One step closer to war with Russia?

scorza said:
Secondly you're claiming that anything that isn't secular is bad. Given that Assad has murdered and tortured thousands of Syrian people I'm not sure that can be objectively considered the case. You also imply that anything that isn't secular is Islamic fundamentalist - that's a very black and white view and not one I share.
Click to expand...

You're right. The very last thing we in the west should be doing is helping to replace secular governments with islamic ones.

Given that in the vast majority of islamic states, "crimes" such as leaving islam are punishable by either death (!) or jail time. I don't want to support that.

You think islamic countries have a great human rights record? LOL, get a grip man. Islamic countries are among the /worst/ for human rights violations.

I'll take any secular government over any islamic one. Every single time.

You know that islamic nations have actually come out and said, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is incompatible with islam. So they made their own declaration of "human rights", which allows the state to kill or imprison people leaving islam, and doesn't regard that as a violation :p They've called their version the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. You most certainly don't have freedom of religion in their declaration ;)
 
Last edited:
FoxEye said:
You're right. The very last thing we in the west should be doing is helping to replace secular governments with islamic ones.

Given that in the vast majority of islamic states, "crimes" such as leaving islam are punishable by either death (!) or jail time. I don't want to support that.

You think islamic countries have a great human rights record? LOL, get a grip man. Islamic countries are among the /worst/ for human rights violations.

I'll take any secular government over any islamic one. Every single time.
Click to expand...

I think your idea of a secular state is somewhat warped here - you think it means equality, justice and peace. The reality in Assad's Syria is that the Alawite minority dominate everyone else, corruption and human rights abuses are rampant and now there is no hope of peace in Syria while Assad remains in control.

FYI the worst regime in the 20th century for human rights was a secular state (Soviet Union). I'm not entirely sure that I'd take North Korea over an Islamic state like Oman or Morocco.
 
War with Russia won't happen, no one has a desire for that, everyone's got life pretty good at the minute, unlike the last time a World War broke out. There's absolutely no desire from anyone on either side to go to war. Plus we either all get vapourised in 2 days or NATO wipes the floor with Russia within 3 months.
 
This is not news really
SHOOT DOWN Russian planes if they come under attack
Click to expand...

So if Russians attack RAF who are clearly flagged afaik, they can defend themselves; well thanks boss. Seems like a basic deal and sure it can escalate but I expect there is more finesse to actions before during after operations.
Going to war with Russia I rank unlikely as Putin is a relative moderate in the range of possible belligerents.
Most in politics just went the gravy train to keep rolling and that particular war is an unlikely gamble by either party and in a very boring calculation, not profitable

More significant I thought was Saudi supplying 500 TOW missiles to FSA which I think will kill Russian tanks and personnel ? Seems more of a messy situation
 
Last edited:
scorza said:
I think your idea of a secular state is somewhat warped here - you think it means equality, justice and peace. The reality in Assad's Syria is that the Alawite minority dominate everyone else, corruption and human rights abuses are rampant and now there is no hope of peace in Syria while Assad remains in control.
Click to expand...

Please resist the temptation to put words into our mouths. I said nothing of the sort.

FYI the worst regime in the 20th century for human rights was a secular state (Soviet Union). I'm not entirely sure that I'd take North Korea over an Islamic state like Oman or Morocco.
Click to expand...

I very much doubt you'll be able to say the same thing about the 21st century. Even NK is showing small signs of modernising. I wonder if these islamic countries will ever make progress on such things as gender equality, religious freedoms, human rights, etc. I suspect not, since their reilgious ideology was created thousands of years ago, and can't evolve, so their societies can't evolve either.

I'll still take a secular state over and islamic one, thanks. I'm not sure the people of Syria will thank you for imposing islamic rule on them either.
 
FoxEye said:
Please resist the temptation to put words into our mouths. I said nothing of the sort.



I very much doubt you'll be able to say the same thing about the 21st century. Even NK is showing small signs of modernising. I wonder if these islamic countries will ever make progress on such things as gender equality, religious freedoms, human rights, etc. I suspect not, since their reilgious ideology was created thousands of years ago, and can't evolve, so their societies can't evolve either.

I'll still take a secular state over and islamic one, thanks. I'm not sure the people of Syria will thank you for imposing islamic rule on them either.
Click to expand...

You realise the vast majority of all those Syrian migrants who have come over to Europe are fleeing Assad primarily. I doubt they'd welcome your "secular" state. I know that you, like me, don't think they should be over here so why are you so keen to create conditions in their own country that make their return impossible?

Edit: also, if we're so bad for doing business with Saudi Arabia, what about Russia? https://www.rt.com/news/318324-putin-saudi-goals-syria/

561ac009c46188e8598b4628.jpg
 
Last edited:
scorza said:
You realise the vast majority of all those Syrian migrants who have come over to Europe are fleeing Assad primarily. I doubt they'd welcome your "secular" state. I know that you, like me, don't think they should be over here so why are you so keen to create conditions in their own country that make their return impossible?
Click to expand...


what made you come to this conclusion? some flee assad but the vast majority flees radical islamists and in general the war. Also, the vast majority is nostalgic to the era before the so called Arab Spring, which must have become arab nightmare ever since.
 
Curio said:
As for Russian involvement, I don't really have an issue with it. The Obama administration has shown its foreign policy is weak and inept, to be honest. If I was Russia, I would probably decide now was a good time to secure some strategic real estate
Click to expand...

What exactly are you talking about when you claim the foreign policy was weak and inept? What exactly would you have done differently? Start another war in the Middle East because the other two were such glorious successes? :rolleyes:
 
Under the Obama administration, drone attacks increased nine times the amount under the Bush administration and killed nearly 2500 people. It's also worth noting that Obama demanded the signing off on drone strikes be given to him rather than the CIA (who controlled the drone program under Bush) or other agency. And they gave the man a peace prize.
 
Iraklis said:
what made you come to this conclusion? some flee assad but the vast majority flees radical islamists and in general the war. Also, the vast majority is nostalgic to the era before the so called Arab Spring, which must have become arab nightmare ever since.
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ees-say-about-why-they-are-leaving-syria-now/

Just by reading lots of different news sources like the one above. What makes you say the opposite? Perhaps the people living in the arab nightmare should ask Julian Assange and wikileaks for an apology then?
 
OhEsEcks said:
Under the Obama administration, drone attacks increased nine times the amount under the Bush administration and killed nearly 2500 people. It's also worth noting that Obama demanded the signing off on drone strikes be given to him rather than the CIA (who controlled the drone program under Bush) or other agency. And they gave the man a peace prize.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a good idea to me - use technology to make sure we kill the bad guys while not risking our own troops/pilots.
 
OhEsEcks said:
Ah! "whatabouttery" and here I thought only the Irish partook in that.
Click to expand...

:D Entirely deliberate, it's normally the pro-Putin morons who engage in it to point out an incident involving the USA 50 years ago to justify Russia's latest crime against humanity.
 
mmj_uk said:
Not mention the US almost immediately announced it would stop funding 'rebel' training camps, most likely because Russia have bombed all of the ISIS training camps.
Click to expand...

That's probably a factor. Another factor being the rebels they were funding switched faction or in one case gave up the majority of their gear to al'Nusra for safe passage. How on earth they expected to properly vet these groups before funding them is beyond me.

lovelyhead said:
the Saudis are funding any and all islamist organisations in order to further spread their version of islam.
Click to expand...

I suspect they actually deem IS a threat now. Although Wahhabism underpins all life in Saudi Arabia, and I'm sure money made its way into IS palms during the early days, the royal family see themselves as the de facto state of Islam and IS are a viable threat to that now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom