The Bashar al-Assad Betting Game

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

That's my point - the Russians want a warm water port - that's it. Much easier to negotiate with whoever wins with a garrison nearby. They have done what is required to protect their interests and as far as possible not upset others in the local area - Marines could most likely hold out against attacks until reinforced, but are no serious threat to anyone else.

~:smoking:

---

Yeah, but Syria under Assad was also a big buyer of Russian arms, and could also be used as a bargaining chip (if we don't like something west does, we'll install missiles in Syria, destabilize the region, that sort of stuff).

I'm somewhat surprised they haven't helped Assad so far. It may be that indeed a port is more important to them than anything else and they think it would be much easier to deal with rebels (if the eventually win) if they are neutral during the conflict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

But you're clinging to the idea that in the minds of the people we're talking about, sectarianism is more important than anything else. It's not true. Lebanon is a prime example of that. So is Egypt right now. Or Tunisia.

---

In the minds of certain people in power sectarianism is indeed more important than anything else. Nasrallah being one of them. As for Egypt, Christians are already feeling the heat from the longbeards. Tunisia -- the anti liquor campaign is just the beginning.

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

---

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:

---

And look what happened to them. Look what happened to the political parties in Egypt after 1952, or the Tudeh and their coalition partners in Iran after 1953, or the short-lived moments of political freedom in Algeria in the early 90's. These regimes are not at all interested in allowing any kind of opposition.

---

With one caveat: those regimes, as brutal as they were, happened to be secular. A secular tyranny is a whole lot better than a theocratic one.

Quote:

---

Grand Ayatollah is a stricly modern Shi‘a concept.

---

So?

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.

---

Not for the lack of trying, that's for sure.

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.

---

Dismiss what you like. Whitewashing islamism does not work.

As for your case in point, I'll bring to your attention that the bearded salafists finished second place in the Egyptian parliamentary race being outdone only by the brotherhood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

What genocide, it's called a warcrime women and children were spared. And it happened for a reason Serbian villages were consistantly attacked from the safe-zones we pulled up, and a lot of the people doing that weren't even ethinc Yugoslavian they were jihadi's from the Middle-East who wanted to open a front in the west. And Serbians were already a bit pissed because of what muslim-SS devisions led by the Grand Mufti from Jeruzalem did to them in WW2, that was actually genocide.

---

Allthough I'm not particulary wel-informed about it (I was a kid back then) I would hesitate to attribute any of the Yugoslav conflicts to religion except insofar as stating that religion was an important part of the respective identities that set the combatants apart. The Bosnians were out for self-determination, same as the Croats really. Suggesting that the Bosnians were motivated by jihad because some fruits from the middle east showed up on their behalf is disingeneous.

@Hax: wasn't the last Iranian Shah pretty hard on the clerics, too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Yeah, but Syria under Assad was also a big buyer of Russian arms, and could also be used as a bargaining chip (if we don't like something west does, we'll install missiles in Syria, destabilize the region, that sort of stuff).

I'm somewhat surprised they haven't helped Assad so far. It may be that indeed a port is more important to them than anything else and they think it would be much easier to deal with rebels (if the eventually win) if they are neutral during the conflict.

---

I don't imagine it's easy for the Russians. They'd rather Assad won - but they need a fall back if he looses. Hence the honouring existing arms sales but no new ones - helping but with a plausible reason should be loose. If the rebels win, it'll be easier to sort out one problem by letting Russia keep using the port than have to try and dig out their Marines.

Open support might have problems with the Muslims in the south of Russia, and perhaps openly annoying the West is thought to be a bad idea too.

I doubt any regieme that starts there is going to be massively pro-Western so the Russians can make friends. I imagine the narrative is they are open to business with Syria the country, not Assad the man.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Allthough I'm not particulary wel-informed about it (I was a kid back then) I would hesitate to attribute any of the Yugoslav conflicts to religion except insofar as stating that religion was an important part of the respective identities that set the combatants apart. The Bosnians were out for self-determination, same as the Croats really. Suggesting that the Bosnians were motivated by jihad because some fruits from the middle east showed up on their behalf is disingeneous.

---

The foreign fruits were motivated by jihad, but the Bosnian muslims surprisingly wanted an islamic state which probably doesn't shock our rvg they tend to want that but hey what does he know (our beloved princess Mabel played a nasty role here by arranging the firepower that is all well documented she was a spy)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

With one caveat: those regimes, as brutal as they were, happened to be secular. A secular tyranny is a whole lot better than a theocratic one.

---

Since when? There've been tons of evil secular regimes that've been worse than anything theocrats have mustered. Pretty much all of the dictatorships in Europe in the 20th century were secular and they have some of the highest death counts ever.

It doesnn't take the nation-state, it takes the streets

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noncommunist

Since when? There've been tons of evil secular regimes that've been worse than anything theocrats have mustered. Pretty much all of the dictatorships in Europe in the 20th century were secular and they have some of the highest death counts ever.

---

Simple: secular regime is worried only about its survival and nothing else. As long as you don't pose a threat to its survival, you're left alone. A theocracy is equally concerned with its survival PLUS it has to enforce a religious dogma i.e. put more restrictions on people. Had those secular european tyrannies been theocratic, the body count would have been even higher.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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 Noncommunist

Since when? There've been tons of evil secular regimes that've been worse than anything theocrats have mustered. Pretty much all of the dictatorships in Europe in the 20th century were secular and they have some of the highest death counts ever.

---

You can deal with secular regimes.

They don't seek answers in a sacred script or philosophy. However tyrannical they may be, they tend to be more pragmatic.

You could do business with Saddam, you can't do business with the Ayatollah.

Quote:

---

You could do business with Saddam, you can't do business with the Ayatollah.

---

Iran Contra seems to disagree. But you know, whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noncommunist

Since when? There've been tons of evil secular regimes that've been worse than anything theocrats have mustered. Pretty much all of the dictatorships in Europe in the 20th century were secular and they have some of the highest death counts ever.

---

sorry there were?

the Nazis were Catholic, as were Mussolini's boys and the Spanish - which pretty much scuppers your "Europe" argument right there

now the Soviets were "secular" as were the Khmer Rouge but in both those cases id say Communism takes the brunt of the blame not Secularism

Im really not sure where you are going with your statements...

as for "Secular" dictatorships - they tend to not actually be advocating a separation of church and state - more trying to wrest/secure power over/from the local Church (who are usually the biggest competition).

No Dictator has committed genocide in the name of Secularism - more often they use it to support their Political Agenda

That is incorrect. Catholics were appeased by Hitler, but he actually had his own church, Reich Church. 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)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

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.

---

yes they weren't exactly Communist to the strictest letter of the idea but they used Communism to suppress and maintain their positions - so while in practice they were just a dictatorship its not really that clear cut.

ill yield I was wrong about Catholicism in the Nazi's case - id forgotten he founded his own church - either way its hardly a secular ideal to create a state church :yes:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

If I recall my Marxist/Leninist ideology it would be the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Transitional stage needed to deepen and protect the revolution until complete victory over the capitalist threat; then leading to the "withering away of the state" and communist society. What they got was state capitalism (they pretend to pay us, we pretend to work) and a conventional ruling elite. Probably a foreseeable outcome anywhere an elite has absolute influence/control over political outcomes.

---

'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' basically means 'Democracy'. The concept from the time period is that democracy would be the transitional phase where government will end up serving the needs of society due to the simple fact there are significantly far more workers than there are CEO's thus creating a Socialist State.

It does not mean "Dictatorship" in the totalitarian sense of Stalin, Kim and Mao or control via the oligarch or that Proletariat is going to kick me and Pape out of Backroom moderating and impose her iron will upon these threads.

Wow @ 2:00.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goQ5...e_gdata_player

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' basically means 'Democracy'. The concept from the time period is that democracy would be the transitional phase where government will end up serving the needs of society due to the simple fact there are significantly far more workers than there are CEO's thus creating a Socialist State.

It does not mean "Dictatorship" in the totalitarian sense of Stalin, Kim and Mao or control via the oligarch or that Proletariat is going to kick me and Pape out of Backroom moderating and impose her iron will upon these threads.

---

But under the Marxist/Leninist fusion the party as "vanguard" is the only party that can represent the true faith; therefore it is the only party and it's leader is as infallible as the Pope.

O M G

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6y3m68kX5o&feature=player_embedded

Nice guys http://www.zukunftskinder.org/?p=24604

It's also raining postmen but I'll spare you that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

O M G

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6y3m68kX5o&feature=player_embedded

---

For those who don't understand the language, it says - Thank you for visiting Mrs. Jazilla Handgun and Rifle Emporium, the grand opening is next Tuesday. We have everything you need to kill your favourite government official or a rebel leader. Cause our motto at HRE is - it's not guns that kill people, it's the civil war.

Gunships and tanks available on a two week notice. Crew is extra.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Wow @ 2:00.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goQ5bhtN6v8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

---

Look/sound familiar?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

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...