ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.

RoboCod said:
Love the black and white logic though: "rebels bad, so Assad must be good!"

:D yes, of course it's all so simple.
Click to expand...

yh it is Assad is the lesser of the two.

The "rebels" moderate jihadists are far worse they are like isis but smaller

assad doesn't work with al qaeda linked groups, rebels do

assad doesn't use human shields like the rebels
 
ThestigGT999 said:
yh it is Assad is the lesser of the two.

The "rebels" moderate jihadists are far worse they are like isis but smaller

assad doesn't work with al qaeda linked groups, rebels do

assad doesn't use human shields like the rebels
Click to expand...

Your post is basically "Harold Shipman wasn't as bad as Hitler" :s while I actually believe Assad set out with good intentions in the long run he is no more innocent really than many of the rebel groups even if not done as bad things as some.
 
Rroff said:
Your post is basically "Harold Shipman wasn't as bad as Hitler" :s while I actually believe Assad set out with good intentions in the long run he is no more innocent really than many of the rebel groups even if not done as bad things as some.
Click to expand...

are you saying he is as bad as hitler?

also I didn't say assad was a saint or anything to that degree
 
Rroff said:
Your post is basically "Harold Shipman wasn't as bad as Hitler" :s while I actually believe Assad set out with good intentions in the long run he is no more innocent really than many of the rebel groups even if not done as bad things as some.
Click to expand...

Regardless of the evils of the man, he ran the country pretty well (not well enough obviously).

So what... i don't even know what to call these people, ill just use pro-western influence supporters want is to remove ORDER, a System of governance and law from the country... just because he's got a monopoly on atrocity?

Russia did the only sane thing, if not purely for their own benefit, to the detriment of the west's desire for chaos in the region.
 
StriderX said:
Regardless of the evils of the man, he ran the country pretty well (not well enough obviously).

So what... i don't even know what to call these people, ill just use pro-western influence supporters want is to remove ORDER, a System of governance and law from the country... just because he's got a monopoly on atrocity?

Russia did the only sane thing, if not purely for their own benefit, to the detriment of the west's desire for chaos in the region.
Click to expand...

This is though - regardless of what the Western interests might be, regardless of the Islamists and the likes who exploited the situation there were (ostensibly innocent) people suffering persecution under Assad - that is never an acceptable cost for order, etc. even if its not something that is easily resolved.

People are too easily swayed by the fact that for those that toed the Assad line life was relatively good and can't see the problems under the surface.
 
Rroff said:
This is though - regardless of what the Western interests might be, regardless of the Islamists and the likes who exploited the situation there were (ostensibly innocent) people suffering persecution under Assad - that is never an acceptable cost for order, etc. even if its not something that is easily resolved.

People are too easily swayed by the fact that for those that toed the Assad line life was relatively good and can't see the problems under the surface.
Click to expand...

Then the people there should have dealt with Assad alone, except that is never allowed to happen because the US ******* love selling munitions to rebel groups (Russia is just as bad in this regard, unsure about China though). So there is an implicit connection regardless of whether we have soldiers on the ground or pilots in the air there.

A nation needs to deal with its political issues by itself, or it simply fuels the conflict.
 
StriderX said:
Then the people there should have dealt with Assad alone, except that is never allowed to happen because the US ******* love selling munitions to rebel groups (Russia is just as bad in this regard, unsure about China though). So there is an implicit connection regardless of whether we have soldiers on the ground or pilots in the air there.

A nation needs to deal with its political issues by itself, or it simply fuels the conflict.
Click to expand...

People don't tend to turn to armed conflict if there is a path for dealing with the issue through political action or peaceful protest... there wasn't scope for it being dealt with internally by any other means.

I don't think you quite understand what persecution means.
 
The ignorance is astounding!

The people did do something about Assad. They protested. Assad then killed them.

"he isn't a saint".... I despair.
 
Skunkworks said:
What’s worse, quickly and brutally crushing decent before it spreads, or an entire country engulfed in a sectarian butcherfest?
Click to expand...

Yes, it's what all governments should do. In fact, the next time anyone stages a protest outside the houses of Parliament, let's round them up and shoot them. That's a much better way to govern. After all, descent should be quickly and brutally crushed.
 
RoboCod said:
Yes, it's what all governments should do. In fact, the next time anyone stages a protest outside the houses of Parliament, let's round them up and shoot them. That's a much better way to govern. After all, descent should be quickly and brutally crushed.
Click to expand...

But a protest outside the uk parliament is unlikely to lead to a major civil war/armed insurection.

But you can bet if there was a major armed group turn up outside the houses of parliment demanding the removal of government it would be met with machine gun fire courtesy of the armed forces
 
Tefal said:
But a protest outside the uk parliament is unlikely to lead to a major civil war/armed insurection.

But you can bet if there was a major armed group turn up outside the houses of parliment demanding the removal of government it would be met with machine gun fire courtesy of the armed forces
Click to expand...

Of course, you're right. But where was the major armed group initially during the 'Arab spring'. ??

Military troops opened fire during protests in the southern part of Syria on Friday and killed peaceful demonstrators, according to witnesses and news reports, hurtling the strategically important nation along the same trajectory that has altered the landscape of power across the Arab world.
Click to expand...

Again, people making up their own version of history.
 
Tefal said:
But a protest outside the uk parliament is unlikely to lead to a major civil war/armed insurection.

But you can bet if there was a major armed group turn up outside the houses of parliment demanding the removal of government it would be met with machine gun fire courtesy of the armed forces
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/world/middleeast/26syria.html

again allow me to refresh your memory on the peaceful protests which were shot at
 
Yeah again notice the huge highly armed groups destroying the country now.

They didnt just get the guns over night and they srent the same people protesting peacefully
 
Tefal said:
Yeah again notice the huge highly armed groups destroying the country now.

They didnt just get the guns over night and they srent the same people protesting peacefully
Click to expand...

because its hugely difficult to get guns , from neighbouring countries , which have been bombed heavily by the west or had own civil war. You know , like Libya (2011) Egypt (2011) fatah-Hamas (2007) Yemen (2011) Bahrain (2011)

2011 - a big year for civil war and overthrowing governments - and getting guns
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom