Printable View
I don’t know how reliable this item is: http://friendsofsyria.wordpress.com/...a-with-actors/
It is not the first time CNN has been accused of manipulating the news using Crises Actors though.
Also a report in a different vane: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...403930571.html
Yeah, Communism was a blast.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
BRING BACK THE SOVIETS
The reason why Yugoslavians and Syrians have to worry about keeping their children fed and warm while I don't isn't because we Norwegians are genetically superior, nor is it "western influence". It is because Yugoslavia was ruled by Tito and Syria was ruled by Assad. The dictatorship is the reason for poverty, and so keeping the dictators is not at all the way to ensure your kids are happy and fed.
And there is one single person responsible for the current bloodbath in Syria: Assad, and Assad alone. No-one else is responsible for it.
Probably referring to this guyQuote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4a9_1377562800
Yeah, right.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Tito took what was comparative to backwater 19th century Ottoman vilayet and in a few decades transformed it into a first world country. 33 years after his death, we have democrats who are still trying to figure out how to tie their shoe-laces (when they're not stealing, of course).
Give me back my dictator and take all my democrats. Actually, send them to Syria. That will hurt Syria more than an American invasion.
“to tell you that a disciplined force is required to do what was done.” No. No weapon needs a disciplined force in order to be used. You rule out the Rebels without good reason, and this one is really not a good one. I was in the infantry, but with a technical book I could have use a chemical weapon.
“ You want to say Army units broke off and did it? Fine, but that's a game-changer. You want to say terrorists did it? Fine, but that's also a game-changer.” You misunderstood me. I am not an Assad’s supporter, we are probably few who know about his father and the repression lead by his Uncle long time ago. What I am against is the over-simplification. And what if the Rebels did used Chemical, or what if they will use these kinds of weapons? Will you agree to bomb them?
“Nothing like dictatorial apologists.” Ahh, great that Stalin and Hitler ever existed…
“Sarmatian believes in dictatorships. He has always defended whoever stood with Slobodan Milosevic against the American intervention. Dude loves Russia. The only way his positions could seem even remotely sensible is if you knew that he was a Serb. He is the equivalent of a Ba'athist. Of course the wolf hates the shepherd.” I can’t stop to admire plain ignorance when shown and shines like this…
“No, I'm from a safe country where people of all backgrounds can say what they'd like and find a job” I believed you were living in the USA.
Well, not all dictators are created equal. Some argue that without Stalin, the Soviet Union would not have been prepared for WW2, to which the counter is that Stalin's economic and military incompetence nearly cost the Soviets WW2.
Hey, maybe if Trotsky had won out in the 20s, he would have started WW2 himself to take over Central Europe, and today the Soviet Union would be the leading world-power. :shrug: :mellow:
You are a fascist. We all get it. Dictatorships are great, sure they areQuote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
I don't get itQuote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
You are being really unfair and inconsiderate imho
Just posting this in between the mud-flinging:
A former British Muslim extremist on the UK's decision to back off from Syria
First world country? luwat?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
As backwater as it always has been. Tito was extremely good at torturing, killing and indoctrinating his subjects, what a delightful guy to bring back. But I suppose it doesn't really matter when you're not the one rotting in the torture dungeon, eh?
The USSR wasn't prepared for ww2.... At all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Trotskij was a fanatic. I have little doubt he would've started ww2, but he would've lost it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
"You are a fascist. We all get it." Apparently not as you obviously have no idea what fascism is...:book2:
Sarmatian - "Give me back my dictator and take all my democrats."Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
He is serious. Sarmatian is a supporter of brutal authoritarian nationalism. After the fall of communism in Yugoslavia and the defeat of the Serbs in the civil war, calling the Serbian government anything other than Fascist wouldn't be doing it justice. My point is that I'm not surprised that he would be a supporter of the Ba'athists in Syria. It matches his worldview. I've never viewed fascism and communism as far apart in governmental style. I would challenge those who suggest that they are not similar to the point of confusion.
Not everyone who is against intervention is overtly in favor of Assad, but Sarmatian is. To be honest, Frag, over the years you've been drawn to radical fascism as well, albeit of a different hue.
Fascism, like so many other political terms, have been given a huge number of possible meanings. Keeping it "original" and only applying it to Mussolini's regime and those directly inspired by him isn't very helpful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
While I would personally add a certain level of desire for a revolutionary change before I called someone a fascist, I have no problems with people who refer to hard-line dictators as fascists.
You're speaking out of ignorance.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
1970's and 80's Yugoslavia was a first world country by any standard. GDP per capita, life expectancy, literacy rate, infant mortality rate, industrial development, infrastructure, quality of education...
I'm not saying dictatorships are better than democracies, but I am saying that particular dictatorship was better than this democracy.
No, no, no. I'm a commie-nazi.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Well, your system is closer to a dictatorship than mine. Actually, nowhere else in the developed world you have a position which combines the powers of the head of state and head of government.Quote:
Dictatorships are great, sure they are
Fascism is anti-revolutionary. It's aim is to defend existing class interests and suppress worker organisation through violent action and co-opting of the military and police. It often uses a revolutionary style to appeal to the working class, but seeks to entrench existing power, not overthrow it.
Ah yes, I forgot about those days back when the young brilliant minds of Britain ditched Oxbridge to go study at Vojzxzwzxzwch Academy in Yugoslavia....Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
I actually do have a few propaganda books on how brilliant the revolution in Yugoslavia(and Albania, of course) was, funny how none of those mentioned the torture dungeons, system of informers or police brutality....
But I guess that a first world quality country wouldn't need any torture dungeons to keep their populations from revolting, so obviously Yugoslavia didn't have any, right?
Another common usage, but not one I agree with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Hitler and Mussolini wanted a clean(meaning revolutionary) break with the current political climate in order to root out what they deemed as "decadent modernism"(best exemplified by Hitler's "Museum of Disgusting Art" or whatever he called it). They didn't want to overthrow the power structure as such, but they did want a complete break with the current system of their time in order to reshape it as they wanted.
To me, that component is vital in classifying the various right-wing groups today. Those who want a clean break with modernism(again, best exemplified by opposition to abstract art) and the "decadent west" earns the label "fascists", while those who just want extreme measures within the current culture gains the label "right-wing".
Well, I'm sure that brilliant minds of Britain aren't going to study in Norway. Does that disqualify Norway from first world country club? And, believe it or not, there were cases of people from western Europe studying in Yugoslavia.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
No, there weren't super quality universities for super smart or super rich, your Harvards or Yales, it was all public education, but it was comparable or better than public education in the western world, depending on the country. Worse than some, also true, but on the whole, comparable.
Comparing communist Yugoslavia and communist Albania is like comparing South and North Korea.Quote:
I actually do have a few propaganda books on how brilliant the revolution in Yugoslavia(and Albania, of course) was, funny how none of those mentioned the torture dungeons, system of informers or police brutality....
Like Guantanamo? Are you now excluding both USA and Norway from first world countries?Quote:
But I guess that a first world quality country wouldn't need any torture dungeons to keep their populations from revolting, so obviously Yugoslavia didn't have any, right?
That can be said of every single country in the Eastern Bloc, and there's still a reason why you're referred to as the "Second World"(or craphole, whatever you like).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
I wasn't comparing. But when you pick up books from one, you tend to pick up books from the other as well. Well, I guess the Maoists stay clear of the Tito-stuff, but I was affiliated with the Stalinist party, so...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Ah yes, you can always rely on the supporters of brutal mass-murderers to point their finger at some (in comparison) minor bad stuff happening with the US...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
For the record though, Gitmo is for non-US citizens. No wonder they're pissed, they're not allowed to take part in the glory that is the US! Tito, on the other hand, tortured his own people.... You know, that people who were so thankful for all the GLORIOUS ADVANCES OF THE REVOLUTION OF THE PROLETARIAT THAT NOBODY CAN QUESTION UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES
Yugoslavia wasn't in the Eastern Bloc (for the record) and was head and shoulders above any other communist countries in quality of life.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
What you're referring to happened immediately after the war and dealt mostly with organized resistance groups who also happened to be Nazi collaborators, Chetniks and Ustase. It stopped soon after and later was reserved for the very select few. Very similar to Gitmo actually, just with a different passport requirement. And imprisonment, not torture, btw. It was all fairly public, you get a trial, you go to jail and you get on with your life. And it only happened if the person in question was of some importance.Quote:
Ah yes, you can always rely on the supporters of brutal mass-murderers to point their finger at some (in comparison) minor bad stuff happening with the US...
For the record though, Gitmo is for non-US citizens. No wonder they're pissed, they're not allowed to take part in the glory that is the US! Tito, on the other hand, tortured his own people.... You know, that people who were so thankful for all the GLORIOUS ADVANCES OF THE REVOLUTION OF THE PROLETARIAT THAT NOBODY CAN QUESTION UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES
For the average population, that is 99,9% of the population, it was quite normal - you get up, you go to work, get home, give your teenage son some cash and worry about is he doing drugs at that rock concert...
Yes, of course, events like the Croatian Spring never happened.
NOTHING TO SEE HERE ALL HAIL THE GLORIOUS LEADER
By the way, China is also a wonderful place to live. Nothing bad happening in the glorious revolution.
In the matter of Syria:
The more I have looked into the use of chemical agents, the less likely I find that it was military.
Regardless of what the government says! The ingredients are not hard to come by. Fertilizer (Potassium), Chlorine, and Fluoride. Rebel groups captured a Chlorine factory some months ago and Fluoride is used in mining.
The poison gas used was Sarin. This is what was used twice in the Tokyo subway attacks in the 1990s. It is not a good military agent as it has a short shelf life.
It was used also by Iraqi insurgents in 2004 against US troops in that country.
It is a deadly nerve agent (nerve gas) but not one suited to military use, because of the need for long storage times.
The government has proven themselves to lie and do it frequently. The hearings on NSA spying on citizens being the latest example.
What better way to try to regain credibility than to say we found the information spying on Syrian Generals and that they had gassed their own people, when that government knew full well they were being spied on and use of chemical weapons would bring a quick response from the west.
Then, they put it on TV and everyone automatically believes it.
Also they said ahead of time they would ignore any UN findings. Does that sound right to anyone?
What exactly do you know of Croatian Spring? Or are we excluding countries that had protests from first world countries? Your first world country list is getting smaller by the minute, HT.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Okay, we've strayed too far from the topic when people have to emphasize they're talking about what the thread is actually about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
I've made some comparisons to explain some of my points better but those comparisons took over. Sorry about that. To clarify my position:
I don't believe dictatorships are better than democracies. However, I do believe that some conditions need to be met before a country can become a democracy and unless those conditions are met, you can bomb a country until you throw it back to the stone age, it won't work, so sometimes it's better to allow a country to stabilize so that it can achieve a peaceful and painless, and most importantly, permanent transition to democracy, like Spain after Franco.
I do not believe removing Assad will make Syria into a democracy in anything but in name maybe. I do not think we need another democracy like Afghanistan. I also do not see a proper candidate to pull it off among current factions involved and I'm not convinced they won't do considerably worse.
When talking about this, I'm only taking into account the population and how it affects them. I don't care about Assad or rebel leaders or other involved factions.
HT, we can continue over PM, or open a new thread. I won't respond further in this one.
“I have no problems with people who refer to hard-line dictators as fascists.”
I have as it confuses things. We had the Nazi, the Fascists, the Religiously Fanatics and the Communists. The ideologies are different. To say that Milosevic was the equivalent of Franco, and Franco the equivalent of Hitler is at least a diffraction of the reality. What was the term employed the, ah yes, National Communist. The Media were so happy with this. This and the “Ethnic Cleansing” of course, term they always failed to remember it was used first by the Serbs… Anyway, why to brush all dictators under a generic term as fascist? Dictatorship exists to qualify repression and torture etc.
Not starting a debate on the Wars in Yugoslavia…
Interesting article.
So the terrorists - or some terrorists somewhere - have their hands on industrially-produced chem agents for sure.Quote:
Turkey’s Zaman newspaper reported earlier this year that security forces had seized two kilograms of sarin gas in the city of Adana in southern Turkey. “The chemical weapons were in the possession of Al Nusra terrorists believed to have been heading for Syria,” it said. Obviously, they didn’t manage to smuggle the gas across the border but others may well have been successful.
The Saudi angle is not one I had considered. Would SA really be willing to part with chemical weapons in Syria, though?Quote:
Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.
Does the US know about it, if this was the case, and did they greenlight the operation? I feel like we'd be hesitant to permit any ally to supply anyone in Syria with anything NBC.
All I can tell from this thread, is that there are many, many possible scenarios with many factors in play, and no one knows what they're talking about anyway, so beware definitive statements on anyone's part.
If anyone could weigh in on a technical matter: how many artillery pieces of what caliber firing how many units of sarin-dispersion do you need to kill 1500 people in a short time?
Maybe if the jihadi :daisy:s hadn't kicked up such a stink in the past, then we could have cared more about this. They made their isolationist bed, now they can lie in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
Oh, is that soQuote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Yea, let he who is without sin cast the first stone:
http://www.gasandoil.com/oilaround/2...-29.0003656869
~;)
“But I guess that a first world quality country wouldn't need any torture dungeons to keep their populations from revolting, so obviously Yugoslavia didn't have any, right?” Just to add a little bit of oil on the fire, then add water: Can you remind me the position in the 50’s of the blacks in the US Democracy, and in what was engaged the Democratic France (in term of Repression, not bad) or the slaughter of the Indonesian Communists? I add Wounded Knees, in 1974, about the situation in the Indian Reserves, or the Natives in Australia.