Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Options
12467332

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    alastair wrote: »
    I'm at a loss what Serbia is doing in that list. Democratic for a decade, and not known for much in the way of oppression. As for the bizarre critique of multiculturalism...

    Serbia had a poor human rights record.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    I never hid the fact that my attacks are aimed at the position of dictatorship. I do not support any dictatorship, full stop. The world is not black and white, but democratic government is a fundamental barometer of how civilised a society is. Many countries also have the death penalty, corruption in justice and politics, famine, civil war etc - does the widespread nature of these ills make them somehow defensible?

    I fail to see the relevance of dictatorships being allies of the US government. The US government is not a friend of democracy and their dishonest rhetoric in this regard is something that has sickened me throughout my entire life.

    You can't attack Assad's dictatorship when Saudi Arabia is much much worse. Well yes you attack the position of a dictatorship but you refuse to even acknowledge that Syria was and is indeed a secular state. The people who protested against the Assad gvt were also against him because he was an Alawite not because he was an unfair ruler. If you look at Islam itself their is a section in there about a benevolent ruler that looks after his people well. Nothing about the a democracy in there.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    Assad gvt has actually been engaging in peace deals with both Israel and Turkey during his tenure. Here have a look at the details and background info.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid_Conference_of_1991

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatay_Province


    So the image that is being presented in not one reflective of the Syrian gvt and your attacks are more aimed at the position of dictatorship which many countries have and which are allies of the US. The world is not black or white but certainly the Syrian gvt was far from the menace portrayed in the media and by interest groups.

    Assad was a menace to his own people. That's the reality presented in the media. And Bashar was an eye doctor in London in 1991, so no idea what the Madrid conference has got to do with anything.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    You can't attack Assad's dictatorship when Saudi Arabia is much much worse. Well yes you attack the position of a dictatorship but you refuse to even acknowledge that Syria was and is indeed a secular state. The people who protested against the Assad gvt were also against him because he was an Alawite not because he was an unfair ruler. If you look at Islam itself their is a section in there about a benevolent ruler that looks after his people well. Nothing about the a democracy in there.

    The protests had nothing to do with Alawites. They had to do with ****ty governance, and rapidly thereafter, the detention, torture and murder of protesting Syrians.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    alastair wrote: »
    Assad was a menace to his own people. That's the reality presented in the media. And Bashar was an eye doctor in London in 1991, so no idea what the Madrid conference has got to do with anything.

    Is he a menace like Gaddafi which the west illegally went after and has resulted in the refugee crisis. What I was getting at is the spin that President Assad is an unreasonable terrorist supporter when his actions say otherwise. The PLO was signing a peace treaty with Israel and Syria was prepared to agree to a treaty not unlike Sadat's Egypt. Had Syria agreed to a treaty with Israel we would not be hearing about a potential attack in the country from foreigners.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    Another aspect worth mentioning is that many factions don't want a peace deal between Israel and its Arab Neighbours. Not surprising when you consider all the Jihadists groups sprouting up. None of these people or organizations have any interest in a peace deal and are working to undermine relations between Jews and Arabs. Doing a good job at the moment since relations have really deteriorated since the early 00's and it wasn't great even back then.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    Is he a menace like Gaddafi which the west illegally went after and has resulted in the refugee crisis. What I was getting at is the spin that President Assad is an unreasonable terrorist supporter when his actions say otherwise. The PLO was signing a peace treaty with Israel and Syria was prepared to agree to a treaty not unlike Sadat's Egypt. Had Syria agreed to a treaty with Israel we would not be hearing about a potential attack in the country from foreigners.

    You do realise that simply throwing the term 'illegally' out there doesn't actually make the act illegal? The UN legally imposed a no fly zone on Ghadaffi's forces to end his mass bombing of Libyan citizens, and it wasn't just 'the west' that recognised the legitimacy of the transitional Libyan government before Ghadaffi was killed - your pal Assad included.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,557 ✭✭✭Ardillaun


    What does all this sudden love for Russia from the Trumpkins/Paleocons mean for Europe? A free hand for Putin in the old Soviet Union? And maybe in Eastern Europe generally? It's a bit surprising that actual Europeans are cheering for an invasion of their continent.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,557 ✭✭✭Ardillaun


    Assad has failed the basic test of a barrier state - he could not keep order and his continued rule has produced millions of refugees from his own country.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    You can't attack Assad's dictatorship when Saudi Arabia is much much worse.

    Can't you attack both? :confused:
    Well yes you attack the position of a dictatorship but you refuse to even acknowledge that Syria was and is indeed a secular state.

    I have never denied it, I just don't see it as being of any significance whatsoever.
    The people who protested against the Assad gvt were also against him because he was an Alawite not because he was an unfair ruler.

    [citation needed]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War_(January–April_2011)

    Seems incredibly political to me. Some highlights:
    26 or 28 January, in the large northern Kurdish city of Al-Hasakah, a man, Hasan Ali Akleh, soaked himself with gasoline and set himself afire.

    3 February, Syrian opposition groups called on Facebook and Twitter for a "day of rage" on Friday 4 February. This did not lead to protests in Syria on 4 February.

    5 February, in the Al-Hasakah, hundreds demonstrated for political reform and an end to emergency law.

    17 February, a demonstration was held, in the al-Hamidiya market in Damascus, in protest of a police beating of a shop keeper. Protesters chanted: "the Syrian people will not be humiliated".

    23 February, Syria's justice minister defended the state of emergency by pointing at the state of war with Israel. A proposal of one parliament member to evaluate the harsh emergency laws was voted down with 249 against one MP.

    1–17 March
    6 March, in the southern city of Daraa, fifteen teenagers were arrested for writing "the people want the regime to fall" on walls across the city. Supposedly the military police tortured them, or had carried them handcuffed out of their classroom.
    7 March, one day before the 48th anniversary of the 8 March 1963 coup d'état, which led to a permanent state of emergency in force ever since, thirteen political prisoners in Syria went on hunger strike, demanding an end to political arrests and the restitution of rights that have been removed from civil and political life.
    10 March, dozens of Syrian Kurds started hunger strike in solidarity with those of 7 March.
    12 March, thousands of Syrian Kurds protested in al-Qamishli and in al-Hasakah, on the day of Kurdish martyrs, commemorating the 30 Kurds that were killed by police after riots broke out at a football game in March 2004 (see 2004 al-Qamishli riots).
    Tuesday 15 March, dubbed "day of rage" by activists, hundreds staged protests in Damascus and Aleppo, calling for democratic reforms. The protest in Damascus was violently dispersed, six protesters were detained by security forces according to a witness speaking to the BBC.

    No, you're totally right. These protests had absolutely nothing to do with political oppression, police brutality, and violent suppression of dissent. :rolleyes:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_uprising_phase_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War

    Major unrest began on 15 March in Damascus and Aleppo, yet in the southern city of Daraa, sometimes called the "Cradle of the Revolution", protests had been triggered on 6 March by the incarceration and torture of 15 young students from prominent families who were arrested for writing anti-government graffiti in the city, reading: "الشعب يريد إسقاط النظام" – ("The people want the fall of the regime") – a trademark slogan of the Arab Spring.

    Demonstrators clashed with local police, and confrontations escalated on 18 March after Friday prayers. Security forces attacked protesters gathered at the Omari Mosque using water cannons and tear gas, followed by live fire, killing four.


    But again, you're totally right. It wasn't political at all. Had nothing to do with people being sick of living under an autocratic regime without civil liberties or basic freedoms.
    If you look at Islam itself their is a section in there about a benevolent ruler that looks after his people well. Nothing about the a democracy in there.

    What has this got to do with anything? Why are you so obsessed with conflating religion with politics? The protests did not have a religious basis but a civil one - that much is blindingly clear to anyone who was paying attention at the time. The religious and sectarian elements arose far later - the initial spark of the uprisings was generally some incident of brutality or overreach by the unelected government in each of the states involved.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    Can't you attack both? :confused:



    I have never denied it, I just don't see it as being of any significance whatsoever.



    [citation needed]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War_(January–April_2011)

    Seems incredibly political to me. Some highlights:



    No, you're totally right. These protests had absolutely nothing to do with political oppression, police brutality, and violent suppression of dissent. :rolleyes:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_uprising_phase_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War

    Major unrest began on 15 March in Damascus and Aleppo, yet in the southern city of Daraa, sometimes called the "Cradle of the Revolution", protests had been triggered on 6 March by the incarceration and torture of 15 young students from prominent families who were arrested for writing anti-government graffiti in the city, reading: "الشعب يريد إسقاط النظام" – ("The people want the fall of the regime") – a trademark slogan of the Arab Spring.

    Demonstrators clashed with local police, and confrontations escalated on 18 March after Friday prayers. Security forces attacked protesters gathered at the Omari Mosque using water cannons and tear gas, followed by live fire, killing four.


    But again, you're totally right. It wasn't political at all. Had nothing to do with people being sick of living under an autocratic regime without civil liberties or basic freedoms.



    What has this got to do with anything? Why are you so obsessed with conflating religion with politics? The protests did not have a religious basis but a civil one - that much is blindingly clear to anyone who was paying attention at the time. The religious and sectarian elements arose far later - the initial spark of the uprisings was generally some incident of brutality or overreach by the unelected government in each of the states involved.

    The reason I bring up religion is because in that part of the world religion and politics is intertwined. If you look at Israel that gvt emphasizes that it is a Jewish state at the expense of the Arab population. As for the demonstrators in Syria the violence on the streets perpetrated by the mobs caused the destruction of Mosques and burning of Christian Churches including the chanting of Anti Alawite slogans. This had all the fingerprints of sectarian killings. The gvt had to react to a dangerous situation that had sprung up in another country. The real key here is that west don't like it when Arabs want to rule themselves have have their own laws instead of being dictated to by an international cartel. The Demonstrators perpetrated heinous crimes against innocent civilians across the Arab Muslim world the chief beneficiaries of whom are the Jihadists.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    Ardillaun wrote: »
    What does all this sudden love for Russia from the Trumpkins/Paleocons mean for Europe? A free hand for Putin in the old Soviet Union? And maybe in Eastern Europe generally? It's a bit surprising that actual Europeans are cheering for an invasion of their continent.

    It certainly beats all the Russiaphobia that has been doing the rounds. A tremendous amount of hate and bigotry is shown towards Russians. In the days of the cold war is was because it was a Communist country now it is just because they are Russian and anything Russian is bad news.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    It certainly beats all the Russiaphobia that has been doing the rounds. A tremendous amount of hate and bigotry is shown towards Russians. In the days of the cold war is was because it was a Communist country now it is just because they are Russian and anything Russian is bad news.

    I guess that annexation of another nation's territory was all just an illusion then?


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    The reason I bring up religion is because in that part of the world religion and politics is intertwined. If you look at Israel that gvt emphasizes that it is a Jewish state at the expense of the Arab population. As for the demonstrators in Syria the violence on the streets perpetrated by the mobs caused the destruction of Mosques and burning of Christian Churches including the chanting of Anti Alawite slogans. This had all the fingerprints of sectarian killings. The gvt had to react to a dangerous situation that had sprung up in another country. The real key here is that west don't like it when Arabs want to rule themselves have have their own laws instead of being dictated to by an international cartel. The Demonstrators perpetrated heinous crimes against innocent civilians across the Arab Muslim world the chief beneficiaries of whom are the Jihadists.

    What international cartel is supposed to be dictating to Syria? The Syrians themselves opposed Assad, and continue to. If you can't acknowledge that the primary cause of the civil war there is Assad, and not some fictional CT you dreamed up, then it might explain why you can't understand anything else that's going on in that country.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,800 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    It's similar to how technocratic governments in Europe have been cheerleaded by many of the same posters. They do not fundamentally believe in democracy as the cornerstone of civilisation. They are concerned entirely with ends, regardless of means - therefore if a government's policies are "good" in their eyes, it doesn't matter whether they are democratically elected or not.

    Personally I'm the opposite. No leader can be described as a good leader, even if they make gold rain from the sky and have a zero poverty rate, unless they are backed by free and open democratic elections.

    There's a flip-side to that argument, which is the danger of believing that a leader anointed by free and fair elections is automatically a good one.

    Blair? Cameron? Sarkozy? Berlusconi? Tsipras? Duterte? Trump?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    alastair wrote: »
    What international cartel is supposed to be dictating to Syria? The Syrians themselves opposed Assad, and continue to. If you can't acknowledge that the primary cause of the civil war there is Assad, and not some fictional CT you dreamed up, then it might explain why you can't understand anything else that's going on in that country.

    The primary cause of the civil war is not President Assad it is the terrorists that were backed by Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Al Qaeda in Iraq became ISIS and infiltrated Syria.

    Most of the fighters against Syrian gvt are non Syrians. Where did they come? They came from across the Arab world. Saudi's and Turks, Jordanians, Libyans, Egyptians colleagues of Morsi. Even Chechens are in Syria all under the umbrella of Jihad. None have an interest of keeping a secular state or having free and fair election. That means no peace with Israel and worse relations with the international community.

    Why defend people that want to spread terror in a volatile region? What is urgently needed is diplomacy and focusing on removing the threat posed by terrorists. Having free and fair elections is important yes also having security to ensure that voters can freely go to the voting booth without the fear of being attacked is also vital. People won't vote if their lives are in danger and will result in low turnout and leaders not representing the majority of the population.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,378 ✭✭✭BuilderPlumber


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    The primary cause of the civil war is not President Assad it is the terrorists that were backed by Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Al Qaeda in Iraq became ISIS and infiltrated Syria.

    Most of the fighters against Syrian gvt are non Syrians. Where did they come? They came from across the Arab world. Saudi's and Turks, Jordanians, Libyans, Egyptians colleagues of Morsi. Even Chechens are in Syria all under the umbrella of Jihad. None have an interest of keeping a secular state or having free and fair election. That means no peace with Israel and worse relations with the international community.

    Why defend people that want to spread terror in a volatile region? What is urgently needed is diplomacy and focusing on removing the threat posed by terrorists. Having free and fair elections is important yes also having security to ensure that voters can freely go to the voting booth without the fear of being attacked is also vital. People won't vote if their lives are in danger and will result in low turnout and leaders not representing the majority of the population.

    The problem indeed is this. This practice of using proxies dates back to the cold war. The US via Saudi Arabia arranged fighters to go to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. These foreign fighters mostly from the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia in particular formed into al Qaeda.

    The current situation is the same. The West backed up FSA to oust Assad who was a pro-Russia leader. The Russians and Russia's allies needless to say backed up Assad. ISIS were backed up by elements in Saudi Arabia and Turkey saw anyone including ISIS who opposed the Kurds as someone to support to some extent. The enemy of one's enemy is one's friend mentality.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    The problem indeed is this. This practice of using proxies dates back to the cold war. The US via Saudi Arabia arranged fighters to go to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. These foreign fighters mostly from the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia in particular formed into al Qaeda.

    The current situation is the same. The West backed up FSA to oust Assad who was a pro-Russia leader. The Russians and Russia's allies needless to say backed up Assad. ISIS were backed up by elements in Saudi Arabia and Turkey saw anyone including ISIS who opposed the Kurds as someone to support to some extent. The enemy of one's enemy is one's friend mentality.

    Yes Assad is accused of backing the PKK against Turkey so he is enemy of Erdogan and backing Hezbollah and the PLO in neighbouring states much to the frustration of Washington & Tel Aviv. A settlement needs to be reached on using proxies to undermine states across the region. Israel has to be recognized by the Arab states.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,378 ✭✭✭BuilderPlumber


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    There's a flip-side to that argument, which is the danger of believing that a leader anointed by free and fair elections is automatically a good one.

    Blair? Cameron? Sarkozy? Berlusconi? Tsipras? Duterte? Trump?

    Of all of these Duterte is so far the most dictatorial with regard to his own people. Blair was a warmonger but did not change the internal legal framework of his own country. The next 4 are ordinary run of the mill politicians. Trump has yet to prove what he is!


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    The primary cause of the civil war is not President Assad it is the terrorists that were backed by Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Al Qaeda in Iraq became ISIS and infiltrated Syria.

    Nope. Assad caused the civil war. Long before ISIS existed, there was civil war initiated by Assad's reaction to popular protest. It's pretty much impossible to claim a cause that didn't exist at the time the war started.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    alastair wrote: »
    Nope. Assad caused the civil war. Long before ISIS existed, there was civil war initiated by Assad's reaction to popular protest. It's pretty much impossible to claim a cause that didn't exist at the time the war started.

    It was the Jihadists backed by the West that caused the civil war in Syria. Israel even violated Syrian airspace and targeted the gvt infrastructure. The US was setting on a collision course to attack Syria before going after Iran.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,800 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Of all of these Duterte is so far the most dictatorial with regard to his own people.

    He was democratically elected. And that's my only point: we really, really need to stop using "democratic" as some sort of gold standard. Lots of truly horrible people and truly horrible policies have had democratic mandates.

    If there's an objective reason to criticise a leader or a policy, go for it. But criticising them just because they don't have the imprimatur of democratic legitimacy is weak sauce.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    He was democratically elected. And that's my only point: we really, really need to stop using "democratic" as some sort of gold standard. Lots of truly horrible people and truly horrible policies have had democratic mandates.

    If there's an objective reason to criticise a leader or a policy, go for it. But criticising them just because they don't have the imprimatur of democratic legitimacy is weak sauce.

    Israel is not a democracy. Everyone knows it by now but won't admit it. The US, Britain and France still pretend that Israel is the only democracy in the region. If Syria is a dictatorship so is Israel. Peace walls, police brutality, racism towards Arab inhabitants and unwillingness to negotiate territory swaps with neighbouring states.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    It was the Jihadists backed by the West that caused the civil war in Syria.

    In 1982 Assad massacred between 20,000 and 40,000 people. And that was just one attrocity.

    Do you not think the Syrian people might remember something like that and harbour some lasting hatred for assad?

    Here's a wiki list of the Syrian Massacres:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Syria


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    Trump has to think long and hard about what has to be done and should form a government of moderate competent people who can get what needs to be done properly.

    yep. Pence, palin , Bannon, all well known moderates


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    InTheTrees wrote: »
    In 1982 Assad massacred between 20,000 and 40,000 people. And that was just one attrocity.

    Do you not think the Syrian people might remember something like that and harbour some lasting hatred for assad?

    Here's a wiki list of the Syrian Massacres:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Syria

    In the 80's their was an Islamist resurgence the like of Al Qaeda. Sectarians that wanted sharia law imposed and your ignoring the point I made about Israel. Mossad has committed atrocities all their own in the name of Israel.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    In the 80's their was an Islamist resurgence the like of Al Qaeda. Sectarians that wanted sharia law imposed and your ignoring the point I made about Israel. Mossad has committed atrocities all their own in the name of Israel.

    No. I'm not.

    Do you think that it is possible that the inhabitants of a country that suffers regular atrocities on its people by the rulers might feel some discontent?

    Those people are then open to all kinds of outside influence, right?


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    InTheTrees wrote: »
    No. I'm not.

    Do you think that it is possible that the inhabitants of a country that suffers regular atrocities on its people by the rulers might feel some discontent?

    Those people are then open to all kinds of outside influence, right?

    most of the anti-assad ferment is religious or pseudo-religious


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,363 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    InTheTrees wrote: »
    No. I'm not.

    Do you think that it is possible that the inhabitants of a country that suffers regular atrocities on its people by the rulers might feel some discontent?

    Those people are then open to all kinds of outside influence, right?

    Are we talking about Israel here or Turkey. You comment is so vague it could apply to virtually every country in the region. You apply one standard to Syria and look away from Gaza or the Kurds engaged in a war with the Turkish gvt. You select Syria for special treatment and condemn them for actions that are committed across the region namely terrorist attacks like Hamas targeting Israeli settlements or MB, Al Nusra & FSA targeting gvt forces in Damascus and elsewhere. Condemn all atrocities which I do. I condemn them all accepting that this is a war and states have to defend themselves from terrorists whoever they may be.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,378 ✭✭✭BuilderPlumber


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    He was democratically elected. And that's my only point: we really, really need to stop using "democratic" as some sort of gold standard. Lots of truly horrible people and truly horrible policies have had democratic mandates.

    If there's an objective reason to criticise a leader or a policy, go for it. But criticising them just because they don't have the imprimatur of democratic legitimacy is weak sauce.

    Most of the worst dictators rose to power either democratically or else as a popular agent for change. Hitler is an example. Duterte is an example now. Governments can be sold to the people, racism can be sold and poor policies of all kind can be sold. Trump, Brexit, Le Pen, etc. all can be marketed in different ways and be shown as antidotes to the problems of the day.

    Democracy does not exist. Governments get into power, break their promises and rule obo an unelected elite of big businessmen. The media expose them are the media in turn are owned by rival interests. The people are pawns in the process and their opinions are changed by clever marketing by the politicians and/or media.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement