to care for the poor...

Given that the US essentially engineered the collapse of the British Empire and left Britain a basket case for decades I have more reason to hate Americans than Syrians.

I don't, though, I'd much rather make friends because having friends is the way to have a quiet life.

No hatred of America - no 9/11. It's that simple.

rvg

06-05-2013, 18:20

They don't want to kill eachother. Surely you don't believe that?
I judge them by what they do. They do it a lot and they do it well.

I'm not qualified to tell you what to believe, but in my opinion the Christian thing would be to wish an end to the fighitng above all else, and not the victory of a certain group over the other.
Not at the expense of Christians being subjugated by the islamists.

How much do you even know about Syrian christians? Do you feel for them because they suffer, or do you feel for them because they provide you an excuse to root for the fascist?
Middle Eastern Christians are my people, as in I'm descended from that group. This is personal.

rvg

06-05-2013, 18:36

By that logic, we love killing eachother too. Or have you forgotten the staggering statistics from our Civil War? You're not stupid, man. I know that you know that people at war usually don't want to be at war.
Let's not mix wars between the governments into this.

Islamists who are entirely our fault. We created them, armed them, funded them, and over the decades since have given them plenty of target practice.
Precisely. No reason to help them any further.

Its good to respect your heritage, but you should take advantage of the broader scope you have available to you as compared to your relatives in the middle-east. They know only that they are in a war. You, on the other hand, are capable of seeing the big picture if you want to.
Which is why I say: screw the Sunnis.

rvg

06-05-2013, 18:44

Nothing for it I guess. :shrug:

Do not despair. You're still very young and I understand your drive to be Don Quixote. Give it a decade, or maybe a decade and a half, then we'll see if your perspective changes.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

06-05-2013, 18:48

Middle Eastern Christians are my people, as in I'm descended from that group. This is personal.

Unless you're an Assyrian yourself, they aren't the Eastern Orthodox Christians are a splinter group who had little to do with the Latin West or Even the Greek Orthodox until relatively recently.

Your religion would be only slightly closer to them than to Islam itself.

rvg

06-05-2013, 18:51

Unless you're an Assyrian yourself, they aren't Te Eastern Orthodox Christians are a splinter group who had little to do with the Latin West or Even the Greek Orthodox until relatively recently.

Your religion would be only slightly closer to them than to Islam itself.

Brilliant deduction. I am in fact Assyrian.

Hax

06-05-2013, 20:48

This explains so much.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

06-06-2013, 02:39

Brilliant deduction. I am in fact Assyrian.

Well, I did think you might be.

Well, OK - I can appreciate your viewpoint but I still think you're wrong.

In the long term a pluralist society will benefit Christians accross the Middle East - currently the dictators uses them as a scapegoat for the majority to vent on whilst protecting them from major harm, and keeping both groups loyal as a result.

rvg

06-06-2013, 13:16

In the long term a pluralist society will benefit Christians accross the Middle East
True, but that pluralism can only be achieved under a very narrow set of conditions. Lebanon can achieve that balance of power because it has no clear religious majority.

currently the dictators uses them as a scapegoat for the majority to vent on whilst protecting them from major harm, and keeping both groups loyal as a result.
Syria is different because a small minority is in power. That minority has to band together with other minorities in order to oppose the clear majority.

Also, take a look at Iraq: the oppressed Shia majority was liberated and almost immediately started working towards becoming the oppressive Shia majority.

Even if you take some remote, exotic pseudo-democracy like the Maldives: it does have a representative government and all, but it's still extremely repressive when it comes to freedom of religion: every citizen is required by law to be a Sunni Muslim. That's not very pluralistic.

Fragony

06-07-2013, 11:24

New video of beheading, I hear Dutch with a Flemish accent and a bit of what's probably Wallonian French. Never been happy with Hezbollah but if they shoot homegrown scum Salaam mia muca's. Should they come back they will probably get agression surpressing therapy. Lefties getting so wet with multicultural desire that they slip of their chair, no, it is not an enrichment to our culture, capice? When will islamphiles understand that they simply don't get it? No you idiots islam is NOT a religion of peace. Muslim and Islam are not the same thing silly gutmensch

a completely inoffensive name

06-08-2013, 01:14

Me, I want a quiet life - that's why I don't often voice just how loathsome and alien I find much of US political and social life.

You don't really know what the typical social life for Americans is....

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

06-08-2013, 02:06

You don't really know what the typical social life for Americans is....

I said "much" not "most", but here are a few things that baffle and/or terrify me.

1. Lack of professional Constabulary, mostly elected Law Enforcement.

2. Limited services outside municipal districts (remember the fire engine that turned up and watched a guy's house burn down because he wasn't covered?).

3. Lack of State-run healthcare.

4. Lack of understanding of the necessity of state-run healthcare.

5. Attitude to guns.

6. Attitude to handling of guns (as in, keeping loaded weapons out of gun safes with children around.)

That's my top six - the fact that things are the way they are tells me most Americans don't have a problem with most of this - which shows that Britain is much closer to Europe or Commonwealth countries than the US.

a completely inoffensive name

06-08-2013, 03:04

Alright, well much of the confusion is simply due to lack of knowledge regarding American history and culture. Let's just take a brief look at each thing.

1. Lack of professional Constabulary, mostly elected Law Enforcement.
Much of the issues regarding police in the US as pointed out by watchdogs like Crazed Rabbit is due to the effect of the War on Drugs which has been a major policy across all level of government for over thirty years. You have to understand that a lot of people were scared by the drug hay-day of the 1960s and 1970s which led to the creation of the War on Drugs. Then again in the late 1980s into the 1990s the crack cocaine epidemic once again scared a lot of people who worried that new, more powerful drugs were going to systematically destroy the fabric of society, at least in urban areas. What has happened has been a slow conditioning for the law enforcement officials and the prison system to make requests (increasingly absurd) under the banner of fighting the good fight. This coupled with the backlash against the anti-authority movements of the 1960s and 1970s (which were associated with rampant drug use) has made criticism of public servants (soldiers, firefighters, police etc...) very socially unacceptable. This is now why we are in the situation we have today. Socially the cops are Gods, and financially/politically they are.

2. Limited services outside municipal districts (remember the fire engine that turned up and watched a guy's house burn down because he wasn't covered?).
Such things are difficult to explain from an American to a European. it is no fault of your own, but you simply don't "get" the American mentality. Throughout American history, groups of people have strove to become self-reliant or independent from as many external influences as possible. In the modern society, this attitude has adapted into what is now popular libertarianism. This is where you get communities that have disestablished the traditional roles of government in favor of privatizing things like fire control. This kind of community wants to get as close to anarchy as possible that a strong wind could push over the council chambers and make it happen.

3. Lack of State-run healthcare.
Again, very long history that involves many battles between progressives asking for collective improvement with isolationists that wish for increased Federalism and self sufficiency.

4. Lack of understanding of the necessity of state-run healthcare.
This is a matter of opinion whether you want to admit it or not. Ultimately, you call it a necessity because your priority is on the public health as a whole. Many Americans disagree, which is why they do not argue for it. They understand as well as you do (well most people prob don't, but you get my point) and they simply reject it on more philosophical grounds.

5. Attitude to guns.
Threads upon threads of tired arguments about this and you have no clue about this at all? Do you just not bother to understand those you talk to?

6. Attitude to handling of guns (as in, keeping loaded weapons out of gun safes with children around.)
The gun community actually strictly lambastes people who don't practice proper gun safety. I don't expect you to know this though, because like me you don't know anything about the average gun owner unless you make the effort to go to the range with someone like I did.

Tuuvi

06-08-2013, 07:15

I said "much" not "most", but here are a few things that baffle and/or terrify me.

1. Lack of professional Constabulary, mostly elected Law Enforcement.

In my state you have to be certified as a peace officer before you can run as a sheriff. My own local sheriff has a pretty extensive background in law enforcement, just because we elect our Constables doesn't mean they're not professionals.

ACIN did pretty good job covering the rest, but I'd like to point out that there are regional differences in political beliefs and government across the US. In more liberal areas of the country you'll find plenty of people who support state-run healthcare, and are opposed to gun ownership. A lot of the horror stories you hear about police abuse, government incompetence, etc. are a result of local politics and management practices and don't represent the US as a whole.

HoreTore

06-11-2013, 21:36

So....

RVG is a Ba'athist now? Saddam appreciates your support.

rvg

06-11-2013, 21:57

RVG is a Ba'athist now? Saddam appreciates your support.

Saddam's dead, baby. Saddam's dead.

Kralizec

06-12-2013, 00:03

The Baath parties of Syria and Iraq didn't get along very well, you know...

Besides, it's perfectly possible to see Assad as the preferable option without being a fan of the guy or his family. In fact I'm leaning towards that direction myself. The best possible solution would be one where Assad leaves (in any way) and a stabile government takes it place which is somewhat democratic and usually respects the human rights of its residents. But I'm not that optimistic.

rvg

06-12-2013, 13:29

The best outcome would be for the rebels to win and install some kind of representative system, even if that system winds up being Islamist. At least that way, a few decades later when they're all regretting it, they'll have themselves to blame and not an outside oppressor...

Right, let's throw the minorities under the bus, after all it's not you who will be suffering under the islamist yoke. Great idea.

HoreTore

06-12-2013, 17:48

The Baath parties of Syria and Iraq didn't get along very well, you know...

The Ba'ath party has socialist revolutionary roots. If you can point to a single such group who hasn't fractured I will lick your boots clean.

The USSR split with China. Was there a terribly big difference between the internal politics in the two countries? Nope. Neither is there much of a difference between Assad and Saddam. Saddam adopted an "Iraq first"-policy which lead to aggressive foreign relations, but unless you're claiming support based on foreign policy(which rvg does not) that does not matter one bit.

Right, let's throw the minorities under the bus, after all it's not you who will be suffering under the islamist yoke. Great idea.

....And with that you just invalidated your own position, since it's certainly not you(and not your "group" either) who suffers under Assad's yoke.

rvg

06-12-2013, 17:55

...And with that you just invalidated your own position, since it's certainly not you(and not your "group" either) who suffers under Assad's yoke.

Under Assad everyone aside from Assad's inner circle is lacking in political rights. Everyone. If Assad is replaced by the islamist rabble, the minorities will suffer disproportionately. And when I say "suffer" I mean ethnic cleansing level of suffering.

HoreTore

06-12-2013, 18:00

Under Assad everyone aside from Assad's inner circle is lacking in political rights. Everyone. If Assad is replaced by the islamist rabble, the minorities will suffer disproportionately. And when I say "suffer" I mean ethnic cleansing level of suffering.

.....you mean like what Assad is trying to do to the rebels now?

rvg

06-12-2013, 18:09

.....you mean like what Assad is trying to do to the rebels now?

Killing rebels on the battlefield is not ethnic cleansing. If you wanna talk ethnic cleansing, let's discuss a specific example. Besides, aren't the rebels supposed to be the "good guys"? Why are you so eager to replace Assad with someone who is no better?

HoreTore

06-12-2013, 18:15

Killing rebels on the battlefield is not ethnic cleansing. If you wanna talk ethnic cleansing, let's discuss a specific example. Besides, aren't the rebels supposed to be the "good guys"? Why are you so eager to replace Assad with someone who is no better?

Over the years, and especially in my younger days, I've discussed and argued a lot with people who defend Stalin(and a few who defend Mao).

It amuses me to see you using the exact same arguments and logic as they do.

As for myself, I've gown tired of arguing with people who defend bloody and tyrannical mass-murderers. You get to a point where you just can't be bothered anymore. I limit myself to reading other people write of how they've argued with people who defend bloody and tyrannical mass-murderers.

rvg

06-12-2013, 18:20

Over the years, and especially in my younger days, I've discussed and argued a lot with people who defend Stalin(and a few who defend Mao).

It amuses me to see you using the exact same arguments and logic as they do.

As for myself, I've gown tired of arguing with people who defend bloody and tyrannical mass-murderers. You get to a point where you just can't be bothered anymore. I limit myself to reading other people write of how they've argued with people who defend bloody and tyrannical mass-murderers.

But of course, why bother with facts on the ground when labels are so much more convenient...

Rhyfelwyr

06-12-2013, 19:18

Sometimes you have to pick the lesser of two evils. In the case of Syria, I'm not sure which side is the lesser evil. It seems to me that the bulk of the fighting is concerned with tit-for-tat sectarian violence.

As for the West intervening, I think it is impossible to tell whether or not that would have a positive effect. If Syria got a relatively democratic and non-sectarian government out of it, great. But I think it is more likely that an outright Rebel victory would result in the hardline Salafists becoming the most powerful faction. It's all very well to say that Syrians will get sick of them in their own time, but as this conflict has shown, Syria is not a homogenous society. I'm not sure the Shiites would ever forgive the West if it put a Salafist faction in power - it would just increase tension in the whole Middle East and cause them to turn to Hezbollah and Iran.

HoreTore

06-12-2013, 19:23

Sometimes you have to pick the lesser of two evils. In the case of Syria, I'm not sure which side is the lesser evil. It seems to me that the bulk of the fighting is concerned with tit-for-tat sectarian violence.

That attitude was what turned the democratic spanish republicans into a force fully controlled by stalinists by the end of the war.

A movement becomes what we make it.

Still, there is never any need to support blood-drenched tyrants.

rvg

06-12-2013, 19:42

Still, there is never any need to support blood-drenched tyrants.

So, then why are you supporting the blood-drenched salafist murderers?

HoreTore

06-12-2013, 19:46

So, then why are you supporting the blood-drenched salafist murderers?

I am? That's news to me.

rvg

06-12-2013, 20:05

I am? That's news to me.

Sure you are. You want them to overthrow a secular tyrant, which will likely result in the subsequent genocide of the minorities. So, why do you want to kill the minorities in Syria?

HoreTore

06-12-2013, 20:09

Sure you are. You want them to overthrow a secular tyrant

Could you please point to the post where I express that wish?

rvg

06-12-2013, 20:16

You want Assad to lose, no? That means that the salafist opposition wins.

HoreTore

06-12-2013, 20:24

You want Assad to lose, no? That means that the salafist opposition wins.

I have said I do not support bloodsoaked tyrants like Assad. Nor do I support any religious opposition(or any religious group, period, actually).

Your argument is completely in line with every stalinist I have encountered. I do not see the stalinists as a great source of moral fibre.

rvg

06-12-2013, 20:30

I have said I do not support bloodsoaked tyrants like Assad. Nor do I support any religious opposition(or any religious group, period, actually).

Your argument is completely in line with every stalinist I have encountered. I do not see the stalinists as a great source of moral fibre.

You think I like Assad? No, I just hate the opposition more than him.

HoreTore

06-12-2013, 20:44

You think I like Assad? No, I just hate the opposition more than him.

Yet you excuse his behaviour by pointing out that "those guys are bastards too", just like any good commie will do when faced with the repression of Ukranians in the USSR(they supported the whites, who are worse, so they had to die).

I don't see how Syria is more polarized today than the USSR was in 1920, yet I see absolutely no reason to support either the reds or the whites. The democratic opposition exists, and are crying for your attention before they're all gunned down by both extremes.

Rhyfelwyr

06-12-2013, 21:00

That attitude was what turned the democratic spanish republicans into a force fully controlled by stalinists by the end of the war.

A movement becomes what we make it.

Right... but in Syria things have been at that stage for a long time. The Stalinists/Salafists have been running the show and tbh they took over right from the beginning because they were the only viable fighting force available to the rebels - handing out weapons alone does not create a serious fighting force.

I do remember reading that a lot of young fighters joined the Islamists because the Free Syrian Army lacked weapons - I'll grant that if we acted earlier then the secular FSA-elements might have become dominant on the rebel side - but there's no way we can know for sure. At the end of the day, the very nature of the conflict creates a vicious cycle of sectarian violence and sectarian division, so the opposing forces will naturally divide themselves along such lines and see the conflict in those terms.

Still, there is never any need to support blood-drenched tyrants.

Even if, in failing to do so, they are replaced with even worse tyrants?

I do sympathise with your position here since I think in the long-term it is the best way, but you have to at least be aware of the short-term drawbacks in terms of practical outcomes.

rvg

06-12-2013, 21:51

Yet you excuse his behaviour by pointing out that "those guys are bastards too", just like any good commie will do when faced with the repression of Ukranians in the USSR(they supported the whites, who are worse, so they had to die).
What the heck are you talking about?

I don't see how Syria is more polarized today than the USSR was in 1920, yet I see absolutely no reason to support either the reds or the whites. The democratic opposition exists, and are crying for your attention before they're all gunned down by both extremes.
The Russian civil war after WW1 was purely ideological. It had little to do with religion or ethnicity.

HoreTore

06-12-2013, 22:25

Right... but in Syria things have been at that stage for a long time. The Stalinists/Salafists have been running the show and tbh they took over right from the beginning because they were the only viable fighting force available to the rebels - handing out weapons alone does not create a serious fighting force.

I do remember reading that a lot of young fighters joined the Islamists because the Free Syrian Army lacked weapons - I'll grant that if we acted earlier then the secular FSA-elements might have become dominant on the rebel side - but there's no way we can know for sure. At the end of the day, the very nature of the conflict creates a vicious cycle of sectarian violence and sectarian division, so the opposing forces will naturally divide themselves along such lines and see the conflict in those terms.

It is my clear understanding that Syria was botched from the very beginning. I do agree with you that the state of the current opposition is very much(at least too much) like the republicans in 1937/8.

Even if, in failing to do so, they are replaced with even worse tyrants?

I do sympathise with your position here since I think in the long-term it is the best way, but you have to at least be aware of the short-term drawbacks in terms of practical outcomes.

And what is the short-term drawback of supporting Assad? There is likely to be yet another mid-east uprising soon(or already - Turkey), and they are now even clearer that the west won't even provide moral support, let alone any material support.

By judging these events on an individual basis, I believe we are digging ourselves further and further into the mud. Every time we fail to give clear support of the opposition out of the fear that one of the shadier groups will seize the opposition, we make it more and more likely that the next opposition will end up exactly like that. A spiral, if you will, and it must be broken. The hardliners won't do it, the democratic opposition can't do it - and so it falls to the wider international democratic society to do it.

What the heck are you talking about?

The Russian civil war after WW1 was purely ideological. It had little to do with religion or ethnicity.

And you believe class struggle has less potential for murder than religion or racism? But you are wrong, of course, the russian civil war was also about ethnicity(cossacks, ukranians, caucasians) and religion(eastern orthodoxy, atheism).

Anyway, allow me to elaborate on the part you didn't understand fully:

You support Assad's regime. Your support is based on the fear of what you perceive the opposition to be, and the actions you believe they will take should they win. Correct?

The early slaughters of the USSR(the civil war dead) is a quite common criticism of the USSR. The argument against the USSR is the extremes they took against their enemies, mostly located in the south of Russia(north of the black sea - cossacks and ukranians). A proper Stalinist will reply by saying that the killings were completely justified. He will point to the Cossack loyalty to the Tsar and the curent(at the time) loyalty of the population in the areas in question to the White army. He will state, as is correct, that the White army had committed severe atrocities, including numerous pogroms, before and during the civil war. He will liken the white army to the later Nazi's(something I consider correct as well), and claim that if they had been victorious, they would've carried out far worse acts than Lenin did, and that these acts would be targeted against groups they identify with(workers and jews). In addition, they will point out that 20 years later, many of their descendants supported the Nazi invasion. Thus, the stalinist argues, the massacres of soldiers and civilians was entirely justified, as it prevented an even greater massacre than the one Lenin was responsible for.

In my opinion, this is a logical fallacy, a means becoming an end and a romantization of genocide. Do you see the similarity with your argument?

rvg

06-13-2013, 04:41

And you believe class struggle has less potential for murder than religion or racism? But you are wrong, of course, the russian civil war was also about ethnicity(cossacks, ukranians, caucasians) and religion(eastern orthodoxy, atheism).
If you're such an expert on Russian history, perhaps you could provide an example of a civil war massacre done by the Red Army to a specific ethnic/religious group?

Anyway, allow me to elaborate on the part you didn't understand fully:

You support Assad's regime. Your support is based on the fear of what you perceive the opposition to be, and the actions you believe they will take should they win. Correct?

The early slaughters of the USSR(the civil war dead) is a quite common criticism of the USSR. The argument against the USSR is the extremes they took against their enemies, mostly located in the south of Russia(north of the black sea - cossacks and ukranians).
Once again, where's your evidence? Especially when it comes to the Ukranians. Both Cossacks and Ukranians were deeply divided and both groups fought on both sides as well as against the German occupation of Ukraine. You're oversimplifying the situation without knowing all the facts. Repressions against both groups came much later (in the 1930s), and they had nothing to do with the civil war. Ukraine and the Don region (the cossack homeland) had large numbers of rich landed farmers, who didn't like Stalin's idea of collectivization. By that time the civil war was old news.

A proper Stalinist will reply by saying that the killings were completely justified. He will point to the Cossack loyalty to the Tsar and the curent(at the time) loyalty of the population in the areas in question to the White army.
Russian civil war has little to do with Stalin. He was a minor party figure at that time, he didn't make the policy. He was basically an opportunistic nobody who only sprung up as Lenin's physical condition began to deteriorate.

He will state, as is correct, that the White army had committed severe atrocities, including numerous pogroms, before and during the civil war. He will liken the white army to the later Nazi's(something I consider correct as well), and claim that if they had been victorious, they would've carried out far worse acts than Lenin did, and that these acts would be targeted against groups they identify with(workers and jews). In addition, they will point out that 20 years later, many of their descendants supported the Nazi invasion. Thus, the stalinist argues, the massacres of soldiers and civilians was entirely justified, as it prevented an even greater massacre than the one Lenin was responsible for.

In my opinion, this is a logical fallacy, a means becoming an end and a romantization of genocide. Do you see the similarity with your argument?

There is no similarity with my argument. None. I do not argue for the genocide of the rebels. I merely argue for not letting them win.

Fragony

07-01-2013, 11:39

Lulz, catholic priest beheaded in Syria by rebels. People who read quality media can't have heard of it for obvious reasons, well yeah let's send more weapons. Leftist people know, for a fact, that it's an Arab spring. Who does know better by now, at least one knew better for an agonising minute. No you idiots. Islam is not peace it's a sadistic ideoligy and you lefties can bambi-eye it all you want, it is what it is and it will remain what it is.

Go Assad

rvg

07-02-2013, 13:53

This kind of news does not get nearly as much coverage as it should.

Rhyfelwyr

07-02-2013, 16:54

I still wouldn't go so far as to champion either side, but more and more news of rebel atrocities does seem to be coming through.

The latest is shooting a boy in the face for blaspheming God (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23139784).

Fisherking

07-02-2013, 17:04

You know there is good reason to keep a hands off approach to this one.

I think both sides could easily be called the bad guys and there a’int no good guys playing in this one.

Sir Moody

07-02-2013, 17:41

as I have said before the entire war is one big example of "damned if you do, damned if you don't"

If we back the rebels we will be supporting the next Afghanistan, if we support the current regime we are effectively saying we are willing to back blood soaked dictators (I mean i know we do but actually outright saying it) and if we do nothing the 2 sides will brutally massacre each other until either one side wins or the entire region joins in...

I don't see a winning solution to this...

rvg

07-02-2013, 17:42

I don't see a winning solution to this...
Kill Everyone?

Sarmatian

07-02-2013, 18:47

I don't see a winning solution to this...

Stay out of it?

The moment you get involved, everything that goes wrong is your fault.

Fisherking

07-02-2013, 19:34

Sarmatian

07-02-2013, 19:43

It is good advice but it still doesn’t work.

The west will get the blame, in or out. Of course it is best to stay out, it simply costs less in both blood and treasure, but escaping blame? Someone will blame you no matter what happens. Real or not.

Not even remotely similar. If the West doesn't get involved, some, usually the losing side will assign the blame, but in general, it will be relegated to intelectual discussions. If the West does get involved, the common people will be the ones who hold the grudge, regardless of the outcome.

Sir Moody

07-02-2013, 20:14

if we don't get involved we will be blamed for the bloodshed caused by the winning side or worse if this develops into region wide war we will be blamed for not stopping it earlier...

staying out is the best option for us you are right but we will get the blame whatever happens and the worse the outcome the more blame we will get... that of course is the problem we (the west) have created by behaving like the worlds policeman and meddling in so many affairs

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-03-2013, 02:31

Not even remotely similar. If the West doesn't get involved, some, usually the losing side will assign the blame, but in general, it will be relegated to intelectual discussions. If the West does get involved, the common people will be the ones who hold the grudge, regardless of the outcome.

Disagree - Middle Eastern hatred of the US is based more on what the US has not done. Libyans love NATO - Syrians feel abandoned by the "Free" world.

The logic here is inescapable - if we kept backing democratic movements - other democratic movements will spring up, then we back those. However, we spent most of the cold war backing "stable" regimes, local strong men who would back our regional plays provided we gave them a means to oppress their own people.

As a result, we have alienated the democratic movements that aspire to the sort of society we enjoy.

If dictators knew that when they oppressed and brutalised their people B-52 bombers would drop incendiaries on their palaces, they would discover a sudden love of democracy. It's not a difficult concept - the monsters are craven, offer then the choice of death or abdication and they'll abdicate.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-03-2013, 04:36

This isn't rocket surgery. If you consistently back democratic movements, you'll create support for democratic movements. If you claim to back democratic movements and are anything but consistent, of course its going to tick people off. Freedom and democracy is an academic discussion for most of us, but for the folks living in Syria (or Iraq, still, for that matter) this is life and death stuff. Of course they're mad.

Couldn't have put it better myself. I'll just add that there's always a lot of harking back to how we did it wrong in the past, and therefore how we should take no part. Seems an odd lesson to learn from your mistakes.

Montmorency

07-03-2013, 04:42

I'll just add that there's always a lot of harking back to how we did it wrong in the past, and therefore how we should take no part.

So the answer is to literally be the world's policeman, to play the role to a greater extent than in even, say, WW2, to expend whatever's left of the treasury (hey, maybe we could just depose the CCP while we're at it?), to reinstate the draft and commit every last drop of our blood to 'improving' the world in our image? Jesus, even George Bush would tell you to wise up.

There simply is no "right" way or "right" answer, so to do anything would be no more than doing it wrong in the present. Moving to install functioning democracies in literally every state that doesn't meet some arbitrary criteria for democraticality is - please tell me I'm misunderstanding you.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-03-2013, 04:57

So the answer is to literally be the world's policeman, to play the role to a greater extent than in even, say, WW2, to expend whatever's left of the treasury (hey, maybe we could just depose the CCP while we're at it?), to reinstate the draft and commit every last drop of our blood to 'improving' the world in our image? Jesus, even George Bush would tell you to wise up.

There simply is no "right" way or "right" answer, so to do anything would be no more than doing it wrong in the present. Moving to install functioning democracies in literally every state that doesn't meet some arbitrary criteria for democraticality is - please tell me I'm misunderstanding you.

Remove the Tyrant when the People rise up - a worse Tyrant replaces him, remove that one.

The "Right" answer is to remove Assad - and then drop 50,000 UN troops on the Country for the next decade. Doing nothing, letting a popular revolt against a dictator be crushed, that is unequivocally wrong. More, it is shameful and cowardly.

But hey - you're right. It was wrong for Britain to declare War against the Nazi's, when they had specifically said they wanted only Mainland Europe. There's ample evidence that after World War I both then Nazi's and the German General Staff had no desire to fight the British Empire, with it's massive reserves of manpower and it's de-centralised manufacturing that made it virtually impossible to stop us producing rifles and tanks, even if getting them to the front would have been hard.

I mean - hell - if we'd declared ourselves neutral the Two Great Powers now would, even money, be Britain and either Germany or the US.

Assad and his ilk are cut from the same basic cloth as Adolf Hitler - the difference is that opossing Assad is much easier and cheaper.

Montmorency

07-03-2013, 05:09

letting a popular revolt

First of all...

More, it is shameful and cowardly.

Here I put on my rvg-face.

But hey - you're right. It was wrong for Britain to declare War against the Nazi's, when they had specifically said they wanted only Mainland Europe. There's ample evidence that after World War I both then Nazi's and the German General Staff had no desire to fight the British Empire, with it's massive reserves of manpower and it's de-centralised manufacturing that made it virtually impossible to stop us producing rifles and tanks, even if getting them to the front would have been hard.

I mean - hell - if we'd declared ourselves neutral the Two Great Powers now would, even money, be Britain and either Germany or the US.

So, now you're talking about something completely different? To what purpose, exactly?

Assad and his ilk are cut from the same basic cloth as Adolf Hitler

Huh, and I figured Assad was just your run-of-the-mill dictator. Have there been discovered plans for the domination of the Middle East, from Tangiers to Samarkand, or something?

the difference is that opossing Assad is much easier and cheaper.

Nevertheless, the point is that -

Remove the Tyrant when the People rise up - a worse Tyrant replaces him, remove that one...50,000 UN troops on the Country for the next decade

- the necessary means to hold down Syria, let alone every remotely similar country in the world, simply do not exist. And even if the will did exist among the West to indefinitely militarize their society to unprecedented levels to 'police' the world, I seriously doubt that China and Russia, among others, would (assuming they're not themselves targets of this incredible Western frenzy) permit, let alone fund it.

Forget moral dimensions - I figured you for a realist, so think in terms of feasibility. This is honestly some of the wildest pie-in-the-sky nonsense I've heard on this forum in a while, and I certainly did not expect to hear it from you.

Weren't you against the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan? What's up? I didn't take you for the biggest neo-con or Wilsonian in the world...

Brenus

07-03-2013, 07:29

Papewaio

07-03-2013, 10:24

There is a 0.5% chance the west will send in troops.

rvg

07-03-2013, 13:57

There is a 0.5% chance the west will send in troops.
It really needs to be zero. I find this whole "let's help Al-Qaeda take over Syria" line of thought quite bizarre.

Montmorency

07-03-2013, 15:45

let's help Al-Qaeda take over Syria

It's more of a 'indefinitely occupy the country no matter the cost and kill everyone who resists until things calm down and the inhabitants get the good sense to imitate stable Western liberal democracy'.

:freak:

Papewaio

07-04-2013, 06:48

It really needs to be zero. I find this whole "let's help Al-Qaeda take over Syria" line of thought quite bizarre.

Did you see what happened to both the PLA and Hamas popularity once they were put in government. Best way to become unpopular is to be in charge.

The 0.5% still stands.

rvg

07-04-2013, 15:56

Did you see what happened to both the PLA and Hamas popularity once they were put in government. Best way to become unpopular is to be in charge.

The 0.5% still stands.

Putting them in charge allows them to do damage. So no, they shouldn't get anywhere near the seat of power.

Papewaio

07-04-2013, 21:24

They already do damage. See what's happening with Turkey and Eygpt... If the leaders are too religious the locals get annoyed with them very quickly. Only way to avoid that is either deliver economic benefits or lots of police.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-05-2013, 01:17

“I mean - hell - if we'd declared ourselves neutral the Two Great Powers now would, even money, be Britain and either Germany or the US.” No need to answer, but you think Japan wouldn’t have attack Singapore? And you really thing that Hitler and his allies would have defeat USSR?

I think that the Germans *might* have beat the USSR - without Commonwealth material support the Northern European and Mediterranean fronts would have required less of a commitment, possibly allowing the Germans to attack earlier in the year, in which case there's a good chance they would have broken Russia's back.

If Japan had attacked Singapore while the British Fleet was not tied down in the Atlantic, and Australian troops were not needing to be shunted around to other theaters, they either would have failed to take the port, or to hold it.

World War I and World War II ruined Britain and France, but it was the aftermath of WWII that nailed the coffin shut on the British Empire.

rvg

07-29-2013, 19:30

Looks like Assad's forces are steadily gaining the upper hand (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23488855). Finally some good news. Hopefully this will all be over with sooner rather than later: Syria desperately needs peace.

Beskar

07-30-2013, 01:45

Syria would have got peace if Assad stepped down. So yeah... Mandate of the People and all of that.

rvg

07-30-2013, 01:58

Syria would have got peace if Assad stepped down...

If.

Fragony

07-30-2013, 03:16

Syria would have got peace if Assad stepped down. So yeah... Mandate of the People and all of that.

Who do you think the rebels are? God forbid Assad's forces lose..

a completely inoffensive name

07-30-2013, 03:57

I don't care who is in charge as long as they are not religious fundamentalists. Liberal democracies are the ideal, but the Bush administration proved that it cannot be done with the current culture that permeates the region.

That being said, the US should stay out of it completely unless the radical Islamists are set to take control.

Fragony

07-30-2013, 08:05

I don't care who is in charge as long as they are not religious fundamentalists.

Well take a chair, I got to tell you something. The rebels are religious fundamentalists.

a completely inoffensive name

07-30-2013, 08:29

Well take a chair, I got to tell you something. The rebels are religious fundamentalists.

Yes they are, I hope the US drops their support for them. The way you phrased that reply made me chuckle quite a bit by the way.

Montmorency

07-30-2013, 10:18

Fragony

07-30-2013, 10:45

Not all the rebels are fundamentalists obviously.

Anyway, the UN should just hurry up and recognize a 3-way partition of Syria. It's already a fact and it's not going to change without someone's direct intervention.

You know them? There are hundreds of Dutch jihadis there and they get killed on daily bases, which I kinda like, adieu. But also from England and Belgium et France. What these people have in mind isn't exactly what I want for the normal folks in Syria, I wish them nothing but a good life and this isn't it.

Sarmatian

07-30-2013, 11:24

Syria would have got peace if Assad stepped down. So yeah... Mandate of the People and all of that.

That is highly debatable.

Fisherking

07-30-2013, 12:25

Syria would have got peace if Assad stepped down. So yeah... Mandate of the People and all of that.

Why would Syria be different from the other countries who had uprising during the Arab Spring?

Egypt is not doing so well. Libya and Tunisia have plenty of problems.

Unless you think that assignations, murders, and jail breaks are just part of the road to democracy.

In Syria we see murders and abuse of minorities, particularly religious minorities. Is that a peoples movement? Kill your neighbor because he is different, very democratic isn’t it.

Fragony

07-30-2013, 14:32

Seeing it all over, the islamists who are so deeply admired by leftist intellectuals are just sadistic scum with little more in mind than the extermination of everything that doesn't suit them. We should be the ones killing them, and yes I understand the irony in that. But you all know it's true. Even more irony for the connaiseur, glad you have it

Sarmatian

07-30-2013, 19:40

rvg

07-30-2013, 20:31

Anyway, the UN should just hurry up and recognize a 3-way partition of Syria.
What good would that do?

It's already a fact and it's not going to change without someone's direct intervention.
Oh, it's going to change with someone's intervention or without.

Montmorency

07-30-2013, 20:53

I'll lay it out:

The coast is ruled by Assad, more or less.

The north-east is ruled by Kurds, absolutely.

The rest is firmly in rebel hands.

Support Assad publicly on the condition that he agrees to the partition on the map - as noted it already exists in practice.

Partition goes through and everyone gets what they want except Assad himself (but he's in no position to raise a fuss) and the more moderate rebels in the center.

The Turks, Iraqis, and Iranians get nervous about the Kurds but you know what, might as well give the Kurds a bone here. The Kurds are fairly secular, and could well be our friends if were to give them this political boost. Who cares if Iraq and Iran get pissed about the Kurds anyway? As for Turkey, they ought to come around once they leave their Islamist phase.

On the coast, Assad gets to stop the killing and continue his dictatorship peacefully, just as the majority of his Alawites and other minorities prefer. Plus, a coast-only Syria would be significantly weaker and so would never really trouble anyone again. Additionally, he owes us one for turning down the heat and perhaps even lending some support against the more tenacious rebels of the west. Let the tourists flow in once more.

Middle Syria becomes some kind of fundamentalist haven and terrorist training ground, but not before a meta civil war between moderates and jihadis. Let them fight it out, but support the moderates where possible. Put forth the possibility of Assad one day regaining Greater Syria (minus Kurdish Syria) if he invests his military and security apparatus into keeping down the Islamic Wasteland of whatever (once the kooks win). Drones come in to keep a good eye on things. Hopefully, after a few years of brutal suppression by neighbors and painful subjugation to extremists the regular folk will once more get the guts to rise up, and subsequently kick them out. Between Assad, the Kurds, and Jordan, the surviving 'terrorists' flee into Iraq which has anyway been taken over by fundamentalists (outside the cities). At that point, we're still looking at a decent outcome (aside from all the civilian deaths and war crimes/human rights abuses, but, you know...)

How's that for realism? Of course, it won't happen because it goes against the principles of the UN and all that, but I bet this solution would be pretty kickass if given a chance.

Oh, it's going to change with someone's intervention or without.

Assad simply does not have the strength to take back the rest of Syria ATM, and I really don't think he would want to take on both the rebels and the Kurds full-on. At this rate, a few more years and there will just be a ceasefire agreement recognizing the final divisions and boom - Syria is effectively split in three, just as I laid out. In my version above, of course, the West gets more leverage and can finetune the situation to a greater extent.

Rhyfelwyr

07-30-2013, 21:33

Couldn't that be done in a less radical way? I'm not sure carving Syria up would do wonders for its stability. If you remove the national institutions/bureaucracy, the three new states would have to build up their entire infrastructure from scratch. I don't think this is the best time to be doing that, since Assad and the Army would have free reign along the coast, and as you said there would be a new civil war in the heartland with Jihadis v the moderate FSA.

If the solution is made at an all-Syria level, then everybody has to compromise, rather than carving out personal fiefdoms. Granting autonomy could work on some level - surely the case of the Kurds in Iraq is a good example of just how successful this can be. They get the benefits of autonomy without the upheaval of outright independence.

Montmorency

07-30-2013, 21:56

:shrug:

Assad can not simply regain all his lost ground, not with his current resources, not unless sudden fatigue grips all the rebels or they prematurely fall into debilitating internal strife.

And if in a few years this continues to hold true, we will see the Kurds sitting pretty and the rebels still strong in the heartland. The latter and Assad will be exhausted, and eventually both will cling to one of the UN's motions toward peace. There will be international ceasefire talks...

Who at that point would be able to convince the rebels to accept Assad's hegemony once more? The rebels will have accomplished too much in a country too small, for the old 'lay down your arms and reintegrate into society' scheme to work out here.

I'm confident that partition of some sort will be the outcome regardless of Western intervention (short of the 'catastrophic land invasion in support of the rebels' scenario), and so tweaking things to our best advantage in light of this is just good sense.

Sarmatian

07-30-2013, 21:56

I'll lay it out:

The coast is ruled by Assad, more or less.

The north-east is ruled by Kurds, absolutely.

The rest is firmly in rebel hands.

Support Assad publicly on the condition that he agrees to the partition on the map - as noted it already exists in practice.

Partition goes through and everyone gets what they want except Assad himself (but he's in no position to raise a fuss) and the more moderate rebels in the center.

The Turks, Iraqis, and Iranians get nervous about the Kurds but you know what, might as well give the Kurds a bone here. The Kurds are fairly secular, and could well be our friends if were to give them this political boost. Who cares if Iraq and Iran get pissed about the Kurds anyway? As for Turkey, they ought to come around once they leave their Islamist phase.

On the coast, Assad gets to stop the killing and continue his dictatorship peacefully, just as the majority of his Alawites and other minorities prefer. Plus, a coast-only Syria would be significantly weaker and so would never really trouble anyone again. Additionally, he owes us one for turning down the heat and perhaps even lending some support against the more tenacious rebels of the west. Let the tourists flow in once more.

Middle Syria becomes some kind of fundamentalist haven and terrorist training ground, but not before a meta civil war between moderates and jihadis. Let them fight it out, but support the moderates where possible. Put forth the possibility of Assad one day regaining Greater Syria (minus Kurdish Syria) if he invests his military and security apparatus into keeping down the Islamic Wasteland of whatever (once the kooks win). Drones come in to keep a good eye on things. Hopefully, after a few years of brutal suppression by neighbors and painful subjugation to extremists the regular folk will once more get the guts to rise up, and subsequently kick them out. Between Assad, the Kurds, and Jordan, the surviving 'terrorists' flee into Iraq which has anyway been taken over by fundamentalists (outside the cities). At that point, we're still looking at a decent outcome (aside from all the civilian deaths and war crimes/human rights abuses, but, you know...)

How's that for realism? Of course, it won't happen because it goes against the principles of the UN and all that, but I bet this solution would be pretty kickass if given a chance.

Assad simply does not have the strength to take back the rest of Syria ATM, and I really don't think he would want to take on both the rebels and the Kurds full-on. At this rate, a few more years and there will just be a ceasefire agreement recognizing the final divisions and boom - Syria is effectively split in three, just as I laid out. In my version above, of course, the West gets more leverage and can finetune the situation to a greater extent.

Fantastic ideas!

But it won't work, naturally.

rvg

07-30-2013, 22:40

Middle Syria becomes some kind of fundamentalist haven and terrorist training ground, but not before a meta civil war between moderates and jihadis. Let them fight it out, but support the moderates where possible. Put forth the possibility of Assad one day regaining Greater Syria (minus Kurdish Syria) if he invests his military and security apparatus into keeping down the Islamic Wasteland of whatever (once the kooks win). Drones come in to keep a good eye on things. Hopefully, after a few years of brutal suppression by neighbors and painful subjugation to extremists the regular folk will once more get the guts to rise up, and subsequently kick them out. Between Assad, the Kurds, and Jordan, the surviving 'terrorists' flee into Iraq which has anyway been taken over by fundamentalists (outside the cities). At that point, we're still looking at a decent outcome (aside from all the civilian deaths and war crimes/human rights abuses, but, you know...)

How's that for realism? Of course, it won't happen because it goes against the principles of the UN and all that, but I bet this solution would be pretty kickass if given a chance.

This is the solution? How is it different from the problem?

Fragony

07-31-2013, 06:04

parroting present participle of par·rot

Verb
Repeat mechanically: "parroting back information".

Eat your heart out

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/eat_one's_heart_out

Rebels don't get it's meaning, they actually do it

Papewaio

07-31-2013, 23:10

Don't support anyone unless they come out swinging for secular democracy.

Install your own strongman is so 20th century.
Supporting inter-tribal warfare is so 19th century.

Intervene against war crimes if you want. But I'd wait till there is a 'winner' and than clamp down on them.

Odds on any real intervention still run at 0.5%

Montmorency

07-31-2013, 23:31

Jockeying for advantage is alive and well, however.

If all you want is to prevent human-rights abuses, just convince the UN's member-states to imbue the UN with massive new rights, powers, and obligations.

Fragony

08-01-2013, 06:30

Can't argue with that

PanzerJaeger

08-03-2013, 19:55

Where is Lemur with his blame Obama .gif? Declaring our support for the rebels was quite possibly his worst foreign policy decision as of yet, a completely unprompted blunder that is only being compounded by his lack of willingness to follow through on it. I cannot imagine why he would choose to come out so publicly and subject the US to such a difficult and unnecessary test of our national prestige versus China/Russia. This is a chosen battle, not one thrust on us, and our chosen team is being led and manned primarily by the same Muslim fundamentalists we've spent billions fighting for over a decade. And we haven't even begun to fully understand how this decision will play out in the greater Sunni-Shia conflict. Where once we had an enemy in Sunni Islamists, now we have invited and justified Shia retaliation by essentially choosing sides in a conflict that has been ongoing far longer than the US has been in existence among a group of peoples with a very long memory and a propensity to hold centuries-old grudges. It boggles the mind.

I'm torn on Syria. Assad, a stable, secular, and largely benevolent authoritarian, is clearly the preferable choice in this conflict. And yet, now that we've thrown our lot in with al-Nusra, they had better win the damned thing. The only thing worse than throwing our lot in with the Sunni Islamists is throwing our lot in and then losing, and yet Obama seems unable or unwilling to follow through on his promises of support. Every city, town, and neighborhood Assad's forces retake is a new and enduring display of US weakness in the region and on the world stage.

Papewaio

08-04-2013, 02:07

Or it is cunning plan to make the rebels over extend and be easily finished.

Yeah, that's it. :smoking:

HopAlongBunny

08-04-2013, 03:16

Lets you and him fight.

Sarmatian

08-04-2013, 08:59