ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

about as flawed as the uk.....

By definition, the UK is a full democracy, Syria is Authoritarian. If your own personal perception differs then so be it, I'm going to go with the reputable Economist analysis though.

Yeah the total score is an average of the individual scores and as 3/5 of them are missing the total is much lower than it should be, Syria should be in the top 100 easy.

IMO they shouldn't provide fake listings if they don't have the data to create one as it's just bad/shoddy practice, they should just be honest and say "N/A insufficient data" or something.

Which would still put it in the Authoritarian/Hybrid Regime category.
 
iran-iraq-syria-pipeline.jpg

Time you stopped using it then!
 
Well Obama didn't get to finish his Mosul push before exit from office. That's unsurprising, given the difficulty in driving the Iraqi army, compounded with their hierarchy having more interest out to the West of Iraq rather than the North.

Still, slowly and surely ISIL are being removed from Mosul.
 
Some bizarre conclusions there uber :confused:

I mean, the Human Rights Watch claim they have evidence that it did happen. Unless you have further, more convincing, evidence that it did not in fact happen, it would be quite bias to just jump to the conclusion it didn't?
 
"mint press"

Agenda: Pro Assad.
Reporting: widely disputed.
Funding: not disclosed.

Quelle surprise! I'd have thought Thetwig would have been against such bias news outlets, considering his strong opinions on the BBC.
 
Last edited:
Please show my defence of them.

You're the one who everything someone posts a criticism of assad attempts a pathetic deflection.

'But but look what America did'

Get it in to your skull that this isn't about saying someone else is bad too. This is about the fact that peaceful protests were oppressed and a giant crap storm arose. Those that are suffering are the innocents.

He has chosen, many times, to ignore the fact they were peaceful protests. He appears to have skipped to the point that they took up arms instead. It's all very easy when you create your facts.

Clueless.
 
It really isn't, I explained why their evidence is not actual evidence but hearsay, and I gave a detailed explanation of why what they say makes no logical sense, then I drew the most likely conclusion. That's not bizarre it's rational, of course it could be wrong, but it's most likely correct.

No.

It's your opinion, that's all. It is not a factual expert conclusion on matters. Therefore it is not necessarily "the most likely".
 
I shall reiterate:

1: I explained why what they claim as their "evidence" is not actually evidence.
2: I gave a detailed explanation of why what they say makes absolutely no logical sense.
3: I then pointed out that it's unlikely what they say is true (I drew the most likely conclusion from the facts available, not opinion but analysis).

Again it's not a bizarre conclusion it's rational, of course it could well be wrong, but with the information currently available it's the most likely one.

2: It claims it happened in Aleppo. To put that in perspective, while all the fighting was going on in Aleppo between the rebels/loyalists neither side took out the city's power station or tried to cut the other off from it (because both having power was preferable to neither). Considering that level of planning/sense it seems ludicrous that the side controlling the majority of the city (the bigger target) would use chemical weapons on the smaller side thus opening themselves up to retaliatory action in kind.

This bit. You can't possibly know this, or make this assumption. Hence bizzare.
 
Back
Top Bottom