If Assad doesn't retake Aleppo soon, he might as well start looking for a place to spend his years in exile.
Printable View
If Assad doesn't retake Aleppo soon, he might as well start looking for a place to spend his years in exile.
Ain't nowhere to go, I'm afraid. Maybe Latin America?
Probably over thenQuote:
Originally Posted by Hax
I am also able to pinpoint you within 2 meters and a 30 minutes margin mia mucaQuote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
That's a good idea. I bet Chavez will welcome him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
What about Moscow or Tehran as places to retire?
Iranian 'Pilgrims' and Syrian Assassinations
When the 'suicide bomber' got several senior Government and Military personnel in Damascus last month (Gen Daoud Rajiha etc) it became pretty clear that some insider must have tipped off the bomber and those behind this. You do not get at three such senior Government sources in a time of civil war without being told in advance where and when they are going to be.
More recently we have these Iranian 'pilgrims' being taken 'hostage' in Damascus... The claim that they were 'pilgrims' in the first place I found amusing. It is not Hadj time and Damascus is not Mecca. Nor is it a significant religious time for ANY of the Shi'ite Immans. Besides any of that who seriously goes on a pilgrimage to a country in the middle of a civil war? I am a Catholic and wouldn't visit Rome if the Italians were shooting at each other... So the suggestion was that these 'pilgrims' were in fact Quds (the foreign operations section of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps... the people who fund Hezbollah etc). Well yesterday, after just pledging support for Assad, the Iranians admitted that some of the 'pilgrims' were in fact 'retired' Quds personnel... Well these elderly 'ex - Qudists' just happened to be on a 'pilgrimage' in a war torn city at a time of no religious significance... Sure.
All of which leads me to the conclusion that upto the point when these 'pilgrims' were grabbed the inside informer within the Syrian Government was still in place. How else do the 'rebels' know that a Quds party is in Damascus and where and when it will be? Assad may have done some 'clearing house' after the suicide bomb attack but now he will be under pressure from his Iranian friends to conduct a thorough witch hunt...
@ Noncommunist; If Assad leaves he loses. Russia will not take him as they will have play friendly with any future regime to keep their naval base.
The Gaddafi -
He may well retreat to allawite heartland that is impervious to rebel advance, but the outside world will provide the necessary spur be that by cruise-missile or truck bomb in order to see business concluded.
Hmm, I don't think Iran is going to invite Assad over if he loses his country. They've got enough trouble as it is.Quote:
What about Moscow or Tehran as places to retire?
Who knows. I don't think you appreciate or understand the position of the ahl al-bayt within Shi‘a communities. Quite some important people are buried in Damascus, and pilgrimage to these spots has nothing to do with the hajj itself.Quote:
More recently we have these Iranian 'pilgrims' being taken 'hostage' in Damascus... The claim that they were 'pilgrims' in the first place I found amusing. It is not Hadj time and Damascus is not Mecca. Nor is it a significant religious time for ANY of the Shi'ite Immans. Besides any of that who seriously goes on a pilgrimage to a country in the middle of a civil war? I am a Catholic and wouldn't visit Rome if the Italians were shooting at each other... So the suggestion was that these 'pilgrims' were in fact Quds (the foreign operations section of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps... the people who fund Hezbollah etc). Well yesterday, after just pledging support for Assad, the Iranians admitted that some of the 'pilgrims' were in fact 'retired' Quds personnel... Well these elderly 'ex - Qudists' just happened to be on a 'pilgrimage' in a war torn city at a time of no religious significance... Sure.
Just looking for a bit of clarity.
The war is often portrayed as a popular uprising against Assad; while flicking through the web I came across one article that suggests otherwise.
The contention was essentially that 40% of Syria's pop. is made up of numerous minorities, none of whom were active or engaged in the uprising. So is the civil war a changing of the guard among the elite; or a popular uprising?
Frankly, who knows?
What most people want is to live their life without worrying that they'll be dragged off and killed. Y'know, small things.
Most would probably like to have a life similar to those in Surrey. But that isn't an option.
To get on the wrong side of this fight is probably life and death. The last uprising c. 30k people were killed merely at the end to prove a point.
To make things really "fun", if you're a minority and militant islamists with a Saudi-backed intolerance to... practically everything there could also be religious cleansing.
What to do? Both options are so ghastly I imagine most just hope that if they keep their heads down and do nothing, neither size will decide to raze their home / village / town and kill all the occupants.
~:smoking:
I really have absolutely no ideaQuote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
Iran has already admitted that some of the 'pilgrims' are "retired Quds". If it walks and quacks like a duck...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
I'm not saying they're not related to the Iranian government. It's just that you've been giving the wrong reasons. Also, you sure gotta a lot of chutspa showing up on these forums, mister Netanyahu.
Turkey: set up secret HQ for rebels and provides training / logistical support etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by SoFarSoGood
UK / USA - providing "non lethal" assistance - which is farcical as others are providing the guns and both are equally required for a force to be effective. This they tell us. Is the SAS / other special forces in there? Who knows.
Other countries are providing small arms and the Rebels also have some Anti-Air / Anti-Armour. Limited amounts lest Terrorists get their hands on it (i.e. the same people if they decide to leave Syria).
Russia happened to have two ships dock in the port it uses which happen to be full of Marines. They're there for duty free, right?
The language might have changed, but Bismark could adapt to this inside of 5 minutes.
~:smoking:
Russia cannot get involved directly or Turkey will crush them and take Armenia to boot. A boat-full of Marines is only good for holding a dock area, not substantial intervention. Turks simply have the most organised numbers in the area and sit between Russian resupply lines for Russia to be insane enough to send serious troops in. Mind it would be great if they did...
I'd rather have nobody does anything at all untill we know a little bit more about the rebels. Syria wasn't all that bad before this started (I am told I know nothing of Syria myself) and the christians and alavites don't seem to like the rebels all that much. There are supposedly jihadi's from all over the world fighting against the state army, including European and American ones, yes you too America.
That's my point - the Russians want a warm water port - that's it. Much easier to negotiate with whoever wins with a garrison nearby. They have done what is required to protect their interests and as far as possible not upset others in the local area - Marines could most likely hold out against attacks until reinforced, but are no serious threat to anyone else.
~:smoking:
So let's suppose for a moment that yes, a part of the rebels, or all of them, are Islamic radicals. Does that make their grievances any less justified? Read up on the Algerian civil war of the 1990's.Quote:
I'd rather have nobody does anything at all untill we know a little bit more about the rebels. Syria wasn't all that bad before this started (I am told I know nothing of Syria myself) and the christians and alavites don't seem to like the rebels all that much. There are supposedly jihadi's from all over the world fighting against the state army, including European and American ones, yes you too America.
Less justified? No. It does however make helping them akin to shooting self in the foot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
You are talking to a total noob here Hax I won't pretend to have anything meaninfull to say on what's going on in Syria, or Algeria for that matterQuote:
Originally Posted by Hax
I'd disagree. If you look at movements operating against foreign powers, you'll mostly find they're either of a supranational nature (such as al-Qa'ida or extreme left wing groups) or they're nationalist movements without a country (for example: the radical Zionist movement in the 1930's and 40's or the PLO).Quote:
Less justified? No. It does however make helping them akin to shooting self in the foot.
The thing with Islamism is that as soon as its mentioned, people tend to have this kneejerk reaction. Anything associated with Islamist movements is immediately dismissed, which, in my opinion is not only unfair, but actually works in the opposite direction. Believe me, I'd rather talk to Mohammad Morsi than to Ayman al-Zawihiri or Osama bin Laden. I'd rather talk with Hezbollah than with the Taliban.
Quote:
You are talking to a total noob here Hax I won't pretend to have anything meaninfull to say on what's going on in Syria, or Algeria for that matter
Okay, so here's a newsflash: don't say anything. We don't necessarily need your opinion to have a conversation.
And rightfully so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Not at all. There are plenty of non-crazy people to deal with. Like nationalists, BAATHists, pan-arabists, etc.Quote:
which, in my opinion is not only unfair, but actually works in the opposite direction.
I'd much rather not talk with either one.Quote:
I'd rather talk with Hezbollah than with the Taliban..
That is fortunate for all of us Hax as I can't give my opinion because I don't know anything about the situation there. I also know little about saturated fat percentages of yak-milk from Tibet by the way, heard it tastes horrible.
Yeah, woo, ever since the Muslim Brotherhood came to power in Egypt, you'll get stoned for kissing your girlfriend in public! And in Tunisia, they're mass-executing money-launderers as we speak And now that Hezbollah is in a coalition with the Progressive Socialist Party and Amal in Lebanon, they're also murdering gays!Quote:
And rightfully so.
Man, have you ever even been in the vicinity of these areas. Here's a thing, I was in Lebanon last month. I talked to everyon there, and you know what? They don't even care about Aoun or Gemayel or Nasrallah, as long as they get paid and can take care of their families, they're happy.
Tell you a nice story about the Ba‘ath in Iraq. They were executing babies. Swear to God. How can you not call them crazy?Quote:
Not at all. There are plenty of non-crazy people to deal with. Like nationalists, BAATHists, pan-arabists, etc.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Whom did you talk to? Who is "everyone"? Furthermore, the reason they don't care about Nasrallah is because people like Aoun and Gemayel won't allow Nasrallah to turn Lebanon into mini-Iran. Otherwise they'd care very much.Quote:
Man, have you ever even been in the vicinity of these areas. Here's a thing, I was in Lebanon last month. I talked to everyon there, and you know what? They don't even care about Aoun or Gemayel or Nasrallah, as long as they get paid and can take care of their families, they're happy.
What babies? When? On whose orders?Quote:
Tell you a nice story about the Ba‘ath in Iraq. They were executing babies. Swear to God. How can you not call them crazy?
In the three countries I just mentioned, Islamist parties play a large role in the political process within the country. I was using sarcasm to express the fact that none of these countries at the current moment are currently ruled as Islamic states. None.Quote:
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here...
Hmm, let me think. Students at AUB university, shopkeepers in Hamra, Shi‘a in the banlieus, Sunnis in the centre of the city, Christians in Gemmayze, Druze in the mountain areas. Do you want me to go on?Quote:
Whom did you talk to? Who is "everyone"? Furthermore, the reason they don't care about Nasrallah is because people like Aoun and Gemayel won't allow Nasrallah to turn Lebanon into mini-Iran. Otherwise they'd care very much.
The thing with you is that you automatically assume that everyone not immediately adhering to your view of how Muslim parties function are either ignorant or are somehow complying with the supposed Muslim plot to take over the world. The very fact that you're saying: "otherwise they'd care very much" pretty much suggest that you're not even willing to let these people have an opinion of their own, even though they're first of all much more fit and entitled to an opinion on how their own country is run and secondly because they actually live there and are sick of this sectarian infighting which has cost hundreds of lives over the last thirty years.
Stop enforcing your opinion people whose country you know nothing about.
Robert Fisk mentioned in his "The Great War for Civilization" that this woman, whose husband had deserted and was arrested, came to the jail with three of her children. They were all shot, except the mother. I'm looking up the exact quote.Quote:
What babies? When? On whose orders?
Not yet. In Egypt, it is the military that prevents islamists from doing something stupid for now, as for Tunisia and Libya, it's too early to tell. In Tunisia there's already a nationwide campaign of attacking liquor stores. Not a good start.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Wait a minute, you're telling me that Nasrallah wouldn't want to turn Lebanon into Shiite theocracy? Really? Oh, I bet he would, but he can't. Precisely because of the Sunni/Shiite/Maronite gridlock.Quote:
Hmm, let me think. Students at AUB university, shopkeepers in Hamra, Shi‘a in the banlieus, Sunnis in the centre of the city, Christians in Gemmayze, Druze in the mountain areas. Do you want me to go on?
The thing with you is that you automatically assume that everyone not immediately adhering to your view of how Muslim parties function are either ignorant or are somehow complying with the supposed Muslim plot to take over the world. The very fact that you're saying: "otherwise they'd care very much" pretty much suggest that you're not even willing to let these people have an opinion of their own, even though they're first of all much more fit and entitled to an opinion on how their own country is run and secondly because they actually live there and are sick of this sectarian infighting which has cost hundreds of lives over the last thirty years.
I know more about it than you think.Quote:
Stop enforcing your opinion people whose country you know nothing about.
And? Am I supposed to believe that all baathists across the Arab world are crazy because of that incident?Quote:
Robert Fisk mentioned in his "The Great War for Civilization" that this woman, whose husband had deserted and was arrested, came to the jail with three of her children. They were all shot, except the mother. I'm looking up the exact quote.
No. And you know why? It's because people in Lebanon are totally done with the destructive sectarian warmongering that has cost lots of Lebanese their lives. You keep pressign this issue of religion, but people are completely done with it. In fact, one of these people I was talking actually rebuffed me for assuming he was a Shi‘a because his family was from Saida. He said that questions like those are not only rude, but they are obstructing people from living in a sustainable, peaceful environment. Sectarian thought is way more destructive than you seem to realise.Quote:
Wait a minute, you're telling me that Nasrallah wouldn't want to turn Lebanon into Shiite theocracy? Really? Oh, I bet he would, but he can't. Precisely because of the Sunni/Shiite/Maronite gridlock.
Haven't seen that much evidence, to be fair.Quote:
I know more about it than you think.
Quote:
And? Am I supposed to believe that all baathists across the Arab world are crazy because of that incident
Replace baathists with Islamists and there you go.
The question is whether or not Nasrallah is done with the sectarian warmongering. And the answer is no. This guy is as sectarian as they get.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Except that islamists routinely try to establish theocracies whenever they get a chance to do so. Be it in the Gaza Strip, Tunisia, Mali or wherever else. The trend repeats itself over and over. It's something to be expected.Quote:
Replace baathists with Islamists and there you go.
That's just part of the question. But in my opinion, contributing to this sectarian divide (which is what you're doing) is not helping anyone. You're basically telling people they can't get along because of their religion. What, then, on the rhetorical field, seperates you from Hassan Nasrallah? The irony that seems to slip over most people is that they're applying the exact same logic as the people with whom they disagree.Quote:
The question is whether or not Nasrallah is done with the sectarian warmongering. And the answer is no. This guy is as sectarian as they get.
Just as the repeatable trend that it doesn't really matter to what degree political parties try to form any kind of opposition, they'll always get crushed by their governments. It's not coincidental that the only form of meaningful resistance against a corrupt and nepotist government (be it Iran under the Shah, the post-Nasser era in Egypt or the Palestinian territories under Fatah) is through Islam. I'm not going to deny that Islam lends itself quite useful for this, but you have to realise that at the moment your political party's headquarters being shut down, your party leaders are being arrested, jailed, executed or assassinated, the only place they can't shut down is your mosque. The only person they can't assassinate is the imam.
It is not coincidental, it's not because all Muslims feel like they should express their dissatisfaction through religion, but it's because the very same governments that oppressed them for generations have driven them to the only place where you can still oppose the government without immediately being arrested.
That is false, I'm not saying anything like that. What I'm saying is that islamists (of any sect) if given a chance would crush all other groups in their respective country and establish their flavor of theocracy instead of freedom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
I'm merely calling a spade a spade.Quote:
What, then, on the rhetorical field, seperates you from Hassan Nasrallah? The irony that seems to slip over most people is that they're applying the exact same logic as the people with whom they disagree.
That's not true. The commie South Yemen was a testament to that.Quote:
Just as the repeatable trend that it doesn't really matter to what degree political parties try to form any kind of opposition, they'll always get crushed by their governments. It's not coincidental that the only form of meaningful resistance against a corrupt and nepotist government (be it Iran under the Shah, the post-Nasser era in Egypt or the Palestinian territories under Fatah) is through Islam.
It doesn't subtract from the problem: once the islamists grab the power, that imam wants to be a caliph, or at the very least a president or an grand ayatollah.Quote:
I'm not going to deny that Islam lends itself quite useful for this, but you have to realise that at the moment your political party's headquarters being shut down, your party leaders are being arrested, jailed, executed or assassinated, the only place they can't shut down is your mosque. The only person they can't assassinate is the imam.
Certainly a sad reality.Quote:
It is not coincidental, it's not because all Muslims feel like they should express their dissatisfaction through religion, but it's because the very same governments that oppressed them for generations have driven them to the only place where you can still oppose the government without immediately being arrested.
But you're clinging to the idea that in the minds of the people we're talking about, sectarianism is more important than anything else. It's not true. Lebanon is a prime example of that. So is Egypt right now. Or Tunisia.Quote:
That is false, I'm not saying anything like that. What I'm saying is that islamists (of any sect) if given a chance would crush all other groups in their respective country and establish their flavor of theocracy instead of freedom.
That is aboslutely no excuse. You can't hide under the nomer of "don't shoot the messenger". You are responsible for what you're saying.Quote:
I'm merely calling a spade a spade.
And look what happened to them. Look what happened to the political parties in Egypt after 1952, or the Tudeh and their coalition partners in Iran after 1953, or the short-lived moments of political freedom in Algeria in the early 90's. These regimes are not at all interested in allowing any kind of opposition.Quote:
That's not true. The commie South Yemen was a testament to that.
Grand Ayatollah is a stricly modern Shi‘a concept. And seriously, returning to the Caliphate? I don't think there's any party, apart from Hizb al-Tahrir, that is supporting the idea of a new caliphate. Tunisia's Nahda party has gone as far as to say there's no way there's going to be another Caliphate.Quote:
It doesn't subtract from the problem: once the islamists grab the power, that imam wants to be a caliph, or at the very least a president or an grand ayatollah.
I don't dismiss your knowledge, but I absolutely dismiss your assessment of this knowledge. The point is that we're dealing with people here who have very legitimate reasons to express their dissatisfaction, and so be it that it's under the nomer of Islam(ism). Believe it or not, but these are with whom you can talk.
Case in point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjuEdWWupPg
You don't have to know anything about the islam, rule #1: 'more islam equals worse world'. No matter if it's in Africa, Middle-East, Indonesia or Europe. It just happens to be a violent and intolerant desert-ideoligy. Islam is like a cancer, starts small, spreads out, starts affecting vital organs, host dies.
Another well-researched and nuanced opinion from our resident expert on Islam and the Middle-East, Fragony. Thank you.
Owwwwwww ok. You don't have to be an expert just looking at what happens just about everywhere in the world where islam is it's pretty much the same. Islam is ALWAYS the agressor when it comes to religious intolerance. Fact.
Cobblers. Sikhs and Hindus are just as capable of pushing back, and in Africa Christians are equally good at violence. Jews? The chosen ones have their own rule book. Lebanon was a civil war - that takes two to tango.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Europe might have become soft recently but it might be a blip and we'll start slaughtering those who are wrong and deserve to be killed due to their faith. To be fair, the Christian Serbs kept up the tradition of Ethnic / religious extermination so we've still got the skills.
~:smoking:
Ok on Libanon you have a point, but Serbia really isn't all that straightforward. Wasn't very nice but they had it comming imho
Well, look at it like this: if the truth is already so obvious, you don't even have to mention it. Have you considered the possibility that you're actually wrong?Quote:
Owwwwwww ok. You don't have to be an expert just looking at what happens just about everywhere in the world where islam is it's pretty much the same. Islam is ALWAYS the agressor when it comes to religious intolerance. Fact.
Eh..yeah, whatever. Defending genocide now?Quote:
Wasn't very nice but they had it comming imho
What genocide, it's called a warcrime women and children were spared. And it happened for a reason Serbian villages were consistantly attacked from the safe-zones we pulled up, and a lot of the people doing that weren't even ethinc Yugoslavian they were jihadi's from the Middle-East who wanted to open a front in the west. And Serbians were already a bit pissed because of what muslim-SS devisions led by the Grand Mufti from Jeruzalem did to them in WW2, that was actually genocide.
If you don't believe ask Brennus he was there
Yeah, but Syria under Assad was also a big buyer of Russian arms, and could also be used as a bargaining chip (if we don't like something west does, we'll install missiles in Syria, destabilize the region, that sort of stuff).Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
I'm somewhat surprised they haven't helped Assad so far. It may be that indeed a port is more important to them than anything else and they think it would be much easier to deal with rebels (if the eventually win) if they are neutral during the conflict.
In the minds of certain people in power sectarianism is indeed more important than anything else. Nasrallah being one of them. As for Egypt, Christians are already feeling the heat from the longbeards. Tunisia -- the anti liquor campaign is just the beginning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Of course I'm responsible for what I'm saying, and what I'm saying is the truth. Thus I'll shout it atop my lungs with a clear conscience. I'm not going to try to put lipstick on a pig.Quote:
That is aboslutely no excuse. You can't hide under the nomer of "don't shoot the messenger". You are responsible for what you're saying
With one caveat: those regimes, as brutal as they were, happened to be secular. A secular tyranny is a whole lot better than a theocratic one.Quote:
And look what happened to them. Look what happened to the political parties in Egypt after 1952, or the Tudeh and their coalition partners in Iran after 1953, or the short-lived moments of political freedom in Algeria in the early 90's. These regimes are not at all interested in allowing any kind of opposition.
So?Quote:
Grand Ayatollah is a stricly modern Shi‘a concept.
Not for the lack of trying, that's for sure.Quote:
And seriously, returning to the Caliphate? I don't think there's any party, apart from Hizb al-Tahrir, that is supporting the idea of a new caliphate. Tunisia's Nahda party has gone as far as to say there's no way there's going to be another Caliphate.
Dismiss what you like. Whitewashing islamism does not work.Quote:
I don't dismiss your knowledge, but I absolutely dismiss your assessment of this knowledge. The point is that we're dealing with people here who have very legitimate reasons to express their dissatisfaction, and so be it that it's under the nomer of Islam(ism). Believe it or not, but these are with whom you can talk.
As for your case in point, I'll bring to your attention that the bearded salafists finished second place in the Egyptian parliamentary race being outdone only by the brotherhood.
Allthough I'm not particulary wel-informed about it (I was a kid back then) I would hesitate to attribute any of the Yugoslav conflicts to religion except insofar as stating that religion was an important part of the respective identities that set the combatants apart. The Bosnians were out for self-determination, same as the Croats really. Suggesting that the Bosnians were motivated by jihad because some fruits from the middle east showed up on their behalf is disingeneous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
@Hax: wasn't the last Iranian Shah pretty hard on the clerics, too?
I don't imagine it's easy for the Russians. They'd rather Assad won - but they need a fall back if he looses. Hence the honouring existing arms sales but no new ones - helping but with a plausible reason should be loose. If the rebels win, it'll be easier to sort out one problem by letting Russia keep using the port than have to try and dig out their Marines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Open support might have problems with the Muslims in the south of Russia, and perhaps openly annoying the West is thought to be a bad idea too.
I doubt any regieme that starts there is going to be massively pro-Western so the Russians can make friends. I imagine the narrative is they are open to business with Syria the country, not Assad the man.
~:smoking:
The foreign fruits were motivated by jihad, but the Bosnian muslims surprisingly wanted an islamic state which probably doesn't shock our rvg they tend to want that but hey what does he know (our beloved princess Mabel played a nasty role here by arranging the firepower that is all well documented she was a spy)Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Since when? There've been tons of evil secular regimes that've been worse than anything theocrats have mustered. Pretty much all of the dictatorships in Europe in the 20th century were secular and they have some of the highest death counts ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
It doesnn't take the nation-state, it takes the streets
Simple: secular regime is worried only about its survival and nothing else. As long as you don't pose a threat to its survival, you're left alone. A theocracy is equally concerned with its survival PLUS it has to enforce a religious dogma i.e. put more restrictions on people. Had those secular european tyrannies been theocratic, the body count would have been even higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noncommunist
Yea, I don't know. I'm far more worried about recent converts than someone who was born to it. In that case, the culture they grew up in is more important.
Yeah, converts are the worst.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
You can deal with secular regimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noncommunist
They don't seek answers in a sacred script or philosophy. However tyrannical they may be, they tend to be more pragmatic.
You could do business with Saddam, you can't do business with the Ayatollah.
Iran Contra seems to disagree. But you know, whatever.Quote:
You could do business with Saddam, you can't do business with the Ayatollah.
sorry there were?Quote:
Originally Posted by Noncommunist
the Nazis were Catholic, as were Mussolini's boys and the Spanish - which pretty much scuppers your "Europe" argument right there
now the Soviets were "secular" as were the Khmer Rouge but in both those cases id say Communism takes the brunt of the blame not Secularism
Im really not sure where you are going with your statements...
as for "Secular" dictatorships - they tend to not actually be advocating a separation of church and state - more trying to wrest/secure power over/from the local Church (who are usually the biggest competition).
No Dictator has committed genocide in the name of Secularism - more often they use it to support their Political Agenda
That is incorrect. Catholics were appeased by Hitler, but he actually had his own church, Reich Church. So not completely fair to blame Catholicism, though the pope did turn a blind eye due to the appeasement.
Eitherway, it is not even "communism", it is the fact all those were cases of Totalitarian Governments.
Russia under Stalin was not Communist and neither were his successors. Lennin was a transitional government with goals towards a communist state, no idea on how it would have progressed under Trotsky. Closet examples of communism in practise are the Kibbutz.
Meanwhile, in Beirut...
Quote:
Assir holds Beirut rally in support of Syrian uprising
BEIRUT: Controversial Sidon preacher Sheikh Ahmad Assir held a rally in Beirut's al-Tariq al-Jadideh neighborhood in support of the Syrian uprising, pledging undying loyalty to the rebels, according to the National News Agency (NNA).
"May God protect you ... We will remain with you until the end of our lives," he said in a speech delivered at Imam Ali mosque in Beirut's al-Tariq al-Jadideh neighborhood following Friday prayers.
Addressing hundreds of people who responded to his call to assemble at the mosque, Assir also said that “the Syrian-Iranian project has nothing to do with resistance,” depicting it as an “assassination project.”
Assir also touched on the recent detention of Michel Samaha, who was taken into custody Thursday over a plot to carry out bomb attacks in Lebanon. He hailed the Internal Security Forces (ISF) for its action.
“The ISF has offered us a precious gift in the last two days, one that makes us hold our heads high,” Assir said.
He also stressed that the belief that the Syrian regime was conciliatory toward the Christians of Syria and Lebanon had proven to be false. He added that the Syrian regime has harmed Christians in Lebanon and pointed out that several prominent members of the Syrian opposition are Christian.
Assir also claimed that, “The criminal Iranian project has always tricked the region,” and accused Iran of being behind the assassinations in Lebanon, including that of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, and attempted assassinations, such as that which recently targeted MP Butros Harb.
Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Pol...#ixzz23BEpPMwL
(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)
yes they weren't exactly Communist to the strictest letter of the idea but they used Communism to suppress and maintain their positions - so while in practice they were just a dictatorship its not really that clear cut.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
ill yield I was wrong about Catholicism in the Nazi's case - id forgotten he founded his own church - either way its hardly a secular ideal to create a state church :yes:
If I recall my Marxist/Leninist ideology it would be the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Transitional stage needed to deepen and protect the revolution until complete victory over the capitalist threat; then leading to the "withering away of the state" and communist society. What they got was state capitalism (they pretend to pay us, we pretend to work) and a conventional ruling elite. Probably a foreseeable outcome anywhere an elite has absolute influence/control over political outcomes.
'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' basically means 'Democracy'. The concept from the time period is that democracy would be the transitional phase where government will end up serving the needs of society due to the simple fact there are significantly far more workers than there are CEO's thus creating a Socialist State.Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
It does not mean "Dictatorship" in the totalitarian sense of Stalin, Kim and Mao or control via the oligarch or that Proletariat is going to kick me and Pape out of Backroom moderating and impose her iron will upon these threads.
But under the Marxist/Leninist fusion the party as "vanguard" is the only party that can represent the true faith; therefore it is the only party and it's leader is as infallible as the Pope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
Nice guys http://www.zukunftskinder.org/?p=24604
It's also raining postmen but I'll spare you that
For those who don't understand the language, it says - Thank you for visiting Mrs. Jazilla Handgun and Rifle Emporium, the grand opening is next Tuesday. We have everything you need to kill your favourite government official or a rebel leader. Cause our motto at HRE is - it's not guns that kill people, it's the civil war.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Gunships and tanks available on a two week notice. Crew is extra.
Look/sound familiar?Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Assad is going down, just like all the women in the Middle East. Then, the world:
http://storify.com/dailydot/ridiculo...el-meme-reddit
https://img27.imageshack.us/img27/89...uresridicu.jpg
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
An incredible set of pictures from Syria.
Warning: quite graphic.
http://www.globalpost.com/photo-gall...-aleppo-photos
Looks kinda fake
Yea I agree those pictures are suspicious...would a photographer really just sit there and snap photos while people are getting blown up by a tank? And the whole thing seemed a little too nonchalant considering 3 people died.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I remember reading somewhere that the photographer was using one of those rapid frame cameras that takes a bunch rapidly when the button is pressed.
Knowing some photographers, I wouldn't be surprised if the pics were legitimate...Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
The picture does look surreal, the explosion effect seemed a little out of place, but I am not expert in witnessing such footage.
If you look at the guy closest, you can see his body movement. He is easiest to spot the movement of as he is mid step in the first pic, with changed body balance and feet setting in the following 2 pics.
The explosion look like I would expect.
Might of course be fake, but would have fooled me...
an interview with the photographer
http://www.channel4.com/news/images-...lasting-legacy
Look at the guy closest to the explosion, all others are sillouettes yet the light-source is strongest with him, there are also no shadowsQuote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV