PhantomViper wrote: Also I'm sorry to say, but the US really isn't the world's super-hero... For starters almost everyone that you guys tried to "help" in the past few years (to continue the analogy), has came out of it worse than they were before US intervention, so I think its time for the US to hang up its mask and concentrate on just being another reporter (where the hell has this analogy taken me?! ).
I'd have to agree that those were like the What If? where Wolverine killed Dracula, but then wound up building a vampire army way worse than the original Dracula's. I'm not sure who Dr. Strange and the Punisher are in this analogy, but it eventually worked out OK.
Except all the people who got killed by mutant vampires, those guys got screwed.
PhantomViper wrote: For starters almost everyone that you guys tried to "help" in the past few years (to continue the analogy), has came out of it worse than they were before US intervention, so I think its time for the US to hang up its mask and concentrate on just being another reporter (where the hell has this analogy taken me?! ).
Such as?
We went into neither Afghanistan nor Iraq to help. Those weren't humanitarian interventions.
I didn't state "help" as in humanitarian interventions, I only said "help" to continue the super-hero analogy.
Besides, I thought you guys stated that the objective of the invasion of Iraq was to rid the Iraqui people from a horrible dictator? And the occupation of Afghanistan was to bring democracy to its masses and rid the people of the Taliban?
Now you are saying that they were only for your own interests?! I'm shocked!
PhantomViper wrote: Also I'm sorry to say, but the US really isn't the world's super-hero... For starters almost everyone that you guys tried to "help" in the past few years (to continue the analogy), has came out of it worse than they were before US intervention, so I think its time for the US to hang up its mask and concentrate on just being another reporter (where the hell has this analogy taken me?! ).
I'd have to agree that those were like the What If? where Wolverine killed Dracula, but then wound up building a vampire army way worse than the original Dracula's. I'm not sure who Dr. Strange and the Punisher are in this analogy, but it eventually worked out OK.
Except all the people who got killed by mutant vampires, those guys got screwed.
You made me laugh out loud in the office, have an exalt!
WW2 was (partially) the result of doing nothing and pretending that the problem would just go away on it's own (England had a prime minster who said as much, IIRC). A lot of the same reasons were given before the outbreak of the war in Europe (and even after in the US) of why it was someone else's problem, and if we don't get involved it will all blow over. My point is that while, as certain posters like to point out, times that the US intervened were bad, the times they did nothing until it was pretty late in the game turned out much worse by several orders of magnitude. While in this case, it's unlikely that Assad will suddenly invade Poland, there's still the likelihood that doing nothing comes back to bite the US in unforeseen ways as well as the more obvious ones.
xole wrote: I'm not getting the comparison to WW2. COmpletely different opponents with completely different potential outcomes.
Its called "appeal to emotion". Since BaronIveagh doesn't really have any logical argument to support his position, he is relegated to saying things like "if we don't attack Syria then the Nazis will kill 6 million Jews" to try and garner support for it.
I don't agree with BaronIveagh's stance at all, but I did think some of his arguments in the thread were compelling (some were less so, such as the US constitution ones, not to rehash that). Specifically why bombing the areas would be a bad idea, and the general argument that, to sum it up pithily, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
While I disagree - in my experience evil prevails anyway regardless of what you do - I think it's a fair argument too, the with great responsibility one. As a kid who grew up reading Spider-Man it certainly resonated with me, as well as that sometimes you have to protect a world that fears and hates you for your mutations, and that even if you have a bad heart or dead parents, you can still do great things if you have a giant boat of money... Look, any analogy breaks down if you take it too far, but I don't think they were all just appeals to emotion.
I don't think Spiderman would have supported rebels that torture and kill their prisoners on video, eat their hearts, forced conversions and parading nuns around like prisoners of war.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Hyena wrote: Humanitarian intervention is pointless. No conflict has ever been stopped or helped by any.
We could just nuke all these sites from orbit. That would take care of it.
Often civil wars are good things.
PhantomViper wrote: I didn't state "help" as in humanitarian interventions, I only said "help" to continue the super-hero analogy.
Besides, I thought you guys stated that the objective of the invasion of Iraq was to rid the Iraqui people from a horrible dictator? And the occupation of Afghanistan was to bring democracy to its masses and rid the people of the Taliban?
Now you are saying that they were only for your own interests?! I'm shocked!
They were largely but not exclusively for our national security interests, certainly.
There is always going to be an element of self-determinism to the outcome even of humanitarian interventions, however. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink, as the saying goes. If your populace is deeply, deeply committed to factionalizing and killing each other, success on our part is going to be limited at best.
Mr Hyena wrote: Humanitarian intervention is pointless. No conflict has ever been stopped or helped by any.
Are you not old enough to remember the mess following the dissolution of Yugoslavia?
AndrewC wrote: This started because of the heavyhandedness of the Assad regime resulted in protests calling for his resignation after protesters calling for a revolution were arrested, tortured and killed.
Democracy is the last thing that started this.
Large numbers of protestors called for the leader's resignation, and were violently persecuted.... and that has nothing to do with democracy.
What the hell?
You're mis-interpreting my post. The protestors were not on the streets demanding proportional representation or free and fair elections monitored by the international community. They simply wanted Assad out of power.
Now you and I probably have different baselines as to what democracy means in this instance. You are implying that the people demanding a resignation is a democracy, you could also use that standard to imply that a lynch mob is also a democratic proceedure. Parlimentary Democracy, which is what BaronIveagh is talking about had nothing to do with that original protest. It may have ended with it two years down the line, but the cynic in me thinks that that is a sop to the west to garner support.
Frazzled wrote: I’ll bite:
Korea: bloody draw. We’re still there, trapped in this weird dance of craptown with a psycho in a 5th world country.
Vietnam: How’d that turn out?
Somalia: Bad
Kosova: Bad to midlin. drug lord and slavers run the place.
Afghanistan 1: Beat the Soviets but helped form AlQaeda. I’d rather have the Rooskies. At least they were sane.
Afghanistan II: We did ok going after AlQaeda. Then it turned into “lets build a country” Crap fest we’re being run out of.
Iraq 1: We went after the wrong guys.
Iraq 2: We went after the wrong guys (again) and now the bad guys effectively run most of the country.
But not to be outdone:
Libya: helped change that from a dictatorship to Somalia lite. Awesome job there Ricky.
Egypt: Mmmm. Helped kick out a military dictator, replaced by an Islamic dictator, not replaced by…a military dictator.
Syria: Islamofascists who kill prisoners and persecute Christians on one side, Nazi dictator (look up the structure of the Baath party) on the other.
Crazily, just staying out of everyone’s affairs might have been a better course…
Frazz, you've conveniently forgotten America's aborted invasions of Canada!
But it's a fair point. It's been pointed out before, that unless the British are either a) enemies or b) allies, then the USA rarely succeeds in war. Now that Parliament has voted against British involvement, it's a sign that America will fail in Syria if ever one was needed.
And finally, I just heard something weird on the news: John McCain caught playing online poker in the senate during a debate! WTF?
Its called "appeal to emotion". Since BaronIveagh doesn't really have any logical argument to support his position, he is relegated to saying things like "if we don't attack Syria then the Nazis will kill 6 million Jews" to try and garner support for it.
Wow, nice fail to read and snidely dismiss all at the same time. My point was that doing nothing has, on the occasions it was tried, led to worse outcomes than doing something (WW2 being an exampl of what happens when nations try to avoid involvement until it's too late).
To borrow Ouze's Spider-man analogy so that you all understand: WW2 was sort of like that time Peter sat by and didn't stop the robber, who then gunned down Uncle Ben.
Its called "appeal to emotion". Since BaronIveagh doesn't really have any logical argument to support his position, he is relegated to saying things like "if we don't attack Syria then the Nazis will kill 6 million Jews" to try and garner support for it.
Wow, nice fail to read and snidely dismiss all at the same time. My point was that doing nothing has, on the occasions it was tried, led to worse outcomes than doing something (WW2 being an exampl of what happens when nations try to avoid involvement until it's too late).
To borrow Ouze's Spider-man analogy so that you all understand: WW2 was sort of like that time Peter sat by and didn't stop the robber, who then gunned down Uncle Ben.
Ok, I'll byte. What nation avoided involvement in WW2 until it was too late? Or are you advocating that France and Britain should have just invaded Germany before it all started?
WW2 was more like the time where we quit selling lube to Doc Ock for his arms because we were mad when he punched up an old lady, so he punched us in the face for sticking our nose in. His compadre The Mad Bomber Wuz Bomz at Midnite then called us a poopy face.
neither of them realized however that, Spidey was channeling the Spirit of Marshall Cogburn, who proceded to shoot them both with Colt Peacemakers while riding on a pale horse called JUSTICE!!!
Its called "appeal to emotion". Since BaronIveagh doesn't really have any logical argument to support his position, he is relegated to saying things like "if we don't attack Syria then the Nazis will kill 6 million Jews" to try and garner support for it.
Wow, nice fail to read and snidely dismiss all at the same time. My point was that doing nothing has, on the occasions it was tried, led to worse outcomes than doing something (WW2 being an exampl of what happens when nations try to avoid involvement until it's too late).
To borrow Ouze's Spider-man analogy so that you all understand: WW2 was sort of like that time Peter sat by and didn't stop the robber, who then gunned down Uncle Ben.
Ok, I'll byte. What nation avoided involvement in WW2 until it was too late? Or are you advocating that France and Britain should have just invaded Germany before it all started?
I think he's impugning that if only Ecuador had invaded Yugoslavia, Hitler would have written a different book while in prison: Memoirs of a Geisha, or something.
Ok, I'll byte. What nation avoided involvement in WW2 until it was too late? Or are you advocating that France and Britain should have just invaded Germany before it all started?
The United States was the one I was thinking of, but an argument could be made for waiting until Hitler invaded Poland on England and Frances part. Simply allowing Germany to have an unimportant nation like Czechoslovakia sent the wrong sort of message to Berlin.
The US attempted to enforce a policy of isolationism (which was popular with the public after WW1). However, this policy not only failed to keep the US out of the war (spectacularly) but also cost it some important allies in the short term and gave it's adversaries the means to achieve some important victories.
Ok, I'll byte. What nation avoided involvement in WW2 until it was too late? Or are you advocating that France and Britain should have just invaded Germany before it all started?
The United States was the one I was thinking of, but an argument could be made for waiting until Hitler invaded Poland on England and Frances part. Simply allowing Germany to have an unimportant nation like Czechoslovakia sent the wrong sort of message to Berlin.
So completely ignoring the small fact that if the US had declared war on Germany in 1939, you'd have been crushed and would probably would have let the Pacific wide open to the Japanese, I'm guessing that you think that the world would be a much better place today if the US had just invaded Turkey, Russia, Cambodia, Rwanda, Congo, South Africa and China, along with every other country that committed any type of atrocities during the 20th century?
Ok, I'll byte. What nation avoided involvement in WW2 until it was too late? Or are you advocating that France and Britain should have just invaded Germany before it all started?
The United States was the one I was thinking of, but an argument could be made for waiting until Hitler invaded Poland on England and Frances part. Simply allowing Germany to have an unimportant nation like Czechoslovakia sent the wrong sort of message to Berlin.
The US attempted to enforce a policy of isolationism (which was popular with the public after WW1). However, this policy not only failed to keep the US out of the war (spectacularly) but also cost it some important allies in the short term and gave it's adversaries the means to achieve some important victories.
So its your opinion the US should have attacked in 1939? With what? We didn't have anything. Ok we had an excellent navy and some B-17s. Not sure where you would fly the B-17s from. I guess we could have shelled the German coast or tangled with the German surface navy. While Epic on paper (now we'll show you what carriers do to battleships you nazi swine!) not exactly the brightest thing to do.
When did this become a thread about WWII? Take it to a new thread!
Username Invalid wrote: Okay, I'm a little confused. I understand opposition to full scale invasion and boots on the ground, etc. I understand that even if the majority of rebels can be considered "good guys" they have some nasty friends, so backing and supplying them is a questionable endevour.
But I fail to see the downside of limited cruise missile strikes. Will they achieve anything? Not really, but that's sort of the point isn't it? Obama is a Democrat, he doesn't want to risk American lives and he doesn't want to start his own Iraq. Missile strikes run neither of these risks. Assad simply has absolutely no way whatsoever of retaliating.
As far as I can see, lobbing a few missiles and drones at Assad's forces wouldn't significantly change the strategic situation on the ground and would serve as an effective reminder to Assad that he's allowed to massacre his own people and such, but he has to do so according to the rules, and the rules say no chems.
As to the cost, a few tens of millions is less than the tiniest drop in the world's largest bucket, so again, I just don't see the problem. If the only downside is cost, it's the equivelent of spending weeks arguing over a few pennies.
I'm open to the possibility I'm wrong, so I welcome criticism.
I have to agree with you. Really there are no good options, this seems like the least bad one.
The world would have been a better place if we'd listened to Patton and went straight though Berlin and only stopped when Patton put a boot on Stalin's throat in Moscow.
So its your opinion the US should have attacked in 1939? With what? We didn't have anything. Ok we had an excellent navy and some B-17s. Not sure where you would fly the B-17s from. I guess we could have shelled the German coast or tangled with the German surface navy. While Epic on paper (now we'll show you what carriers do to battleships you nazi swine!) not exactly the brightest thing to do.
Well, one, the USN's Atlantic fleet joining up with RN would have roflstomped the kreigsmarine even at that point. As far as where to fly B17s from, I might point out that England and France would have been good locations. (Remember that the fall of France was not until 1940).
And? Now that you've sunk a few Uboats (or they a whole lot of you), now what?
IIRC we had 200 B-17s at the start of WWII, many of which were at Pearl and the Phillipines. It would not have made a material difference. ON the flipside, it might have concentrated German efforts to knock France and Britain completely out of the war. A fully mobilized Germany with no Western front might have been enough to turn the tide on the USSR.
Russia not keen on U.N. Syria resolution: France's Fabius PARIS (Reuters) - Russia is not keen at this stage for a binding U.N. Security Council resolution that would provide a framework to control Syria's chemical weapons' stocks, France's foreign minister said after talks with his Russian counterpart on Tuesday.
"As I understood, the Russians at this stage were not necessarily enthusiastic, and I'm using euphemism, to put all that into the framework of a U.N. binding resolution," Laurent Fabius told French lawmakers after a telephone conversation with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
Joking about my first sentence...
Probably some mumbo-jumbo to ensure that the eventual resolution is nicely watered down before the Security Council votes.
After the vote in the UK, I saw an interview with one of the MP's who had voted yes for intervention. He was notably quite, well, upset and concerned about the result, quoting several reasons that I, personally, agreed with.
The reporter then asked him, "so, why haven't you done anything about Rwanda then?" In an attempt to catch him out... Then, in a remarkable display of consistency from a MP, it turns out that he had been campaigning for Rwanda... stuff (sorry, I was only half watching it).
So, what are the similarities / differences between the Syria situation and the Rwanda situation?
From my complete ignorance of what's going on, I thought one of the big things was, "UN agreed that Rwanda stuff was bad, so the UK is helping out via the UN."
So, what are the similarities / differences between the Syria situation and the Rwanda situation?
The UN found out in advance that the Rwanda genocide would take place, and UN command felt that intervening would be too risky. So French and Belgian blue helmets had to stand there and watch as a million people died. So anythign in Rwanda wit hthe UN is more a guilt trip than anything else. Their failure of the Rwandan people was spectacular.
Similarities: Both Rwanda and Syria had civilians being exterminated by a totalitarian government to put the screws to a large scale rebellion. Whether it will be similar in that the rebellion eventually wins has yet to be seen. What is certain is the same sort of mass exodus is taking place in both locations, which in Rwanda had a destabilizing effect on it's neighbors. It could be argued that the current situation in the Congo is fallout from the Rwandan Genocide.
As far as major differences go: Rwanda was a pre planned mass killing of civilians. Syria is more spur of the moment. The major differences are religious rather than ethnic, and unlike Rwanda, the current regime in Syria has powerful allies in the UN. As far as raw numbers go, so far the Syrian business is about 1/3rd to 1/8th smaller as far as civilian body count.
No slight intended, just a factual statement of your modus operandi to date. It is so predictable I can almost set my watch by it
I notice that you just disregarded a classical text that still has truth while you prefer to regurgitate whatever soundbite you can find to support your position. Quite telling.
Nice to see you never miss an opportunity to miss the point. Maybe you missed the part where the Ghurkas and the FFL actually serve a country - not the coin. That is a substantial difference. So they are soldiers, not mercenaries. They are sworn to defend a country and form a part of its standing military. Not soldiers for hire in the pay of a private entity.
Now, your claim of 100,000 Irish mercenaries in Iraq is still not substantiated so lets look at your claim about Irish mercenaries in Syria shall we?
[quote=]One of the rebels tells the French reporter that “three former soldiers of the Irish military elite” provided training to Syrian rebels. It is claimed the Irish soldiers were acting as “independent mercenaries”. These “former soldiers of the Irish military elite” are acting in violation of international law.
So three. hardly representative of a population of over four million people is it? And your own link is in relation to an Irishman that joined the British army before becoming a sell sword, out of "400 men and women from the Republic serving with the British Army." And, not typical.
But thank you for your efforts in trying to find some obscure example to prove your point, whatever that may be
The US won the Cold War, but that does not mean that we should engage in actions that are not measured, effective and have specific goals that enhance our own security. Jumping into the middle of a three way shooting war with plenty of outside players does none of the above. Winning the Cold War proved our dominance on the global stage militarily, politically, and economically. Ironically you tell me to join the 21st century while ignoring the changing realities since the end of the Cold War and how the US and the West appear to be suffering from intervention fatigue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote: Yeah, but that's when treds start slapping pavement and you at least have a vague idea who to engage (eve if it's just 'everyone you see'). This is more the question of: Are these guys really die hard AQ or can we manipulate them to our advantage if not outright get them to defect to our side? That's why I think it's important to understand what their motive is. It's like Sun Tzu once wrote: To make your enemy's army your own is best; to destroy it, second best.
Did you just tell me to join the 21st century for quoting Machiavelli (published in 1532), and you then quoted Sun Tzu (written in 500BC)?
Now, your claim of 100,000 Irish mercenaries in Iraq is still not substantiated so lets look at your claim about Irish mercenaries in Syria shall we?
It's hard to when you keep inflating the number. I said 10,000, and Iraq, not Syria. Going back I might point out that I simply mentioned that Irish mercenaries were there, training Syrians, not that there were vast numbers of them there atm.. But please, continue to try and build your straw man, by all means.
And, they still swear an oath to a country not their own in exchange for pay. You can dress it up all you like, but it's still working as a mercenary. After all, if all it took was an oath to not be a mercenary, there wouldn't be any mercenaries. Indeed, I'll point out that many of the mercenaries that Machiavelli mentioned swore oaths to nations and or powerful nobles as part of the terms of their employment.
Also, that quote you got came not from Le Mond but from Global Research, who make Fox News look 'fair and balanced' since the hysterical title of it is 'Irish Mercenaries Training Syrian Death Squads'.
LeMond wrote:In the basement of a cave, the camp also features an holding cell "for unruly rebels," the commander said. "We wanted to form a real army with rules, order, discipline, " he recounted there. Three former Irish elite soldiers who became independent mercenaries gave a helping hand. "Out of sympathy," says Abu Mahmoud.
Did you just tell me to join the 21st century for quoting Machiavelli (published in 1532), and you then quoted Sun Tzu (written in 500BC)?
Yeah, I did. Because the relationship between government and mercenary has changed a good deal since Machiavelli, where as the idea that getting an enemy to switch sides is better than wiping them out is still relevant. (Further, Machiavelli was clearly writing for the benefit of his sponsors, the Borgias, in that entry, as he particularly brings up the Sforza's failed use of mercenaries in Milan against the French [both sides hired the same mercenaries, who took the money and left both sides to sort out their own problems], without mentioning that the same Swiss mercenaries later came back and restored Milan to the Sforza afterward.)
AndrewC wrote: This started because of the heavyhandedness of the Assad regime resulted in protests calling for his resignation after protesters calling for a revolution were arrested, tortured and killed.
Democracy is the last thing that started this.
Large numbers of protestors called for the leader's resignation, and were violently persecuted.... and that has nothing to do with democracy.
What the hell?
You're mis-interpreting my post. The protestors were not on the streets demanding proportional representation or free and fair elections monitored by the international community. They simply wanted Assad out of power.
Now you and I probably have different baselines as to what democracy means in this instance. You are implying that the people demanding a resignation is a democracy, you could also use that standard to imply that a lynch mob is also a democratic proceedure. Parlimentary Democracy, which is what BaronIveagh is talking about had nothing to do with that original protest. It may have ended with it two years down the line, but the cynic in me thinks that that is a sop to the west to garner support.
Cheers
Andrew
Just to add to your statement, what real knowledge of democracy do people that live under a feudal or tribal system have? It's like giving a sports car to someone who has only handled Ox carts all their life.
Just to add to your statement, what real knowledge of democracy do people that live under a feudal or tribal system have? It's like giving a sports car to someone who has only handled Ox carts all their life.
Wow. You'd never know Damascus has been a center of civilization and trade since they paid tribute to Thutmose III, Pharaoh of Egypt in the 15th Century BC...
You do know that there are no fewer than four accredited universities, six museums, and a sizable educational system there, right? I'll throw in that Aleppo is hardly a bunch of mud and grass huts either.
It only "bit us in the ass" because we embargoed Japan. Left well enough alone and we could have been friends with everyone. imagine all the stuff we could have sold! B17s to the Germans, trucks to the Russians, oil and proper aircraft carriers to the Japanese...
Frazz, minor point, at the beginning of the war Japanese Aircraft carriers were more advanced than the US. It was Radar that gave the US it's advantage, not the quality, or even initially the quantity of their carriers.
Both Hitler and the Kaiser before him drew up plans to strike the North American mainland. Considering that part of Hitler's plan was to subvert the Mexican government, you might have had the Das Reich division rolling across the Rio Grande.
You mean Americans would have had to learn German instead of Spanish? Oh my! I imagine if the Germans had invaded they would have done that standby tactic of supporting the oppressed peoples of the land they were attacking. The slaves were promised freedom in both the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, the abolitionists lost the Revolutionary one though. That would be a strange twist in history though, black americans fighting for the nazis to overturn Jim Crow laws.
Remember what Jessie Owens said? He was treated better in Nazi run Berlin than he was at home where segregation was common and while Hitler never publically shook his hand, Roosevelt didn't either.
Trivia, a reporter witnessed Hitler shaking hands with Owens later but the act was never published at the time because of the anti-nazi sentiment.
Owens, who felt the newspapers of the day reported 'unfairly' on Hitler's attitude towards him, tried to get Mischner and his journalist colleagues to change the accepted version of history in the 1960s.
“I don’t know if any of this is true and I cannot say for sure that it is true because I have no means of confirming the truth of what was said. I don’t know how reliable this information is and cannot confirm the identity of these people. I am in no position to say for sure whether this conversation is based on real fact or just hearsay and I don’t usually call conversations I have heard through a door, true,” Quirico said. "
At least he's honest.
Domenico Quirico fell into the hands of an ostensibly Islamist group who has been ransoming people. It's not exactly uncommon for fifth column groups to do that sort of thing to get money, you see it a lot in South America.
He knows what he heard, but isn't prepared to say that what he heard was accurate which is exactly how you want a journalist to behave. It's also why I posted a link to that site rather than the other sites who are simply claiming what he heard was solid evidence for rebel culpability.
Similarly the US government and others have been using hearsay to determine/excuse their cource of action.
Thankfully the Russians appear to have come up with a peaceful solution - talk about role reversal.
Just to add to your statement, what real knowledge of democracy do people that live under a feudal or tribal system have? It's like giving a sports car to someone who has only handled Ox carts all their life.
Wow. You'd never know Damascus has been a center of civilization and trade since they paid tribute to Thutmose III, Pharaoh of Egypt in the 15th Century BC...
You do know that there are no fewer than four accredited universities, six museums, and a sizable educational system there, right? I'll throw in that Aleppo is hardly a bunch of mud and grass huts either.
It appears all of that education isn't doing them much good since they seem to be fighting along tribal lines.
cadbren wrote: Thankfully the Russians appear to have come up with a peaceful solution - talk about role reversal.
I don't think you can really consider it a peaceful solution when the war has been going on for over two years now, and what the Russians are proposing isn't going to end the fighting.
cadbren wrote: Thankfully the Russians appear to have come up with a peaceful solution - talk about role reversal.
I don't think you can really consider it a peaceful solution when the war has been going on for over two years now, and what the Russians are proposing isn't going to end the fighting.
Expanding the war wasn't going to help matters though, so the Russians are helping to bring peace. Meanwhile the guy who campaigned on bringing the troops home and change (and got a peace prize before he'd even had time to warm the presidential chair) is going cap in hand trying to find people to support his desire to attack a country on the far side of the world with no endgoal in sight.
cadbren wrote: Thankfully the Russians appear to have come up with a peaceful solution - talk about role reversal.
I don't think you can really consider it a peaceful solution when the war has been going on for over two years now, and what the Russians are proposing isn't going to end the fighting.
Expanding the war wasn't going to help matters though, so the Russians are helping to bring peace. Meanwhile the guy who campaigned on bringing the troops home and change (and got a peace prize before he'd even had time to warm the presidential chair) is going cap in hand trying to find people to support his desire to attack a country on the far side of the world with no endgoal in sight.
If anything the Russian plan prolongs the war and ensures no peace. It leaves Assad in power and free to do whatever he wants short of gassing his enemies.
For the record, regarding Obama trying to start a war. He has said he supports the Russian plan and wants to see how it will play out. The man can hardly be called a hawk, his hand was forced by the undisputable use of chemical weapons (with slightly more dispute as to who did the using), he's made it pretty clear he wants to avoid getting the US entangled in this bloody mess. Mind you, the world (esp. France and David Cameron, but also our own little Mr. Harper up here) have been demanding he do SOMETHING, after all that is what we espect of America, so that's pretty obviously the reason for all the tough talk he was spouting a few weeks before this fiasco.
Between Obama delaying the vote and Britain opting out, even France has made it clear they're not going in alone, it's looking more like the whole world's just giving this a "tet's wait and see how this goes."
BaronIveagh wrote: It's hard to when you keep inflating the number. I said 10,000, and Iraq, not Syria. Going back I might point out that I simply mentioned that Irish mercenaries were there, training Syrians, not that there were vast numbers of them there atm.. But please, continue to try and build your straw man, by all means.
And, they still swear an oath to a country not their own in exchange for pay. You can dress it up all you like, but it's still working as a mercenary. After all, if all it took was an oath to not be a mercenary, there wouldn't be any mercenaries. Indeed, I'll point out that many of the mercenaries that Machiavelli mentioned swore oaths to nations and or powerful nobles as part of the terms of their employment.
Also, that quote you got came not from Le Mond but from Global Research, who make Fox News look 'fair and balanced' since the hysterical title of it is 'Irish Mercenaries Training Syrian Death Squads'.
LeMond wrote:In the basement of a cave, the camp also features an holding cell "for unruly rebels," the commander said. "We wanted to form a real army with rules, order, discipline, " he recounted there. Three former Irish elite soldiers who became independent mercenaries gave a helping hand. "Out of sympathy," says Abu Mahmoud.
My apologies for the extra 0. A simple, one time error that could easily happen to anyone, no need to simply infer the worst, or claim that I "keep inflating the number" so you can cry victim and attempt to paint me in the worst possible light.
You keep (willfully) missing the point about the difference between serving a nation's standing army in a sworn capacity, in their uniform, following the law of war, under the control of that country's leader, and not those engaged in war for hire employed by private individuals. You are willfully ignoring and distorting my arguments to suit yourself, then have the audacity to claim that a simple error on my part is an attempt to strawman.
Could you please provide a link to the Le Mond article you are referencing? But it is nice to see that for all your complaints about the quote that I provided that your quote substantiates the figure that I provided
Yeah, I did. Because the relationship between government and mercenary has changed a good deal since Machiavelli, where as the idea that getting an enemy to switch sides is better than wiping them out is still relevant. (Further, Machiavelli was clearly writing for the benefit of his sponsors, the Borgias, in that entry, as he particularly brings up the Sforza's failed use of mercenaries in Milan against the French [both sides hired the same mercenaries, who took the money and left both sides to sort out their own problems], without mentioning that the same Swiss mercenaries later came back and restored Milan to the Sforza afterward.)
Machiavelli wrote 'The Prince' (and dedicated it to) Lorenzo di Piero de' Medici, it was originally intended for Giuliano di Lorenzo de' Medici as a way of currying favour to have Machiavelli returned from exile. It was not written for the Borgias.
Would you care to elaborate on how the relationship between the government and the mercenary has changed so much as to make 'The Prince' obsolete?
Speaking of changing times, the US won the Cold War, but that does not mean that we should engage in actions that are not measured, effective and have specific goals that enhance our own security. Jumping into the middle of a three way shooting war with plenty of outside players does none of the above. Winning the Cold War proved our dominance on the global stage militarily, politically, and economically. Ironically you tell me to join the 21st century while ignoring the changing realities since the end of the Cold War and how the US and the West appear to be suffering from intervention fatigue.
For the record, regarding Obama trying to start a war. He has said he supports the Russian plan and wants to see how it will play out. The man can hardly be called a hawk, his hand was forced by the undisputable use of chemical weapons (with slightly more dispute as to who did the using), he's made it pretty clear he wants to avoid getting the US entangled in this bloody mess. Mind you, the world (esp. France and David Cameron, but also our own little Mr. Harper up here) have been demanding he do SOMETHING, after all that is what we espect of America, so that's pretty obviously the reason for all the tough talk he was spouting a few weeks before this fiasco.
Between Obama delaying the vote and Britain opting out, even France has made it clear they're not going in alone, it's looking more like the whole world's just giving this a "tet's wait and see how this goes."
OK one could look it that way. One could also look at it that Obama just got rolled...by himself.
Username Invalid wrote: For the record, regarding Obama trying to start a war. He has said he supports the Russian plan and wants to see how it will play out. The man can hardly be called a hawk, his hand was forced by the undisputable use of chemical weapons (with slightly more dispute as to who did the using), he's made it pretty clear he wants to avoid getting the US entangled in this bloody mess. Mind you, the world (esp. France and David Cameron, but also our own little Mr. Harper up here) have been demanding he do SOMETHING, after all that is what we espect of America, so that's pretty obviously the reason for all the tough talk he was spouting a few weeks before this fiasco.
Between Obama delaying the vote and Britain opting out, even France has made it clear they're not going in alone, it's looking more like the whole world's just giving this a "tet's wait and see how this goes."
please don't tell me that you mean that Obama cannot be called a hawk. The POTUS is at the forefront of the calls for military action after he drew a red line in the sand, and was attempting to build a coalition of partners for support. Something that the majority of the US people don't want. Had this been the previous Administration the cries of "COWBOY!!!" would have been deafening
Relapse wrote:
It appears all of that education isn't doing them much good since they seem to be fighting along tribal lines.
In Eastern Syria this is true. However, this is not the majority of the population (Syria's two largest cities are in the west of the country)
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
My apologies for the extra 0. A simple, one time error that could easily happen to anyone, no need to simply infer the worst, or claim that I "keep inflating the number" so you can cry victim and attempt to paint me in the worst possible light.
Normally I wouldn't have commented, but you have a track record of inflating my statements to try and straw man me or provoke me into saying something to get me banned so you can win by default, and jumping on any such mistake I make myself. So, no, apology not accepted.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
You keep (willfully) missing the point about the difference between serving a nation's standing army in a sworn capacity, in their uniform, following the law of war, under the control of that country's leader, and not those engaged in war for hire employed by private individuals.
Who do you think are the number one clients of both PMCs and straight up mercenaries? Governments.
Dictionary wrote:mercenary
adj.
1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
2. Hired for service in a foreign army.
Article 47 wrote:
2. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) is especially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.
England and France demanded that E be added before they would sign to give them a loop hole to keep hiring mercenaries for their armies, because otherwise the FFL, Gurkhas, and recruits from the Commonwealth would all qualify as mercenaries under the GC.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Could you please provide a link to the Le Mond article you are referencing? But it is nice to see that for all your complaints about the quote that I provided that your quote substantiates the figure that I provided
I didn't say that it had not. Though I find your reading habits, if you're reading the source of the article you quoted, appalling.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:Would you care to elaborate on how the relationship between the government and the mercenary has changed so much as to make 'The Prince' obsolete?
Well, to start with, there's the Geneva Conventions. That changed the game rather significantly. To operate legally, you have to have some form of sponsorship by a party to a conflict other than strictly financial. Usually you're attached to the closest thing they have to a military command. I don't know where you get the idea that working for a government's military is not being a mercenary, as most governments hiring them set up a sort of umbrella 'mercenary command' in their army, if only so they can coordinate your actions with everyone else. And I use the term 'governments' loosely here, as 'governments in exile', rebel commands, and all sorts of other dubious military enterprises can qualify as 'parties to a conflict'. You also run into situations where you work for a government but the paycheck comes from somewhere else. Debeers tends to use that one to prop up governments friendly to their corporate interests.
There's also the fact that most governments now maintain (occasionally large) standing armies. When Machiavelli was writing, this was not the case, thus his admonishment that competent mercenary captains would seek the overthrow of the prince who hired them. In the Italian Wars from the period that Machiavelli was writing, mercenaries made up a very large proportion of the troops employed compared to the 'regular' army. Further, remember that the military parts of the Prince are written in the context of Conquest. Machiavelli based these parts off Caesar Borgia and, to a lesser degree, Louis XI of France. By and large, most modern governments do not use mercenaries as the bulk of their forces (there have been exceptions to this). They have however used them as cats paws in wars they did not wish to commit their 'regular' troops to, in rear echelon duties, drug interdiction, and as garrison troops.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Speaking of changing times, the US won the Cold War, but that does not mean that we should engage in actions that are not measured, effective and have specific goals that enhance our own security. Jumping into the middle of a three way shooting war with plenty of outside players does none of the above.
I don't deny that the West is suffering from 'intervention fatigue', though, frankly, the issue with your assertion about it doing none of the above can only actually be determined after the fact, particularly the 'effective' part. Based on the article I posted earlier about Syrians becoming frustrated with the West's indecisiveness. The huge numbers of refugees pouring into neighboring countries due Syria, and this is my personal opinion, create a bigger risk of endangering the US security by doing nothing than trying to force a end to the conflict does. Refugee camps are prime recruiting ground for terrorist organizations, and this conflict is creating a gigantic number.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Uh Oh, freed journalist hostages say they overheard rebels discussing the chemical attacks and that they weren't done by the Assad regime.
They also denote how they were beaten and subject to mock executions by the rebels. What a delightful bunch.
You're a little slow Frazz. The freed hostages have already denied this article. They can't confirm or deny it as fact because they have no idea if it was just a bunch of rebels sitting around speculating about what happened. And mock executions are pretty standard for jihadists.
BaronIveagh wrote: Normally I wouldn't have commented, but you have a track record of inflating my statements to try and straw man me or provoke me into saying something to get me banned so you can win by default, and jumping on any such mistake I make myself. So, no, apology not accepted.
An outright lie, but please feel free to play the victim card.
BaronIveagh wrote: Who do you think are the number one clients of both PMCs and straight up mercenaries? Governments.
Dictionary wrote:mercenary **snip**
Article 47 wrote:**snip
England and France demanded that E be added before they would sign to give them a loop hole to keep hiring mercenaries for their armies, because otherwise the FFL, Gurkhas, and recruits from the Commonwealth would all qualify as mercenaries under the GC.
Still missing the point and trying to obfuscate? Soldiers swear an oath, form part of the standing armed force of a country, they serve that country and that country alone, are subject to control from a government. They are not employed by private entities. It is nice though that Article 47 supports my argument though At this point I'm inclined to think that you just don't want to get the distinction.
BaronIveagh wrote: I didn't say that it had not. Though I find your reading habits, if you're reading the source of the article you quoted, appalling.
Thank you for the link. It is a shame that you had to stoop to personal slights though, sort of undermines your attempt to claim the victim You can of course blame Google for the link I provided. When you Google " Irish mercenaries Syria" that is the first result.
In any event its nice to see that you (a) can't substantiate your claim of 10K Irish mercenaries in Iraq (especially as the standing army of the Irish republic is less than 8K), (b) your tried so hard to show that the actions of a minority of private individuals employed in no official capacity were somehow a yardstick for an entire country.
BaronIveagh wrote: Well, to start with, there's the Geneva Conventions. That changed the game rather significantly. To operate legally, you have to have some form of sponsorship by a party to a conflict other than strictly financial. Usually you're attached to the closest thing they have to a military command. I don't know where you get the idea that working for a government's military is not being a mercenary, as most governments hiring them set up a sort of umbrella 'mercenary command' in their army, if only so they can coordinate your actions with everyone else. And I use the term 'governments' loosely here, as 'governments in exile', rebel commands, and all sorts of other dubious military enterprises can qualify as 'parties to a conflict'. You also run into situations where you work for a government but the paycheck comes from somewhere else. Debeers tends to use that one to prop up governments friendly to their corporate interests.
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
Article 47 [ Link ] -- Mercenaries
1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.
2. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.
At the 72nd plenary meeting on 4 December 1989 the United Nations General Assembly passed resolution 44/34, the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries. It entered into force on 20 October 2001 and is usually known as the UN Mercenary Convention.
1. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar rank and functions in the armed forces of that party; (c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict;
(d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and
(e) Has not been sent by a State which is not a party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.
2. A mercenary is also any person who, in any other situation:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad for the purpose of participating in a concerted act of violence aimed at:
(i) Overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or
(ii) Undermining the territorial integrity of a State;
(b) Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation;
(c) Is neither a national nor a resident of the State against which such an act is directed;
(d) Has not been sent by a State on official duty; and
(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of the State on whose territory the act is undertaken.
BaronIveagh wrote: There's also the fact that most governments now maintain (occasionally large) standing armies. When Machiavelli was writing, this was not the case, thus his admonishment that competent mercenary captains would seek the overthrow of the prince who hired them. In the Italian Wars from the period that Machiavelli was writing, mercenaries made up a very large proportion of the troops employed compared to the 'regular' army. Further, remember that the military parts of the Prince are written in the context of Conquest. Machiavelli based these parts off Caesar Borgia and, to a lesser degree, Louis XI of France. By and large, most modern governments do not use mercenaries as the bulk of their forces (there have been exceptions to this). They have however used them as cats paws in wars they did not wish to commit their 'regular' troops to, in rear echelon duties, drug interdiction, and as garrison troops.
So you were still wrong about who Machiavelli wrote 'The Prince' for And the various conflicts in Africa that used mercenaries to supplement their forces, or the US use of mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan don't show that the role of mercenaries is still much as it ever was?
BaronIveagh wrote: I don't deny that the West is suffering from 'intervention fatigue', though, frankly, the issue with your assertion about it doing none of the above can only actually be determined after the fact, particularly the 'effective' part. Based on the article I posted earlier about Syrians becoming frustrated with the West's indecisiveness. The huge numbers of refugees pouring into neighboring countries due Syria, and this is my personal opinion, create a bigger risk of endangering the US security by doing nothing than trying to force a end to the conflict does. Refugee camps are prime recruiting ground for terrorist organizations, and this conflict is creating a gigantic number.
So because Assad is killing his own people, and is being aided and abetted by Russia and Iran the US, which is taking no part in this, is somehow at risk...... yeah there is a substantial gap in your logic there as the majority of the world is not involved in Syria yet you don't seem to think that they are also somehow at risk.
And launching cruise missiles at a few targets weeks after an attack when the stockpiles have been moved, and the conflict drags on, with Assad still in power, and no real change to the facts on the ground is effective?
Or how about we put boots on the ground and get into a three way shooting match as we get lambasted for invading yet another Muslim country, and get involved in business that is clearly not our own, and give AQ a real recruiting boost especially when the inevitable collateral damage happens. Is that effective?
Obama the cowboy, that is an awesome mental picture, the bicycle doesn't quite live up the expectations
As to my comment about Obama not being a war hawk. I admit that any theoretical missile bombardment would most certainly be a violation of Syria's sovereignty and could easily be seen as an act of war. But Assad would have to be more than completely barking mad to try and retaliate against the US over the loss of a few artillery units and maybe a bit of his air defense network, after all, he has more pressing matters to deal with.
I just have trouble thinking of a missile bombardment lasting a few days as being the same thing as a full scale invasion and occupation lasting for years. Assuming Obama was going to keep his word about limited operations (he'd be out of his mind not to, unless he wanted to guarantee the Dems loose the next election) there wouldn't even be any American lives at risk at all, unless you're planning on starting to hand out citizenships to cruise missiles.
As far as I can see, this would be no different than the now familiar, sovereignty mocking, drone operations America now conducts in a few different countries (except this time the shots will be aimed at military units instead of insergents).
As to the "Red Line" talk, I see it as him banking on a provable attack never occuring, and taking a hard line so people think he looks tough on human rights or some such and then having it all backfire, forcing his hand. I hope he learned his lesson.
If this Russian plan works out, it will all be academic anyways, fingers crossed.
At this point I'm inclined to think that you just don't want to get the distinction.
I'd say the same thing about you. You're trying hard to create an artificial difference between foreign fighters who take payment and says some words to cover their ass legally and ones who just take the payment.
Yes, really. You bring up article 47, but fail to understand that ALL of those points must apply for them to be a 'mercenary' under it. Thus if article e does not apply, they're not a mercenary. This is how quite a few countries get around it. You don't have to swear an oath or be a citizen, you just have to be a recognized part of their military.
You also bring up the UN Mercenary convention, but leave out that only 32 counties ever agreed to it (and not a single major power signed it other than Germany), and of those 4 only implemented part of it, and ten are known to have violated it since signing.
And the various conflicts in Africa that used mercenaries to supplement their forces, or the US use of mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan don't show that the role of mercenaries is still much as it ever was?
No, it isn't. Mercenaries at the time of Machiavelli were (mostly) seen as expendable shock troops. Thus Machiavelli's complaint about Sforza's mercenaries not taking the forefront in sieges, which at the time where where the heaviest casualties were to be expected. The current preferred system is to use them to free up regular troops from things like security details, additional firepower for drug interdiction, etc. Very few countries employ mercenaries as shock troops or a large percentage of their army any more, but tha'ts probably going to change following Iraq and the explosion of PMCs.
... the US, which is taking no part in this, is somehow at risk.....
Because that's not how they see it. The US has spent years cultivating a mythology of itself as a friend and ally to all who (supposedly) embrace democracy, and sadly, a lot of Syrians have bought into this, thanks in no small part to president big mouth and the CIA funneling arms to Syrian rebels.
And launching cruise missiles at a few targets weeks after an attack when the stockpiles have been moved, and the conflict drags on, with Assad still in power, and no real change to the facts on the ground is effective?
Personal opinion, I don't agree that air strikes targeted at their CW ability will do anything at all. I think that the air strikes instead should be a decapitation attack on Assad's military (preferably on him personally as well) combined with neutralizing their air force. This would be both more effective at 'sending a message' to Assad, as well a being seen in a positive light by the Syrian opposition.
If anything the Russian plan prolongs the war and ensures no peace. It leaves Assad in power and free to do whatever he wants short of gassing his enemies.
Handing the country over to the "rebels" who have no goals, don't even seem to be a functional group but disparate anti-Assadists made up of foreign jihadists and god knows who else, is no solution.
Given that the rebels are the likely culprits for the gas attack, by allowing Assad to bring stability back to the country will benefit the masses. Current US policy supports the really bad guys because America's allies in the region don't like Assad. It is foreign governments feeding the rebel forces that are prolonging the war.
Handing the country over to the "rebels" who have no goals, don't even seem to be a functional group but disparate anti-Assadists made up of foreign jihadists and god knows who else, is no solution.
Given that the rebels are the likely culprits for the gas attack, by allowing Assad to bring stability back to the country will benefit the masses. Current US policy supports the really bad guys because America's allies in the region don't like Assad. It is foreign governments feeding the rebel forces that are prolonging the war.
Well, the chemical weapons report isn't in, but the other war crimes reports are, and they are damning.
They do not, however, say anything not already known. The Syrian government is massacring entire towns, and the opposition is taking hostages and shelling indiscriminately.
For being a heavy burden, Mr Ban Ki Moon, why is nothing done about it?
And, um, but there were other mass murderers that got away with it! Stalin, killed many millions, died in his bed, well done there. Pol Pot killed 1.7 million Cambodians, died under house arrest, age 72. Well done indeed. And the reason we let it – them get away with it is because they killed their own people. And we’re sort of fine with that. Ah, help yourself, you know. We’ve been trying to kill you for ages! So kill your own people, ohh, right on there. Seems to be, Hitler killed people next door – awwww stupid man. After a couple of years, we won’t stand for that, will we?
Relapse wrote:
It appears all of that education isn't doing them much good since they seem to be fighting along tribal lines.
In Eastern Syria this is true. However, this is not the majority of the population (Syria's two largest cities are in the west of the country)
.
You were pretty much saying in your earlier quote that it was a silly statement to say tribalism exists in Syria and now you're saying it's true, but only for part of the country.
Just to clear things up a bit, here is a map outlineing various areas of control, tribal and otherwise:
And, um, but there were other mass murderers that got away with it! Stalin, killed many millions, died in his bed, well done there. Pol Pot killed 1.7 million Cambodians, died under house arrest, age 72. Well done indeed. And the reason we let it – them get away with it is because they killed their own people. And we’re sort of fine with that. Ah, help yourself, you know. We’ve been trying to kill you for ages! So kill your own people, ohh, right on there. Seems to be, Hitler killed people next door – awwww stupid man. After a couple of years, we won’t stand for that, will we?
Ah yes, thank you Eddie Izzard. Since other mass murderers have gotten away with things in the past, that means we should never do anything about mass murder ever again, ever. And nobody better dare to pick just one mass murderer or genocide to do something about, because then everyone will point out all the other mass murderers who got away with genocide and ethnic cleansing.
No, no. If you can't stop all bad things happening everywhere, the only possible moral thing is to do nothing. Some mass killings have been ignored in the past, so we must continue to turn a blind eye to all of them. It's the only way to make the world a better place.
You were pretty much saying in your earlier quote that it was a silly statement to say tribalism exists in Syria and now you're saying it's true, but only for part of the country.
Well, two things: one, no, I was talking about the tribe on tribe violence, which is primarily happening in the East of Syria, currently (the article you posted on the south is actually rather old at this point, being from 2011 and talking about the locals starting reprisals against the government for shooting the demonstrators) Secondly, I was pointing out that your assumption that tribal = ignorant has no basis in fact. Culture and ethnicity does not equate education or the ability to understand various forms of government. (And if anyone tells you otherwise, you might check them for pointy white hats.)
Also, to be blunt I see this less being along tribal and more being along ethnic and religious lines. A lot of the violence in the east is between ethnically kurdish tribes fighting ethnically Arab tribes in a bid to expand or regain control of property shuffled around by Assad (particularly fertile land and oil and gas fields). If you look at the current hotspots, they're generally around the cities and in areas where Assad practiced 'kurdish relocation'.
Hmm.... fascism... persecuting ethnic groups.... forcing them to hand over their property and be forcibly relocated... poison gas... it sound so familiar, somehow...
You were pretty much saying in your earlier quote that it was a silly statement to say tribalism exists in Syria and now you're saying it's true, but only for part of the country.
Well, two things: one, no, I was talking about the tribe on tribe violence, which is primarily happening in the East of Syria, currently (the article you posted on the south is actually rather old at this point, being from 2011 and talking about the locals starting reprisals against the government for shooting the demonstrators) Secondly, I was pointing out that your assumption that tribal = ignorant has no basis in fact. Culture and ethnicity does not equate education or the ability to understand various forms of government. (And if anyone tells you otherwise, you might check them for pointy white hats.)
Also, to be blunt I see this less being along tribal and more being along ethnic and religious lines. A lot of the violence in the east is between ethnically kurdish tribes fighting ethnically Arab tribes in a bid to expand or regain control of property shuffled around by Assad (particularly fertile land and oil and gas fields). If you look at the current hotspots, they're generally around the cities and in areas where Assad practiced 'kurdish relocation'.
Hmm.... fascism... persecuting ethnic groups.... forcing them to hand over their property and be forcibly relocated... poison gas... it sound so familiar, somehow...
I'm not saying that tribal equals ignorant, just that the tribal system you initialy denied existed at all is very much in play here.
Just to add to your statement, what real knowledge of democracy do people that live under a feudal or tribal system have? It's like giving a sports car to someone who has only handled Ox carts all their life.
Wow. You'd never know Damascus has been a center of civilization and trade since they paid tribute to Thutmose III, Pharaoh of Egypt in the 15th Century BC...
You do know that there are no fewer than four accredited universities, six museums, and a sizable educational system there, right? I'll throw in that Aleppo is hardly a bunch of mud and grass huts either.
I'd say that was exactly what you implied and exactly what I rebutted was that they were ignorant and had no grasp of what 'democracy' meant. I went back and looked and at no point in any of my posts on this subject do I say that there are no tribal groups in Syria, or even that there is not inter tribal violence in eastern Syria. My assertion was, however, that this violence was more ethnic in nature as opposed to tribal and that the players were far from being ignorant savages who had no grasp of what 'democracy' was. If you might look at the maps you posted links to, and Assad's history of repartitioning land, you might see why.
It's cool that you're wrong. Everyone is from time to time, but trying to backtrack on what you said after you are proven wrong just makes your point look silly.
I've been trying wondering why there's so little interest in the US and elsewhere to engaging Syria, and I think I've figured it out.
The US went to war with Saddam once for invading a country no-one had ever heard of, and a second time because people were pretty sure he had chemical weapons. Both times there was overwhelming popular support. But Assad is actually using chemical weapons on people and hardly anyone gives a gak.
I mean, I know that second time was post 9-11 and everyone was a little freaked out, but it isn't as though you had a hard time getting support the first time, or for most of your other wars. And I think that's because most of the dictators you've seen looked like some pretty crazy bad ass lunatics.
We think of Saddam and we think of pictures of him on the balcony shooting guns in the air. I mean, look at this picture, he looks exactly like the villain of every single 80s action movie ever. That's a crazy guy that the hero has to punch off of a balcony to save the president or his daughter, or possibly both.
Assad, on the other hand, doesn't look very scary at all. He looks like a tax accountant, or an office manager. And kind of like like Beaker from the Muppets.
No-one sees that chinless head and gets the slightest bit scared. Beaker screwed around with chemicals all the time and it was funny.
Jihadin wrote: I think he gassed the Kurds after he got kicked out of Kuwait.
He did, around 91 or 92, I think.
1988, during the Iran-Iraq war. Of course we had to pick one side to support in this lovely conflict...
Yup, a good way to describe it. He came back to gas the people rising up against him though, post Desert Storm. I remember it because of the disgust I felt watching the news of the gassing of villagers immediatly followed a couple of days later seeing Bush Sr. sitting at a televised victory celebration complete with stage show and Arab kids thanking him for the better life they now had. I couldn't stomach watching more than a couple of minutes.
Jihadin wrote: I think he gassed the Kurds after he got kicked out of Kuwait.
He did, around 91 or 92, I think.
1988, during the Iran-Iraq war. Of course we had to pick one side to support in this lovely conflict...
Yup, a good way to describe it. He came back to gas the people rising up against him though, post Desert Storm. I remember it because of the disgust I felt watching the news of the gassing of villagers immediatly followed a couple of days later seeing Bush Sr. sitting at a televised victory celebration complete with stage show and Arab kids thanking him for the better life they now had. I couldn't stomach watching more than a couple of minutes.
I don't remember that one (of course I was 8 during Desert Storm).
I know he did D. One reason he did was to rebuild confidence and fear for the Republican Guards. Wasn't just those two times though
Iraq/Iran war. There might be a midgin of concern in me...might be. It stayed within the borders. Also its Iran.
Though I do remember Kuwait government asking Bush Sr to help them. Also Saudi requested US support incase Iraq forces, which was fully capable, to prevent Hassan expansion if he so choose to come south of the border.
Jihadin wrote: I think he gassed the Kurds after he got kicked out of Kuwait.
He did, around 91 or 92, I think.
1988, during the Iran-Iraq war. Of course we had to pick one side to support in this lovely conflict...
Yup, a good way to describe it. He came back to gas the people rising up against him though, post Desert Storm. I remember it because of the disgust I felt watching the news of the gassing of villagers immediatly followed a couple of days later seeing Bush Sr. sitting at a televised victory celebration complete with stage show and Arab kids thanking him for the better life they now had. I couldn't stomach watching more than a couple of minutes.
I don't remember that one (of course I was 8 during Desert Storm).
The second link you posted. The whole situation soured me on Bush Sr. because he had encouraged the rebellion, thinking Saddam was just going to fall over. He then went on to leave the rebels holding the bag and went about celebrating his victory. I ended up voting for Perot in the next election because of it.
I thought the post 89 chemical attacks were common knowledge.... hell it was part of the justification for going in to Iraq again right? "We know this fether has chemical weapons, here's some emperor damn proof that he's used them before"
On a side note D. I'm just glad his immediate blood line ended. US troops claims his sons. Iraq people claim Hassan himself. Assad on the other hand should be good if his forces do not escalate outside of border. Rebels need to step up their assassination attempts. Rebels with AQ connections need to die off quickly, and rebels who fight for Syria itself and not for either the west or soviet influence to reach "End Game"
Jihadin wrote: On a side note D. I'm just glad his immediate blood line ended. US troops claims his sons. Iraq people claim Hassan himself.
He had 3 daughters. One is wanted by Interpol for aiding the insurgency in Iraq, Raghad Hussein, also know as "Little Saddam" because her temperament is most like her fathers. She lives a fairly baller lifestyle under asylum by the King of Jordan with her 2 sisters who have at least 9 kids amongst them. Its not known if they live on the Jordan governments handouts or Saddamd fortune.
So the immediate bloodline is still alive and kicking but is essentially powerless and living off of the hospitality of the King of Jordan. If a television crew followed them around it would be the Arab worlds version of "Growing up Gotti" or "The Real Housewive of whatever".
Relapse wrote: It's cool that you're wrong. Everyone is from time to time, but trying to backtrack on what you said after you are proven wrong just makes your point look silly.
Dude, you need to share whatever it is you are smoking, because it is some pretty heavy gak.
cincydooley wrote: Ugh. Why are we even thinking about getting involved in this mess again? /rhetorical
'cuz... it's chemical weapons...
If nothing is done in Syria, what does that say to the rest of the world?
That Syria is full of donkey caves?
Well... yeah, that too...
And also the fact that crack-pot dictators and whackadoos would know for sure that we probably wouldn't be sticking our noses into their wars if CWs are used.
cincydooley wrote: Ugh. Why are we even thinking about getting involved in this mess again? /rhetorical
'cuz... it's chemical weapons...
If nothing is done in Syria, what does that say to the rest of the world?
That Syria is full of donkey caves?
Well... yeah, that too...
And also the fact that crack-pot dictators and whackadoos would know for sure that we probably wouldn't be sticking our noses into their wars if CWs are used.
And really why should we? Especially alone! That's what the UN is for. If the UN can't get it together than that is their failing, not the US's. The US is not the world police.
cincydooley wrote: Ugh. Why are we even thinking about getting involved in this mess again? /rhetorical
'cuz... it's chemical weapons...
If nothing is done in Syria, what does that say to the rest of the world?
That killing a hundred thousand people is okay so long as you only blow them to pieces or cut them up.
Kind of like how if a particular model of car was prone to killing it's passengers then it'd be recalled, but if a particular group of people are prone to killing their neighbours then it's because they're poor, or they're disadvantaged and by the way, here's more money for your nth welfare baby.
cadbren wrote: but if a particular group of people are prone to killing their neighbours then it's because they're poor, or they're disadvantaged and by the way, here's more money for your nth welfare baby.
See, and here I thought that the only excuse they needed was 'National Security'.
Don't bother trying to explain the finer points of what is and is not kosher as far as armed conflict goes to Cad, he seems to have parted ways with reality at least a few pages back, maybe earlier.
Don't bother trying to explain the finer points of what is and is not kosher as far as armed conflict goes to Cad, he seems to have parted ways with reality at least a few pages back, maybe earlier.
Wasn't the goal behind banning chemical weapons to make it more expensive to wage war and then occupy afterwards?
Take a city, drop all the Sarin you want, pick up the bodies, take over infrastructure. Very cost efficient and not that much work, really a non-brainer.
Your other options would be:
Bomb the hell out of a place. You still get to kill everybody there, but it costs more money and the infrastructure is gone. Now you have to spend a lot of money and time to replace that if you actually want anyone of your own guys to live there.
Shoot every single person there. You get rid of the people, and other than some bullet holes you get usable infrastructure ready for your own guys to move in. It also takes a lot of time and man-power, and they might just take a few of your own guys down as well.
Chemical weapons just make it to easy, and they don't discriminate between civilians and combatants. Granted, neither do bombs though.
At least that is my thought, I could be completely wrong.
cadbren wrote: but if a particular group of people are prone to killing their neighbours then it's because they're poor, or they're disadvantaged and by the way, here's more money for your nth welfare baby.
See, and here I thought that the only excuse they needed was 'National Security'.
I'm sure you thought that was funny but out here in the real world your random comment makes no sense.
Don't bother trying to explain the finer points of what is and is not kosher as far as armed conflict goes to Cad, he seems to have parted ways with reality at least a few pages back, maybe earlier.
Please, you and your [deleted by Moderator] mates are practically salivating at how many Syrians your guys will be able to kill, if only the world would see how eeevilll the supporters of Assad are. I realise your nation has a strong history with lynch mobs and mob justice, but much of the rest of the world believes in rule of law. You lot have already decided that the regime was responsible for the gas attacks without any kind of trial and are now champing at the bit to blow stuff up. You are in no position to lecture anyone on what is and is not sane, right, legal or needed.
d-usa wrote: Wasn't the goal behind banning chemical weapons to make it more expensive to wage war and then occupy afterwards?
Take a city, drop all the Sarin you want, pick up the bodies, take over infrastructure. Very cost efficient and not that much work, really a non-brainer.
Your other options would be:
Bomb the hell out of a place. You still get to kill everybody there, but it costs more money and the infrastructure is gone. Now you have to spend a lot of money and time to replace that if you actually want anyone of your own guys to live there.
Shoot every single person there. You get rid of the people, and other than some bullet holes you get usable infrastructure ready for your own guys to move in. It also takes a lot of time and man-power, and they might just take a few of your own guys down as well.
Chemical weapons just make it to easy, and they don't discriminate between civilians and combatants. Granted, neither do bombs though.
At least that is my thought, I could be completely wrong.
I'm sure that might have been a part of it, though I doubt that was the biggest reason.
As for all of this "It's ok to kill with bullets, but not gas" crap that's being slung about...
We have rules of war for a reason. It's a messy business, hardly ideal, but even at our most savage we need to try to keep some civility in place (oxymoronic, I know). The use of chemical agents violates every rule out there, in and that is why it is so taboo. Now, if your cool with sitting back on your butts, and letting it happen, just because the bullets and bombs are doing the same thing, that's your thing. Some of us are willing to draw that line in the sand though on where the barbarity has to stop. I'd say that's a better reflection then "children choking to death is no differant from being shot to death, so why do anything?".
Please, you and your psycho mates are practically salivating at how many Syrians your guys will be able to kill, if only the world would see how eeevilll the supporters of Assad are. I realise your nation has a strong history with lynch mobs and mob justice, but much of the rest of the world believes in rule of law.
You lot have already decided that the regime was responsible for the gas attacks without any kind of trial and are now champing at the bit to blow stuff up.
You are in no position to lecture anyone on what is and is not sane, right, legal or needed.
I've no idea how old you are. I've no idea what you have been watching to view the US Military this way. No idea how you can connect "Lynch Mobs" and "mob justice" with "Laws of War". I've only seen a few peeps on this thread calling for actions that does not constitute a "lot". I also want to point out. You are in no position to judge yourself. I'm not offended. I'm not pissed. You didn't get my "goat". I'm really not sure if you tried to flame those of us who has gone over into the "Box". What you did though is throw the perception of you having a very sheltered life.
No-one sees that chinless head and gets the slightest bit scared. Beaker screwed around with chemicals all the time and it was funny.
You're very much spot on. I remember several studies from the late 90's that demonstrated Americans were overwhelmingly in favor of military action if it was in defense of the continental United States, or taken against Saddam Hussein (not Iraq, Saddam himself). The speculative implication being that Saddam was widely viewed as a clear and present threat to the continental United States.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: The use of chemical agents violates every rule out there, in and that is why it is so taboo.
It really only explicitly violates the Chemical Weapons Convention.
My belief is that the Assad government's actions are viewed as especially abhorrent because they involve 2.5 separate taboos:
1: Using chemical weapons.
2: Attacking civilians.
.5: Attacking rebels fighting against an authoritarian state.
djones520 wrote: The use of chemical agents violates every rule out there, in and that is why it is so taboo.
It really only explicitly violates the Chemical Weapons Convention.
My belief is that the Assad government's actions are viewed as especially abhorrent because they involve 2.5 separate taboos:
1: Using chemical weapons.
2: Attacking civilians.
.5: Attacking rebels fighting against an authoritarian state.
Largely right. Syria is one of the 5 countries who is not beholden to the CWC which means they can possess them, but Syria is a party of the Geneva Conventions, which does have a protocol against the ues of chemical and biologicl agents, which has been in place since 1925.
Largely right. Syria is one of the 5 countries who is not beholden to the CWC which means they can possess them, but Syria is a party of the Geneva Conventions, which does have a protocol against the ues of chemical and biologicl agents, which has been in place since 1925.
Its possible to argue that the Syrian government which became a party to the Geneva Protocol is not the same one that exists today, as Haffez al-Assad overthrew Salah Jadid in 1970 (Syria became a party in 1968); essentially instituting military governance.
I think, in the present Syrian case, a better argument is one which cites the breadth of agreement to the principle that chemical weapons are bad under the CWC, and cites how such agreements have been in existence since Strasbourg in 1675.
Largely right. Syria is one of the 5 countries who is not beholden to the CWC which means they can possess them, but Syria is a party of the Geneva Conventions, which does have a protocol against the ues of chemical and biologicl agents, which has been in place since 1925.
Its possible to argue that the Syrian government which became a party to the Geneva Protocol is not the same one that exists today, as Haffez al-Assad overthrew Salah Jadid in 1970 (Syria became a party in 1968); essentially instituting military governance.
I think, in the present Syrian case, a better argument is one which cites the breadth of agreement to the principle that chemical weapons are bad under the CWC, and cites how such agreements have been in existence since Strasbourg in 1675.
Assad's regime could always have pulled out from that Protocol though. Hell, even Australia did back in the 80's. *shrugs* The legality of it all doesn't really matter as much to me. It's one of those things that I know deep down in my soul, the use of such weapons (against civilian populations) represents pure evil, and should be combatted as such.
cadbren wrote: Please, you and your [deleted by Moderator] mates are practically salivating at how many Syrians your guys will be able to kill, if only the world would see how eeevilll the supporters of Assad are. I realise your nation has a strong history with lynch mobs and mob justice, but much of the rest of the world believes in rule of law.
You lot have already decided that the regime was responsible for the gas attacks without any kind of trial and are now champing at the bit to blow stuff up.
You are in no position to lecture anyone on what is and is not sane, right, legal or needed.
I don't fly anymore. I'm private sector now. I won't be killing any Syrians (unless Academi gets their fixed wing business online).
As I've explained before -- in this very thread, if memory serves -- the notion that a party is free to kill as many civilians as they like with conventional weaponry is incorrect. The use of NBC agents to do the killing simply makes any given case much more cut and dry; there are numerous conventions banning their use, so when they do in fact get used, we can essentially cut through all the bs that surrounds civilian deaths and get a "go" without too much debate. It's much harder to make a case around even flagrant use of conventional weapons to massacre civilians, which is why you tend not to see as much intervention.
Also, I'm insanely curious what the moderator deleted.
Please, you and your [deleted by Moderator] mates are practically salivating at how many Syrians your guys will be able to kill, if only the world would see how eeevilll the supporters of Assad are. I realise your nation has a strong history with lynch mobs and mob justice, but much of the rest of the world believes in rule of law.
Well, point of fact I prefer not killing anyone at all. Taking lives is not something to be taken lightly, but in this circumstance, it's likely that people will die before this is resolved, and intervention on behalf of any side would end the conflict much faster than letting it drag on. And it is going to drag on. It's pretty clear from what I've been reading that this is a real meat grinder around Aleppo and Damascus with neither side having any real advantage. So, what's more moral, the US blowing up some stuff and tipping the balance to end the war quickly, or letting it plod on and pile up a million more dead like Rwanda did?
cadbren wrote: You lot have already decided that the regime was responsible for the gas attacks without any kind of trial and are now champing at the bit to blow stuff up.
I have to ask how you would propose 'trying' the Syrian government. While I am curious about the UN report on chemical weapons, I have to add that (again, IMHO) the opposition's war crimes, while still very much war crimes, are generally pretty minor (holding people for ransom, mostly) compared to what he regime has been proven to have done (even before the chemical weapon thing). These are things already known, examined, and proven to have happened.
cadbren wrote: You are in no position to lecture anyone on what is and is not sane, right, legal or needed.
Seeing as you appear to be posting from Kiwiland, how's Kim Dotcom these days?
Also, I'm insanely curious what the moderator deleted.
He made a slur about our mental stability which implied we're crazed killers. I'm surprised his more racist posts haven't been deleted or moderated yet, but I suppose that most of them stay just this side of polite that they didn't merit it.
Chemical weapons just make it to easy, and they don't discriminate between civilians and combatants. Granted, neither do bombs though.
Actually it was felt they caused excessively cruel suffering (both in the ones that lived and the ones that didn't) and not only are indiscriminate, but can spread over a wide area quickly and linger in the area for weeks. While dead is dead, bombs are (generally) quick and painless compared to CW.
cadbren wrote: Please, you and your [deleted by Moderator] mates are practically salivating at how many Syrians your guys will be able to kill, if only the world would see how eeevilll the supporters of Assad are. I realise your nation has a strong history with lynch mobs and mob justice, but much of the rest of the world believes in rule of law.
You lot have already decided that the regime was responsible for the gas attacks without any kind of trial and are now champing at the bit to blow stuff up.
You are in no position to lecture anyone on what is and is not sane, right, legal or needed.
I don't fly anymore. I'm private sector now. I won't be killing any Syrians (unless Academi gets their fixed wing business online).
As I've explained before -- in this very thread, if memory serves -- the notion that a party is free to kill as many civilians as they like with conventional weaponry is incorrect. The use of NBC agents to do the killing simply makes any given case much more cut and dry; there are numerous conventions banning their use, so when they do in fact get used, we can essentially cut through all the bs that surrounds civilian deaths and get a "go" without too much debate. It's much harder to make a case around even flagrant use of conventional weapons to massacre civilians, which is why you tend not to see as much intervention.
Also, I'm insanely curious what the moderator deleted.
Run for the hills and hide your children, a Seaward post that I agree 100% with!
Please, you and your psycho mates are practically salivating at how many Syrians your guys will be able to kill, if only the world would see how eeevilll the supporters of Assad are. I realise your nation has a strong history with lynch mobs and mob justice, but much of the rest of the world believes in rule of law.
You lot have already decided that the regime was responsible for the gas attacks without any kind of trial and are now champing at the bit to blow stuff up.
You are in no position to lecture anyone on what is and is not sane, right, legal or needed.
I've no idea how old you are. I've no idea what you have been watching to view the US Military this way. No idea how you can connect "Lynch Mobs" and "mob justice" with "Laws of War". I've only seen a few peeps on this thread calling for actions that does not constitute a "lot". I also want to point out. You are in no position to judge yourself. I'm not offended. I'm not pissed. You didn't get my "goat". I'm really not sure if you tried to flame those of us who has gone over into the "Box". What you did though is throw the perception of you having a very sheltered life.
Older than you would be my guess. There have been several comments here about how the US has to go in guns blazing. Assad's regime does not sound like the most enlightened form of governance around, but compared to it's neighbours it is par for the course in that part of the world. I am far from convinced that he ordered a chemical attack.
I'm not trying to wind anyone up, least of all active military. What I'm seeing here by some is a gung-ho approach of what the military can do rather than should they be doing it. I'll also repeat what I said earlier.
If the regime is found to be innocent of using gas weapons, will the US go after the rebels with the same sense of purpose?
cadbren wrote:
Older than you would be my guess. There have been several comments here about how the US has to go in guns blazing. Assad's regime does not sound like the most enlightened form of governance around, but compared to it's neighbours it is par for the course in that part of the world.
Actually Syria is pretty backward compared to it's immediate neighbors, (as Democracy there was overthrown at the prompting of the US) all of which are, on paper at least, democratic forms of government, with the exception of Jordan, which is a constitutional monarchy. (It should be noted however that 600,000 Syrian refugees are quickly destabilizing Lebanon, which was not that stable to begin with) and most of which are fairly liberal by the standards of the region.
Further, I would suggest that Jihadin's experience up close and personal with war in the middle east trumps whatever you have.
Seaward wrote:
We wouldn't need to. The rebels are going to lose without US intervention.
Maybe, maybe not. The Syrian army makes gains in one place only to lose ground somewhere else, at least from what I see on the map. They won at Qusair but then lost some more of the suburbs of Damascus. Now they're stepping up their bombardment of those suburbs. It's going to be a long and bloody slog and now for every atrocity they commit, the US and Russia will be blamed.
For those who wondered how Russia got Syria to agree:
It may or may not be true. But it makes a sad sort of sense and is entirely in line with Russia's past activities in Syria. The real consideration is this: how the hell is the UN going to remove CW materials from an active war zone? That seems like a big 'Kick Me' sign.
cadbren wrote:
Older than you would be my guess. There have been several comments here about how the US has to go in guns blazing. Assad's regime does not sound like the most enlightened form of governance around, but compared to it's neighbours it is par for the course in that part of the world.
Actually Syria is pretty backward compared to it's immediate neighbors
Wait a minute, a few posts back you were trying to tell me how refined Syria was, as in:
Just to add to your statement, what real knowledge of democracy do people that live under a feudal or tribal system have? It's like giving a sports car to someone who has only handled Ox carts all their life.
Wow. You'd never know Damascus has been a center of civilization and trade since they paid tribute to Thutmose III, Pharaoh of Egypt in the 15th Century BC...
You do know that there are no fewer than four accredited universities, six museums, and a sizable educational system there, right? I'll throw in that Aleppo is hardly a bunch of mud and grass huts either.
Just what is your view? I'm not posting this to be mean, it's just that I don't understand what you really think of Syria.
Grey Templar wrote: Well Syria is next to Turkey and Israel. I suppose they would be backwards compared to them.
Perhaps, but it seemed he was very keen on the idea of how advanced Syria was when discussing with me the political situation there and took offense to my statements that the country might not be able to function well as a Democracy and could be considered backward. Now he says they are backward. I just based my views from what most people deployed in the Middle East tell me coupled with what I read in the news and other media.
At this point I am truly curious what his real ideas on Syria are.
Perhaps, but it seemed he was very keen on the idea of how advanced Syria was when discussing with me the political situation there and took offense to my statements that the country might not be able to function well as a Democracy and could be considered backward. Now he says they are backward. I just based my views from what most people deployed in the Middle East tell me coupled with what I read in the news and other media.
At this point I am truly curious what his real ideas on Syria are.
You alleged that the people of Syria were too ignorant to understand what democracy actually was. I refuted that, and pointed out they were actually quite educated. I grant I wrote 'Syria' when I was referring to the current Syrian government being backward, which, as a dictatorship, it is, compared to it's neighbors, whom you had implied were all also equally harsh dictatorships, which was untrue, most of them are not.
I fail to see that as contradictory. I advise reading entire posts and learning to understand what is being said in context, rather than trying to pick out a single word and try to make an issue out of it.
Perhaps, but it seemed he was very keen on the idea of how advanced Syria was when discussing with me the political situation there and took offense to my statements that the country might not be able to function well as a Democracy and could be considered backward. Now he says they are backward. I just based my views from what most people deployed in the Middle East tell me coupled with what I read in the news and other media.
At this point I am truly curious what his real ideas on Syria are.
You alleged that the people of Syria were too ignorant to understand what democracy actually was. I refuted that, and pointed out they were actually quite educated. I grant I wrote 'Syria' when I was referring to the current Syrian government being backward, which, as a dictatorship, it is, compared to it's neighbors, whom you had implied were all also equally harsh dictatorships, which was untrue, most of them are not.
I fail to see that as contradictory. I advise reading entire posts and learning to understand what is being said in context, rather than trying to pick out a single word and try to make an issue out of it.
But is the general populace educated enough?
Just because there is a good university in the country doesn't mean the people have access to it.
Maybe the only people able to go to those university's are those who are rich(and thus would likely be buddy-buds with the current regime)
I doubt the average joe in Syria has a college education.
Perhaps, but it seemed he was very keen on the idea of how advanced Syria was when discussing with me the political situation there and took offense to my statements that the country might not be able to function well as a Democracy and could be considered backward. Now he says they are backward. I just based my views from what most people deployed in the Middle East tell me coupled with what I read in the news and other media.
At this point I am truly curious what his real ideas on Syria are.
You alleged that the people of Syria were too ignorant to understand what democracy actually was. I refuted that, and pointed out they were actually quite educated. I grant I wrote 'Syria' when I was referring to the current Syrian government being backward, which, as a dictatorship, it is, compared to it's neighbors, whom you had implied were all also equally harsh dictatorships, which was untrue, most of them are not.
I fail to see that as contradictory. I advise reading entire posts and learning to understand what is being said in context, rather than trying to pick out a single word and try to make an issue out of it.
Whatever. I'll check back later to see what your belief of the week is.
Just because there is a good university in the country doesn't mean the people have access to it.
Several of them, actually. College fees in Syria are... frankly dirt cheap compared to, say, the US. According to wikipedia, for students who performed well in the equivalent to high school finals, the cost is $10-$15 a year. (those who did poorly can still attend, but the cost is higher, on the order of $1500). As far as high school goes, 72% of eligible teens enrolled, according to the numbers, but over all quality of public education in Syria is on the low side, but hardly to the level that Cad implied. I think it safe to say the average Syrian has at least a basic understanding of what Democracy is
I doubt the average joe in Syria has a college education.
You might be surprised: total numbers for college in Syria in 2007 (which is the last numbers I can find) was 2.3 million Syrians 'currently' enrolled in higher education. For a country with a total population of around 22m, that's not too bad, actually.
We're Capalist(sp) of an evil empire called democracy. We're straight out damn evil. Didn't we have a thread awhile back talking how NK kids view western nations/military? Actually. I hink I started that thread!?!?! Dang you all for FORGETTING!!!!! NOW CHOKE YOURSELF!!!
cincydooley wrote: Ugh. Why are we even thinking about getting involved in this mess again? /rhetorical
'cuz... it's chemical weapons...
If nothing is done in Syria, what does that say to the rest of the world?
That Syria is full of donkey caves?
Well... yeah, that too...
And also the fact that crack-pot dictators and whackadoos would know for sure that we probably wouldn't be sticking our noses into their wars if CWs are used.
And really why should we? Especially alone! That's what the UN is for. If the UN can't get it together than that is their failing, not the US's. The US is not the world police.
Unfortunately due to the way that the UN security council works its very difficult to actually bring some of these people to justice if they're buddies with Putin, or China, or the US for that matter.
cincydooley wrote: Ugh. Why are we even thinking about getting involved in this mess again? /rhetorical
'cuz... it's chemical weapons...
If nothing is done in Syria, what does that say to the rest of the world?
That Syria is full of donkey caves?
Well... yeah, that too...
And also the fact that crack-pot dictators and whackadoos would know for sure that we probably wouldn't be sticking our noses into their wars if CWs are used.
And really why should we? Especially alone! That's what the UN is for. If the UN can't get it together than that is their failing, not the US's. The US is not the world police.
Unfortunately due to the way that the UN security council works its very difficult to actually bring some of these people to justice if they're buddies with Putin, or China, or the US for that matter.
Right, the UN is a fail....we all know that, nothing new. But just because the UN is impotent does not mean the US then has to do the job. We did our part, we went to the UN.
Jihadin wrote: NATO looking more effective then the UN. UN needs a serious overhaul.
Why would you expect a body designed to serve the interests of the Western world to be less effective in serving the interests of the Western world than one that isn't designed to do that?
Perhaps, but it seemed he was very keen on the idea of how advanced Syria was when discussing with me the political situation there and took offense to my statements that the country might not be able to function well as a Democracy and could be considered backward.
Syria wouldn't function well as a democracy, or at least not a Western democracy. The problem is that people in the West tend to equate the two and further cast aspersion on nations which function differently, even if they do so in a democratic fashion. In this light calling a nation "backwards" is akin to frowning on difference.
Why would you expect a body designed to serve the interests of the Western world to be less effective in serving the interests of the Western world than one that isn't designed to do that?
Good call on me Dogma. I give it a shot in clarifying my viewpoint. UN at the beginning was effective which pretty much we all agree with. Granted the UN was like NATO vs Warsaw Pact but on a different arena. US was lead in both arena.
UN also depended on the US for military support. Early to Mid 90's the US military we had a major issue of accepting commands from foreign officers. Not sure if you remember the refusal to wear UN berets.
Clinton took it one step further when the UN increased pressure for the US to pay the UN dues. He pretty much refused and stated the US took the lead in Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. We all agree with that.
UN lost credibility over time by allowing certain nations with questionable reputations lead in certain areas. I don't think we really need to go over that.
UN also mad at us for not signing the Anti Landmine Act or whatever bill that was.
UN mismanagement use of funds. Everyone guilty of that but the UN takes it to a new level of laziness in not covering its evidence.
UN mandate that we use approve UN contractors in Afghanistan.....in NATO FoBs. US lead mission there.
NATO on the other hand that's pretty much lead by the US is more effective. My fault I digress.
Who would you prefer to run things. UN or NATO. Granted NATO is a military Alliance but you be surprise on the aspects of that treaty. I dealt with UN missions in Afghanistan. Their policies on how they want their gear to arrive in areas comes from fantasy land. NATO is whatever fastest way to get it there in quantity.
EmilCrane wrote: Unfortunately due to the way that the UN security council works its very difficult to actually bring some of these people to justice if they're buddies with Putin, or China, or the US for that matter.
In preventing the UN taking action against an ally of China or Russia, the UN is operating pretty much as intended. It's there to enforce some kind of notion of human rights, but there's a massive check on its power where major world powers are involved, because the whole point, basically, is to prevent another world war.
EmilCrane wrote: Unfortunately due to the way that the UN security council works its very difficult to actually bring some of these people to justice if they're buddies with Putin, or China, or the US for that matter.
In preventing the UN taking action against an ally of China or Russia, the UN is operating pretty much as intended. It's there to enforce some kind of notion of human rights, but there's a massive check on its power where major world powers are involved, because the whole point, basically, is to prevent another world war.
I understand the point of the UN, unfortunately the Veto is too often used in power politics rather than to actually prevent a world war. But of course thats what it was designed for, no superpower would actually agree to abide by a body that would limit their power and prevent them from pursuing their intrests, unless they had a permanent all the time ability to protect their interests, thats the catch 22 of the UN, its powerless without the super powers but powerless with them.
EmilCrane wrote: I understand the point of the UN, unfortunately the Veto is too often used in power politics rather than to actually prevent a world war. But of course thats what it was designed for, no superpower would actually agree to abide by a body that would limit their power and prevent them from pursuing their intrests, unless they had a permanent all the time ability to protect their interests, thats the catch 22 of the UN, its powerless without the super powers but powerless with them.
Power politics in the backyard of another major power is pretty much how major wars happen. And so the UN isn't so much powerless, as powerless when it comes to issues that one of the five major powers is directly opposed to. Which I think is probably a good thing, really.
The real issue, basically, is that the old model of the five major powers doesn't really make sense any more. Russia is a nuclear power, but its economy is not much bigger than Spain's, and it's influence on world affairs not significantly greater than that. The UK and France are more or less the same. Basically if any of those three found world opinion against them, they wouldn't seriously threaten war simply because they couldn't.
Right now, the only countries for whom veto power makes sense are the US and China.
UN also mad at us for not signing the Anti Landmine Act or whatever bill that was.
The Ottawa Treaty. And, despite the prevailing argument put forth in opposition to it, mines always harm innocent people; as does every area denial weapon I can think of.
Who would you prefer to run things. UN or NATO. Granted NATO is a military Alliance but you be surprise on the aspects of that treaty. I dealt with UN missions in Afghanistan. Their policies on how they want their gear to arrive in areas comes from fantasy land. NATO is whatever fastest way to get it there in quantity.
NATO isn't just a military alliance, it is a well-oiled machine comprised of military organizations from the most powerful (culturally similar) nations in the world; complete with its own hierarchy. It is not comparable to the UN.
Though, to answer your question directly, I would generally prefer a NATO military action that was sanctioned by the UN. Tools plus legitimacy and all that.
UN also mad at us for not signing the Anti Landmine Act or whatever bill that was.
The Ottawa Treaty. And, despite the prevailing argument put forth in opposition to it, mines always harm innocent people; as does every area denial weapon I can think of.
Our opposition isn't because we want to use it all the time...
It's because of the DMZ zone between North/South Korea. I think if that ever get resolved, we'd have no problem signing.
But I still have doubts as to what the curriculum actually has. Is it really telling them what Democracy is?
Well, that is, as Hamlet muses, the Question. I'll point out that the original protests that started all this were for Assad to step down and for greater democracy in Syria. I'll also point out that it's unlikely that Syria would be able to run the sort of vilification campaign that places like NK have, because of their previously open boarders. And the fact some of their (many now former) allies being (on paper) democracies. Even Iran's secular leaders are (in theory) elected.
And, yes, I do consider dictatorships 'backward'. Rule through Fear went out of style some years ago. Though hilariously, Assad's current propaganda amounts to 'Support Me or the Terrorists Win' (no, seriously).
Judging by half the stupid "the US is not a Democracy, we are a Republic!" comments I hear around this part of the country on a regular basis I wonder if Oklahoman's know what a Democracy is or how it works.
d-usa wrote: Judging by half the stupid "the US is not a Democracy, we are a Republic!" comments I hear around this part of the country on a regular basis I wonder if Oklahoman's know what a Democracy is or how it works.
We should probably not let them vote...
Are you complaining because they know what type of government they have, or are you complaining with the people arguing we aren't a republic? I'm confused. However, thats ok. As I've noted, Oklahoma is flat, like pool table flat. There's always lingering evil where places are flat.
Houston is flat.
I once flattened a restroom after particularly good Mexican food.
Coincidence?
I knew I could count on the usual crowd to prove my point.
Republic =/= head if state is not a monarch. That much is right.
But a representative democracy is still a democracy, and that is not even counting the numerous ways of direct democracy that we use at every election to have the people directly pass laws.
So "we are not a democracy, we are a republic" is wrong.
We are a (representative) democracy, whose head of state is not a monarch (republic). We are both.
d-usa wrote: I knew I could count on the usual crowd to prove my point.
Republic =/= head if state is not a monarch. That much is right.
But a representative democracy is still a democracy, and that is not even counting the numerous ways of direct democracy that we use at every election to have the people directly pass laws.
So "we are not a democracy, we are a republic" is wrong.
We are a (representative) democracy, whose head of state is not a monarch (republic). We are both.
Going back to my high school civics class, I believe the term that we learned was democratic republic. But I'm not disagreeing with you.
I learned Republic as well, because Texas was a republic, and all the other states wanted to be like us. Thats why everyone has to have forty head of longhorns by law, so in emergency we can line them up horn to horn to make a standing wall.
It's the "WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!!" crowd that makes me face palm every election time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: I learned Republic as well, because Texas was a republic, and all the other states wanted to be like us. Thats why everyone has to have forty head of longhorns by law, so in emergency we can line them up horn to horn to make a standing wall.
You know, just in case.
Is that why your flag is the US flag, but with only one star?
Because you were the only state to actually get it right?
We are a (representative) democracy, whose head of state is not a monarch (republic). We are both.
No, they're still technically right, but only in the context of the form of Government (since Democracy is also a form of government). Democracy on this case is the system by which the government is selected for the Republic, however. Further, not having a monarch is not unique to Republics.
It's the "WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!!" crowd that makes me face palm every election time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: I learned Republic as well, because Texas was a republic, and all the other states wanted to be like us. Thats why everyone has to have forty head of longhorns by law, so in emergency we can line them up horn to horn to make a standing wall.
You know, just in case.
Is that why your flag is the US flag, but with only one star?
Because you were the only state to actually get it right?
"We are not a Democracy" is a correct statement.
Democracy is a distinct form of government from what we actually have(Democratic Republic)
In a Democracy, everybody votes on everything. Instead of Congress, we would have citizens vote on issues directly. It is literally Mob Rule. See the ancient Greek city states for what an actual Democracy is.
In a Democratic Republic, the citizens elect representatives who actually pass legislation on the behalf of those who elected them. It uses Democratic principals, but is not actually a Democracy.
Our government more closely resembles ancient Rome than it does the Greek City states.
It's the "WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!!" crowd that makes me face palm every election time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: I learned Republic as well, because Texas was a republic, and all the other states wanted to be like us. Thats why everyone has to have forty head of longhorns by law, so in emergency we can line them up horn to horn to make a standing wall.
You know, just in case.
Is that why your flag is the US flag, but with only one star?
Because you were the only state to actually get it right?
"We are not a Democracy" is a correct statement.
Democracy is a distinct form of government from what we actually have(Democratic Republic)
In a Democracy, everybody votes on everything. Instead of Congress, we would have citizens vote on issues directly. It is literally Mob Rule. See the ancient Greek city states for what an actual Democracy is.
In a Democratic Republic, the citizens elect representatives who actually pass legislation on the behalf of those who elected them. It uses Democratic principals, but is not actually a Democracy.
Our government more closely resembles ancient Rome than it does the Greek City states.
Again:
Full Definition of DEMOCRACY
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections 2 : a political unit that has a democratic government 3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts> 4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority 5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
Or the Wikipedia definition:
Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.
Now the "Rabble rabble REPUBLIC rabble rabble" crowd (usually Republicans, I wonder if there is a connection) often try to pull the "Democracy is what they had in Athens" argument because they pretend that democracy somehow equals "Direct Democracy" only, which is of course largely not the case:
Several variants of democracy exist, but there are two basic forms, both of which concern how the whole body of all eligible citizens executes its will. One form of democracy is direct democracy, in which all eligible citizens have direct and active participation in the decision making of the government. In most modern democracies, the whole body of all eligible citizens remain the sovereign power but political power is exercised indirectly through elected representatives; this is called representative democracy.
Democracy = every person get's to have a vote. That is what we have. You could have 10 people meet every two years in a bathroom at the 7-11 to pick our President and then shoot every single person that doesn't agree with them and guess what, we would still be a Republic since our President wouldn't be a monarch.
And again, that is also ignoring the large amount of Direct Democracy that actually happens in this country on a regular basis.
You can be a democracy without being a Republic, and you can be a Republic without being a democracy. We are both. We are a democracy because everybody gets to vote. We are also a Republic, because we don't have a monarch.
A more narrow definition doesn't invalidate a broader definitions. It's like people going "this is not a starch, this is rice" or "this is not pasta, this is spaghetti".
But it's awesome that the person making comments about Syrians not even knowing what democracy is would get that wrong.
Our governmental system is a republic which is a more narrowly defined subset of democracy. they are being more accurate than you.
This seems to annoy you a great deal. This is time that could be better spent pondering why Oklahoma is so flat, and if a giant CCC work could be performed to make it less flat.
Jihadin wrote: I turn 43 this coming Nov. Now its gut check on you Cad.
Well done, you have a few years on me, doesn't make you right in regards Syria.
The UN have now formally agreed that sarin was used in the attack but aren't prepared to guess who was responsible for using it.
So for those claiming that the Syrian government are responsible, where is your evidence? Why do you have a hard time believing that the rebels, which include international terrorists with a history of killing civilians, would not use the gas to precipitate a response from the West?
Food goes in one end and waste goes out t'other, same as normal. Dogs eat poop anyway so dogend isn't bothered by this, cats are clean in comparison hence catend is grumpy.
Well done, you have a few years on me, doesn't make you right in regards Syria.
The UN have now formally agreed that sarin was used in the attack but aren't prepared to guess who was responsible for using it.
So for those claiming that the Syrian government are responsible, where is your evidence? Why do you have a hard time believing that the rebels, which include international terrorists with a history of killing civilians, would not use the gas to precipitate a response from the West?
No one is right in regards to Syria. I never claimed I was right about Syria. You are "Assuming" I am right about Syria. You are assuming everyone else has the "right" plan for Syria. What is "right" in regards to debate is never go on the personal attack on groups of people like you did. Sure bet you lose a lot of credibility and, for lack of words, a level of maturity.
I mean, I understand where you're coming from, but having only two countries being able to veto seems asinine.
Why? The point of the veto is to ensure that the UN doesn't commit to an action that one of the major world powers considers unacceptable. The point is that the UN's processes should reflect the realities of real world power. And therefore it makes sense that veto be restricted to the countries that the rest of the world just does not want to feth with.
France, Russia and Great Britain haven't really matched that description for a while now.
Maybe change the UN Charter to have simple majority? Add a few more countries to the security council?
Nah, because then you'd have a situation where, by UN protocol, the will of Albania in determining world affairs mattered as much as China's opinion. You could have a situation where the world said something should happen, and the US and China said it should not, and it could still happen. That'd make a complete nonsense of events.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote: The simplest solution would be to remove the five permanent seats on the Sec Con and their vetos, and just have everyone rotated in on a yearly basis.
Nah, because it would no longer reflect real world power (even more than it fails to do so now). The US and China are not just another couple of countries, their view of world affairs is simply more important than the view of Laos or the Ivory Coast.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: There are 15 members of the Security Council, and no member of the permanent 5 would, or should, give up its veto power.
Taiwan did. Stupid pedant answer, but it had to be done
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Are you complaining because they know what type of government they have, or are you complaining with the people arguing we aren't a republic? I'm confused. However, thats ok. As I've noted, Oklahoma is flat, like pool table flat. There's always lingering evil where places are flat.
No, he's pointing out that republic and democracy aren't exclusive. You can be one of the two, or both, or neither.
It's like saying 'oh he doesn't play amateur sports, because he's a dentist.'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote: No, they're still technically right, but only in the context of the form of Government (since Democracy is also a form of government). Democracy on this case is the system by which the government is selected for the Republic, however.
No, they're completely 100% technically and materially wrong. They have no understanding of what republic actually means (no hereditary head of state), and therefore have no idea how that doesn't relate at all to whether you are also a democracy.
Further, not having a monarch is not unique to Republics.
No, seriously, not having a hereditary head of state is the entire sum of what a republic is. Have a king/queen/emperor/tsar/kaiser etc... then you're not a republic. Lack those things, and you're a republic. Whether power is actually decided through elections, a dictator torturing enough people that everyone goes along with it, or bi-annual jelly wrestling tournaments doesn't matter - it's a republic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: In a Democracy, everybody votes on everything. Instead of Congress, we would have citizens vote on issues directly. It is literally Mob Rule. See the ancient Greek city states for what an actual Democracy is.
In a Democratic Republic, the citizens elect representatives who actually pass legislation on the behalf of those who elected them. It uses Democratic principals, but is not actually a Democracy.
That last part isn't a democratic republic, but representative democracy. And it describes how just about every modern democracy works (in fact the US has a much higher amount of direct democracy than just about anyone else in the world).
Your assertion that democracy must be direct democracy is just wrong. Democracy can take many forms, and insisting that it can only describe a form that exists nowhere in the world is just inventing strange definitions for words for no good reason.
Oh, and the people allowed to vote in the direct democracy of the Greek city states were highly restricted - it was in fact a very small percentage of the total city. In fact, you could say they basically had a senate, but instead of the senators being elected by the people, the positions were granted on the basis of social and economic status - ie it was an oligarchy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Again, you're atatcking them for being more correct then you?
ok....
No, he's attacking them because he knows what words mean, and knows how to actually describe your system of government. And you're sitting there looking dumbfounded about this, despite it being explained to you several times.
whembly wrote: I get the feeling that this is appropriate:
I've always thought there should be flipside to that; "Are you coming to bed?" "I can't. This is important." "What?" "It turns out someone on the internet knew something I didn't and now have to spend hours not reading their explanations and replying with nonsense, because protecting my ego is more important than learning."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: The fact that citizenship was restricted doesn't matter.
Like with many things, it depends on the extent. It would be ridiculous, for instance, to say that a country of 50 million people, where voting was restricted to 7 people, was a democracy. So obviously there is a point where the restriction on citizenship matters. And once you reach the extent to which voting is restricted to less than 20% of the adult population (as it was in Athens), then what you're describing is not really a democracy, or a very weak democracy at best.
And more importantly, you failed to respond to my comments on the rest of your post.
But anyway, in case anyone is genuinely confused about how republic and democracy interact, here's a cheat sheet;
Democracy - people cast a vote, giving them a say in how they are governed. Republic - the head of state isn't a hereditary position.
Example of a country that is both a democracy and a republic - The United States of America Example of a country that is a democracy, but not a republic - The United Kingdom Example of a country that is a republic, but not a democracy - Zimbabwe Example of a country that is neither a republic nor a democracy - The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
djones520 wrote: Just read a Muslim cleric just issued a Fatwah permitting the rebels to rape non-sunni women in Syria...
Is there a link to that story and is the cleric that issued it held in the same regard as the Koran burning preacher? Not that I am a fan of either side, but it seems the stories are flying thick and fast depending on which news service is doing the telling.
Found the link and checked out the cleric that issued it. He appears to have a degree of influence:
djones520 wrote: Just read a Muslim cleric just issued a Fatwah permitting the rebels to rape non-sunni women in Syria...
The last few have actually been fake. They're still running the story that Muhammad al-Arifi supposedly issued a fatwa for the same earlier over twitter: he denies this was something he wrote. Supposedly his twitter was hacked.
Yasir al-‘Ajlawni, who seems to have been the source of the latest one is salafi, and is now pitching the idea of muta’a, or a temporary marriage, something that most sunni find reprehensible. It's more typically a Shia practice. He also, supposedly, has not yet actually issued the fatwa, but is 'preparing to'. Interestingly enough, he's been thrown out of Jordan and been living in Damascus for the last 17 years, so I'd say he's right up there with the 'Burn the Koran' guy.
Indeed, even some Muslim women advocate the enslavement and rape of fellow (non-Muslim) women. Kuwaiti political activist, Salwa al-Mutairi, for instance, is working to see the institution of sex-slavery return. In a video she posted online, she explained how she once asked Islam’s greatest authorities living in the city of Mecca, the city of Islam, about the legality of sex-slavery and how they all confirmed it to be perfectly legitimate.
Here's the story I read, guess it was written back in April, so not exactly new news.
AFAIK the fatwa that he was proposing has never materialized and the previous one has turned out to be a fake. (Though retweeted extensively by pro Assad hacktivists.)
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Indeed, even some Muslim women advocate the enslavement and rape of fellow (non-Muslim) women. Kuwaiti political activist, Salwa al-Mutairi, for instance, is working to see the institution of sex-slavery return. In a video she posted online, she explained how she once asked Islam’s greatest authorities living in the city of Mecca, the city of Islam, about the legality of sex-slavery and how they all confirmed it to be perfectly legitimate.
Well, that's really something. Actually I think from the point of view of the Quran and other texts it's true. Muhammad had sex slaves, after all.
xole wrote: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.".
And how does a slogan written 105 years after the Constitution in order to sell more flags declare that we are not a democracy?
Our status as a republic was never questioned by me, I have pretty much affirmed the fact that we don't have a monarch as our head of state in almost all my posts.
BaronIveagh wrote: so I'd say he's right up there with the 'Burn the Koran' guy.
The problem with that part of the world is that those types do get followers, who then proceed to do things like suicide bomb schools, fly planes into buildings, etc...
The problem with that part of the world is that those types do get followers, who then proceed to do things like suicide bomb schools, fly planes into buildings, etc...
I might also point out they get them in the US too. Who shoot up schools, murder doctors, etc...
The problem with that part of the world is that those types do get followers, who then proceed to do things like suicide bomb schools, fly planes into buildings, etc...
I might also point out they get them in the US too. Who shoot up schools, murder doctors, etc...
Not nearly to the scale though. You've got a largely 3rd world region, with very ignorant populations, it's easy for these "leaders" to twist the populace to their perveted message. It's endemic to that region. I firmly believe that until Islam manages to centralize itself, much like Christianity did with the Catholic Church, these problems will persist and will constantly be an issue for us.
xole wrote: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.".
And how does a slogan written 105 years after the Constitution in order to sell more flags declare that we are not a democracy?
Our status as a republic was never questioned by me, I have pretty much affirmed the fact that we don't have a monarch as our head of state in almost all my posts.
So instead of taking a narrow view of democracy and a broad view of republic you are taking a broad view of democracy and a narrow view of republic. And calling the pledge a way to "sell more flags" is misleading. It was about instilling feelings of nationalism in the american people, something which is always waning when we are not threatened.
xole wrote: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.".
And how does a slogan written 105 years after the Constitution in order to sell more flags declare that we are not a democracy?
Our status as a republic was never questioned by me, I have pretty much affirmed the fact that we don't have a monarch as our head of state in almost all my posts.
So instead of taking a narrow view of democracy and a broad view of republic you are taking a broad view of democracy and a narrow view of republic. And calling the pledge a way to "sell more flags" is misleading. It was about instilling feelings of nationalism in the american people, something which is always waning when we are not threatened.
Patriotism isn't something to be proud of now a days. Didn't you get the memo?
djones520 wrote: Patriotism isn't something to be proud of now a days. Didn't you get the memo?
Oh I'm not a patriot. But I'm not opposed to patriotism. It makes me a little sad though, to see it wane. I feel like it's something that should be there.
djones520 wrote: Not nearly to the scale though. You've got a largely 3rd world region, with very ignorant populations, it's easy for these "leaders" to twist the populace to their perveted message. It's endemic to that region. I firmly believe that until Islam manages to centralize itself, much like Christianity did with the Catholic Church, these problems will persist and will constantly be an issue for us.
I think the Reformation is a pretty strong argument that a central church doesn't really solve that problem. You can basically describe the reformation as a response to the Church's manipulation of the superstition of the general population for its own benefit, and also just for a bit of pointless cruelty. The Protestant movements that rose up in response then set about proving that such manipulation and pointless cruely wasn't just a Catholic thing.
So I don't think we can conclude that a central church is really what dragged Christianity forward. Instead, I'd look at a few centuries of improving education and economic prosperity as the main answer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xole wrote: So instead of taking a narrow view of democracy and a broad view of republic you are taking a broad view of democracy and a narrow view of republic.
No, he's not 'taking' any kind of definition. He's giving you the actual defintions - what the words actually mean.
I'll repeat the cheat sheet;
Democracy - people cast a vote, giving them a say in how they are governed. Republic - the head of state isn't a hereditary position.
Example of a country that is both a democracy and a republic - The United States of America Example of a country that is a democracy, but not a republic - The United Kingdom Example of a country that is a republic, but not a democracy - Zimbabwe Example of a country that is neither a republic nor a democracy - The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
djones520 wrote: Not nearly to the scale though. You've got a largely 3rd world region, with very ignorant populations, it's easy for these "leaders" to twist the populace to their perveted message. It's endemic to that region. I firmly believe that until Islam manages to centralize itself, much like Christianity did with the Catholic Church, these problems will persist and will constantly be an issue for us.
I think the Reformation is a pretty strong argument that a central church doesn't really solve that problem. You can basically describe the reformation as a response to the Church's manipulation of the superstition of the general population for its own benefit, and also just for a bit of pointless cruelty. The Protestant movements that rose up in response then set about proving that such manipulation and pointless cruely wasn't just a Catholic thing.
So I don't think we can conclude that a central church is really what dragged Christianity forward. Instead, I'd look at a few centuries of improving education and economic prosperity as the main answer.
Well the answer is hardly as simple as "central authority = peace and happiness", but it's where the start would occur. You can't have a reformation if you have a a bakers dozen of tin pot dictator clerics preaching for their own benefits, without someone "higher up" saying that it's wrong.
xole wrote: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.".
And how does a slogan written 105 years after the Constitution in order to sell more flags declare that we are not a democracy?
Our status as a republic was never questioned by me, I have pretty much affirmed the fact that we don't have a monarch as our head of state in almost all my posts.
So instead of taking a narrow view of democracy and a broad view of republic you are taking a broad view of democracy and a narrow view of republic.
No.
I have an issue with people who keep on saying "we are not a democracy". Because it is 100% wrong.
Being a republic only means that we don't have a monarch as our head of state. It has nothing to do with how we pick our head of state.
Just to make my position clear about the whole "republic" thing:
I, d-usa, fully acknowledge that the United States of America is a republic.
And we are also a democracy.
Which is why I get pissed when people keep on repeating the bs "we are not a democracy" line.
Especially since we practice both representative and direct democracy in our republic.
djones520 wrote: Well the answer is hardly as simple as "central authority = peace and happiness", but it's where the start would occur. You can't have a reformation if you have a a bakers dozen of tin pot dictator clerics preaching for their own benefits, without someone "higher up" saying that it's wrong.
What? Dude, the Reformation was basically people rejecting that there was anyone 'higher up' other than God.
djones520 wrote: Well the answer is hardly as simple as "central authority = peace and happiness", but it's where the start would occur. You can't have a reformation if you have a a bakers dozen of tin pot dictator clerics preaching for their own benefits, without someone "higher up" saying that it's wrong.
What? Dude, the Reformation people rejecting that there was anyone 'higher up' other than God.
Reformation within Islam... I'm not trying to draw a direct comparison between the two topics. I'm saying the way Islam is right now will never work to bring the middle east into a 1st world status. Something needs to be done to change things.
djones520 wrote: Democratic-Republic is how I've best seen it described.
Does that make the "we are not a democracy..." statement true or false?
It would make it true.
Democracy is a distinct form of government from a Democratic-Republic.
The latter takes many principals from Democracy and Republics and makes something different that is neither a Republic nor a Democracy, but a mixture of both.
A puppy that's half Poodle and half Pug is neither Poodle nor Pug, its a combination of the two. saying the puppy is a Poodle would be 100% incorrect.
djones520 wrote: Reformation within Islam... I'm not trying to draw a direct comparison between the two topics. I'm saying the way Islam is right now will never work to bring the middle east into a 1st world status. Something needs to be done to change things.
I know you weren't trying to draw a direct parallel between the two - I was the one trying to do that. Or at least, I was trying to get you to look at the state of the church when it was under central leadership. Because if you look at the state of the church in the 16th century then you'll see people doing and saying stuff that would make the crazy nonsense said today by a fringe of Islam look progressive.
Being under central leadership didn't progress the church, nor did it facilitate the economic progress that advanced society as a whole. So I think you're really putting the bull before the horns - it isn't 'reform Islam and Islamic society will come along with it' but 'reform Islamic society and Islam will come along with it'.
djones520 wrote: Reformation within Islam... I'm not trying to draw a direct comparison between the two topics. I'm saying the way Islam is right now will never work to bring the middle east into a 1st world status. Something needs to be done to change things.
I know you weren't trying to draw a direct parallel between the two - I was the one trying to do that. Or at least, I was trying to get you to look at the state of the church when it was under central leadership. Because if you look at the state of the church in the 16th century then you'll see people doing and saying stuff that would make the crazy nonsense said today by a fringe of Islam look progressive.
Being under central leadership didn't progress the church, nor did it facilitate the economic progress that advanced society as a whole. So I think you're really putting the bull before the horns - it isn't 'reform Islam and Islamic society will come along with it' but 'reform Islamic society and Islam will come along with it'.
Islam was a lot more moderate when there was a nominal central authority though. There hasn't been one since the Ottoman Empire collapsed, and following that we saw our rise of radical Islam to the extreme that it is at today. Maybe it wouldn't be a perfect solution, but what would be?
Democracy is a distinct form of government from a Democratic-Republic.
The latter takes many principals from Democracy and Republics and makes something different that is neither a Republic nor a Democracy, but a mixture of both.
A puppy that's half Poodle and half Pug is neither Poodle nor Pug, its a combination of the two. saying the puppy is a Poodle would be 100% incorrect.
You're just wrong and I really don't know how many more times I have to explain it. What's actually happened is that someone has asked 'is that a poodle' and you replied 'no, it's a puppy', thinking somehow that if its a puppy then that's all it can be.
Somehow you've got it stuck in your head that a society's status as a democracy is somehow dependant on its status as a republic. When in reality, just like a dog can be both a poodle and a puppy, just one of the two, or neither, a government can be both a democracy and a republic, just one of the two, or neither.
In fact, it can even be a puppy for a time and then stop being a puppy, but remain a poodle the whole time. Just like the UK was neither a republic nor a democracy... and then became a democracy by granting people the right to choose parliament... while remaining a republic because the monarch remained head of state.
And just like Australia has been a democracy since foundation, and now sometimes flirts with the idea of becoming a republic - no longer having the Queen as our head of state. We have asked this question as a referendum (a democratic process...) and if we ever say yes, we'll start being a republic while remaining just as much a democracy as we used to be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: Islam was a lot more moderate when there was a nominal central authority though. There hasn't been one since the Ottoman Empire collapsed, and following that we saw our rise of radical Islam to the extreme that it is at today. Maybe it wouldn't be a perfect solution, but what would be?
The roots of Wahhabism are about 200 years before the fall of the Ottoman Empire, so I'm not sure it's really a root cause.
I agree there's no perfect solution, but I think all that can be done is to continue to encourage reform and modernisation in Islamic states. Look to the steady progress made by the likes of Jordan. I like the comment made by another poster in the thread about racism in the wake of an Indian girl winning Miss America - the reason we see that kind of insane, reactionary hate is because those people are losing. The same can be said of the extreme parts of Islam - they see the changes slowly working through their society and they do not like them.
djones520 wrote: Reformation within Islam... I'm not trying to draw a direct comparison between the two topics. I'm saying the way Islam is right now will never work to bring the middle east into a 1st world status. Something needs to be done to change things.
I know you weren't trying to draw a direct parallel between the two - I was the one trying to do that. Or at least, I was trying to get you to look at the state of the church when it was under central leadership. Because if you look at the state of the church in the 16th century then you'll see people doing and saying stuff that would make the crazy nonsense said today by a fringe of Islam look progressive.
Being under central leadership didn't progress the church, nor did it facilitate the economic progress that advanced society as a whole. So I think you're really putting the bull before the horns - it isn't 'reform Islam and Islamic society will come along with it' but 'reform Islamic society and Islam will come along with it'.
Islam was a lot more moderate when there was a nominal central authority though. There hasn't been one since the Ottoman Empire collapsed, and following that we saw our rise of radical Islam to the extreme that it is at today. Maybe it wouldn't be a perfect solution, but what would be?
Forcibly converting everyone to Pastafarianism or burning them alive.
Would solve most of our problems in a hurry. After that we'd only have to deal with a high starch diet, which we pretty much do anyways.
The problem with that part of the world is that those types do get followers, who then proceed to do things like suicide bomb schools, fly planes into buildings, etc...
I might also point out they get them in the US too. Who shoot up schools, murder doctors, etc...
Yes, there have been mutliple Muslim terrorists here too. I'm sure you were trying to make another point, but it was stupid.
djones520 wrote: Not nearly to the scale though. You've got a largely 3rd world region, with very ignorant populations, it's easy for these "leaders" to twist the populace to their perveted message. It's endemic to that region. I firmly believe that until Islam manages to centralize itself, much like Christianity did with the Catholic Church, these problems will persist and will constantly be an issue for us.
I think the Reformation is a pretty strong argument that a central church doesn't really solve that problem. You can basically describe the reformation as a response to the Church's manipulation of the superstition of the general population for its own benefit, and also just for a bit of pointless cruelty. The Protestant movements that rose up in response then set about proving that such manipulation and pointless cruely wasn't just a Catholic thing.
Considering what the results of the Reformation (MORE pointless cruelty and manipulation of the superstitions of the general population, etc) then yes I'd say that conclusion is fairly well founded for any central religious movement. Especially when that movement has political/temporal power in some form. For more on this, see the evolution of Satan through out the rise of Christianity, but most importantly his transformation from being in a cell in hell's high security wing to an active aggressor against humanity during the Middle Ages.
djones520 wrote: Islam was a lot more moderate when there was a nominal central authority though. There hasn't been one since the Ottoman Empire collapsed, and following that we saw our rise of radical Islam to the extreme that it is at today. Maybe it wouldn't be a perfect solution, but what would be?
The roots of Wahhabism are about 200 years before the fall of the Ottoman Empire, so I'm not sure it's really a root cause.
I agree there's no perfect solution, but I think all that can be done is to continue to encourage reform and modernisation in Islamic states. Look to the steady progress made by the likes of Jordan. I like the comment made by another poster in the thread about racism in the wake of an Indian girl winning Miss America - the reason we see that kind of insane, reactionary hate is because those people are losing. The same can be said of the extreme parts of Islam - they see the changes slowly working through their society and they do not like them.
The roots of the sectarian divide in Islam go back to the 8th century and the death of the Prophet without a clear successor. That's where all this Sunni/Shiite fun comes from. Start with that divide, add in a culture with a passion for revenge and long memories about perceived insult or slight, let that run for a couple centuries with periods of intense decline and out comes this BS.
Yes, there have been mutliple Muslim terrorists here too. I'm sure you were trying to make another point, but it was stupid.
Actually I was talking about fringe elements in both places. Radical Christianity is just as bad, except they tend not blow themselves up and are more selective in their murders.
Apparently the UN report does not blame Assad outright, but, by way of proof, the gas as dispersed using a Russian made 140mm MS 14 rocket fired from a Syrian military base. (But feel free to check the angles against a map yourself, they're in the report).
Also:
If the Syrian army doesn't notice this bad boy driving around and start asking questions, It's amazing that the opposition hasn't won by now. (Though, in all fairness, the Syrian army also purchased the towed version)
Given that the rebels are using home made missile launchers already, it's hardly a stretch for them to have a single tube capable of firing a gas round.
The Russians have been providing munitions to Syria for decades. Casings with cyrilic on them would be commonplace in that country. The rebels have overrun army positions at times, it's not hard to see that they had access to Russian munitions as a result.
This is all speculative and circumstantial which is why the UN has rightly avoided proportioning blame.
I'd also take with a pinch of salt "news reports" which include words like 'chilling' and make vague statements about "other nonproliferation experts" without naming them.
djones520 wrote: Not nearly to the scale though. You've got a largely 3rd world region, with very ignorant populations, it's easy for these "leaders" to twist the populace to their perveted message. It's endemic to that region.
I'm not sure if you're describing the Middle East, or the bottom half of the US.
djones520 wrote: Not nearly to the scale though. You've got a largely 3rd world region, with very ignorant populations, it's easy for these "leaders" to twist the populace to their perveted message. It's endemic to that region.
I'm not sure if you're describing the Middle East, or the bottom half of the US.
Considering our third world population centers are in the North of the country I'd vote no. Atlanta sucks, but it's not the Detroit or Chicago warzones.
Yes, there have been mutliple Muslim terrorists here too. I'm sure you were trying to make another point, but it was stupid.
Actually I was talking about fringe elements in both places. Radical Christianity is just as bad, except they tend not blow themselves up and are more selective in their murders.
Your statement is not supported by evidence of anything. Try to quit drinking the PC Koolaid once in a while.
Radical Christianity has committed hundreds of felonies including assault, arson, kidnapping and murder in the United States. They don't have gak on haji still, but this isn't disputable evidence.
Christians have their own violent extremists groups as well of course.
cadbren wrote: Given that the rebels are using home made missile launchers already, it's hardly a stretch for them to have a single tube capable of firing a gas round.
The Russians have been providing munitions to Syria for decades. Casings with cyrilic on them would be commonplace in that country. The rebels have overrun army positions at times, it's not hard to see that they had access to Russian munitions as a result.
Unlikely. The MS 14 (chemical) is a specialized round, not a standard explosive rocket (though there is a standard explosive version, you can't just convert one without the proper warhead). If the rebels took it overrunning an army position, it was because the army was about to use it on someone. Remember that Sarin has a short shelf life once mixed.
Further, while the rebels undoubtedly do have Russian launchers, interestingly, the majority of theirs are likely Chinese type 63s that Syrian army defectors brought them, which are similar to a BM 14, but use a smaller rocket size and have more tubes. (And ammunition for this is more plentiful, being produced in both Turkey and Egypt under license.)
Cad, feel free to run the numbers yourself on the trajectory those rockets took. The numbers are in the report.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Radical Christianity has committed hundreds of felonies including assault, arson, kidnapping and murder in the United States. They don't have gak on haji still, but this isn't disputable evidence.
Christians have their own violent extremists groups as well of course.
I'd say there's plenty of Christian extremism and violence to be had. If you'd like to up the bodycount by several orders of magnitude we could toss in the Crusades, but I felt that we should stick to recent events and organizations.
I'd say there's plenty of Christian extremism and violence to be had. If you'd like to up the bodycount by several orders of magnitude we could toss in the Crusades, but I felt that we should stick to recent events and organizations.
Your original post said "in the US." Whats awesome is how your references are such utter crap.
Please reference where Christians caused thousands of casualties in the US. This might take awhile.
I never said they caused thousands of casulaties in the U.S. however the fact that the Ku Klux Klan, The Army of God and other radical Christian organizations are alive and active in the United States is indisputable.
Christian terrorists have murdered, kidnapped and committed arson and recently.
Your original post said "in the US." Whats awesome is how your references are such utter crap.
Please reference where Christians caused thousands of casualties in the US. This might take awhile.
No, I said they get followers in the United States and causing thousands of casualties.
While US Christians have 'only' caused 300 deaths in their own country, they support all those organizations listed (or did so previous in the case of Kony's LRA. Rush Limbaugh even spoke out in favor of them until someone told him what they were doing). National Liberation Front of Tripura in particular was co founded by US Baptist missionaries to create a Christian Kingdom in India and continues to receive their support. So while American Christians might not pile up impressive body counts in the US, they're doing a bang up job everywhere else.
As far as raw numbers, KM is right according to the FBI's published crime statistics. Muslims only account for 5% of acts of terrorism carried out in the US, but because of 9/11 they get the bulk of casualties. If you don't factor in that event, the vast majority of terrorist killings are carried out by Christians.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I never said they caused thousands of casulaties in the U.S. however the fact that the Ku Klux Klan, The Army of God and other radical Christian organizations are alive and active in the United States is indisputable.
Christian terrorists have murdered, kidnapped and committed arson and recently.
If you factor in Klan caused deaths and violence over time, I suspect we'd hit the "thousands" pretty rapidly.
If you're including the Klan (I left them out because I was sticking to fairly recent body counts, and it's killing spree is stretched over more than a century) you're looking at in excess of 4000 people, grand total, according to some sources. The lowball is around 1500.
Your original post said "in the US." Whats awesome is how your references are such utter crap.
Please reference where Christians caused thousands of casualties in the US. This might take awhile.
No, I said they get followers in the United States and causing thousands of casualties.
While US Christians have 'only' caused 300 deaths in their own country, they support all those organizations listed (or did so previous in the case of Kony's LRA. Rush Limbaugh even spoke out in favor of them until someone told him what they were doing). National Liberation Front of Tripura in particular was co founded by US Baptist missionaries to create a Christian Kingdom in India and continues to receive their support. So while American Christians might not pile up impressive body counts in the US, they're doing a bang up job everywhere else.
As far as raw numbers, KM is right according to the FBI's published crime statistics. Muslims only account for 5% of acts of terrorism carried out in the US, but because of 9/11 they get the bulk of casualties. If you don't factor in that event, the vast majority of terrorist killings are carried out by Christians.
So in other words, you lied.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I never said they caused thousands of casulaties in the U.S. however the fact that the Ku Klux Klan, The Army of God and other radical Christian organizations are alive and active in the United States is indisputable.
Christian terrorists have murdered, kidnapped and committed arson and recently.
If you factor in Klan caused deaths and violence over time, I suspect we'd hit the "thousands" pretty rapidly.
The Klan was an organization designed to keep Jim Crow going. It had as much to do with Christianity as my ass does to why Trexas liked coconuts.
Plus they're effectively dead.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
As far as raw numbers, KM is right according to the FBI's published crime statistics. Muslims only account for 5% of acts of terrorism carried out in the US, but because of 9/11 they get the bulk of casualties. If you don't factor in that event, the vast majority of terrorist killings are carried out by Christians.
What are the other 95% of "terrrorism" You can't accuse Christians unless they actually did it in the name of their religion.
Seriously?
Towers
9/11
attempted shoe bomber
Fort Hood
Marathon
No, but you changed the parameters of what we were talking about to body counts.
Frazzled wrote: The Klan was an organization designed to keep Jim Crow going. It had as much to do with Christianity as my ass does to why Trexas liked coconuts.
Plus they're effectively dead.
Well, the original inception of the Klan, as an insurgency is, sure. However, the KKK is very much alive.
What are the other 95% of "terrrorism" You can't accuse Christians unless they actually did it in the name of their religion.
Seriously?
Towers
9/11
attempted shoe bomber
Fort Hood
Marathon
Here's a sampler:
July 27, 1996
A nail-packed bomb goes off at the Atlanta Olympics, which are seen by many extremists as part of a Satanic "New World Order," killing one person and injuring more than 100 others. Investigators will later conclude the attack is linked to 1997-1998 bombings of an Atlanta-area abortion clinic, an Atlanta gay bar and a Birmingham, Ala., abortion facility. Suspect Eric Robert Rudolph — a reclusive North Carolina man tied to the anti-Semitic Christian Identity theology — flees into the woods of his native state after he is identified in early 1998 as a suspect in the Birmingham attack, and is only captured five years later. Eventually, he pleads guilty to all of the attacks attributed to him in exchange for life without parole.
October 8, 1996
Three "Phineas Priests" — racist and anti-Semitic Christian Identity terrorists who feel they've been called by God to undertake violent attacks — are charged in connection with two bank robberies and bombings at the two banks, a Spokane newspaper and a Planned Parenthood office. Charles Barbee, Robert Berry and Jay Merrell are eventually convicted and sentenced to life terms. Brian Ratigan, a fourth member of the group arrested separately, draws a 55-year term; he is scheduled for release in 2045.
July 1, 1999
A gay couple, Gary Matson and Winfield Mowder, are shot to death in bed at their home near Redding, Calif. Days later, after tracking purchases made on Mowder's stolen credit card, police arrest brothers Benjamin Matthew Williams and James Tyler Williams. At least one of the pair, Matthew Williams (both use their middle names), is an adherent of the anti-Semitic Christian Identity theology. Police soon learn that the brothers two weeks earlier carried out arson attacks against three synagogues and an abortion clinic in Sacramento. Both brothers, whose mother at one point refers in a conversation to her sons' victims as "two homos," eventually admit their guilt — in Matthew's case, in a newspaper interview. Matthew, who at one point badly injures a guard in a surprise attack, commits suicide in 2002. Tyler, who pleads guilty to an array of charges in the case, and is given two sentences amounting to 50 years to be served consecutively.
March 1, 2001
As part of an ongoing probe into a white supremacist group, federal and local law enforcement agents raid the Corbett, Ore., home of Fritz Springmeier, seizing equipment to grow marijuana and weapons and racist literature. They also find a binder notebook entitled "Army of God, Yahweh's Warriors" that contains what officials call a list of targets, including a local federal building and the FBI's Oregon offices. Springmeier, an associate of the anti-Semitic Christian Patriots Association, is eventually charged with setting off a diversionary bomb at an adult video store in Damascus, Ore., in 1997 as part of a bank robbery carried out by accomplice Forrest Bateman Jr. Another 2001 raid finds small amounts of bomb materials and marijuana in Bateman's home. Eventually, Bateman pleads guilty to bank robbery and Springmeier is convicted of the same charges. Both are sentenced to nine years, and have release dates in 2011.
October 14, 2001
A North Carolina sheriff's deputy pulls over Steve Anderson, a former "colonel" in the Kentucky Militia, on a routine traffic stop as he heads home to Kentucky from a white supremacist gathering in North Carolina. Anderson, who is an adherent of racist Christian Identity theology and has issued violent threats against officials for months via an illegal pirate radio station, pulls out a semi-automatic weapon and peppers the deputy's car with bullets before driving his truck into the woods and disappearing for 13 months. Officials later find six pipe bombs in Anderson's abandoned truck and 27 bombs and destructive devices in his home. In the end, Anderson apologizes for his actions and pleads guilty. He is sentenced on a variety of firearms charges to 15 years in federal prison.
February 13, 2003
Federal agents in Pennsylvania arrest David Wayne Hull, imperial wizard of the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and an adherent of the anti-Semitic Christian Identity theology, alleging that Hull arranged to buy hand grenades to blow up abortion clinics. The FBI says Hull also illegally instructed followers on how to build pipe bombs. Hull, who published a newsletter in which he urged readers to write Oklahoma City bomber Tim McVeigh "to tell this great man goodbye," is found guilty of weapons violations and sentenced to 12 years in federal prison. He is released in July 2012.
May 20, 2005
Officials in New Jersey arrest two men they say asked a police informant to build them a bomb. Craig Orler, who has a history of burglary arrests, and Gabriel Carafa, said to be a leader of the neo-Nazi World Church of the Creator and a member of a racist Skinhead group called The Hated, are charged with illegally selling 11 guns to police informants. Carafa gave one informant 60 pounds of urea to use in building him a bomb, but never said what the bomb was for. Police say they moved in before the alleged bombing plot developed further because they were concerned about the pair's activities. They taped Orler saying in a phone call that he was seeking people in Europe to help him go underground. Orler is sentenced to more than 10 years in prison, while Carafa draws seven.
March 27-28, 2010
Nine members of the Hutaree Militia are arrested in raids in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana and charged with seditious conspiracy and attempted use of weapons of mass destruction. The group, whose website said it was preparing for the imminent arrival of the anti-Christ, allegedly planned to murder a Michigan police officer, then use bombs and homemade missiles to kill other officers attending the funeral, all in a bid to set off a war with the government. Joshua Clough pleads guilty to a weapons charge in December 2011. A federal judge dismisses charges against seven members of the group during a trial in March 2012, saying their hatred of law enforcement did not amount to a conspiracy. Militia leader David Stone and his son Joshua Stone plead guilty to gun charges two days after the trial. In August 2012, a federal judge chooses not to send the Stones back to prison. They are each fined $100 and placed on two years’ supervision. Another member, Jacob Ward, awaits a separate trial.
Sept. 2, 2010
A pipe bomb is thrown through the window of a closed Planned Parenthood clinic in Madera, Calif., along with a note that reads, “Murder our children? We have a ‘choice’ too.” The note is signed ANB, apparently short for the American Nationalist Brotherhood. Six months later, law enforcement officials arrest school bus driver Donny Eugene Mower, who allegedly also threatened a local Islamic Center and has the word “Peckerwood,” a reference to a white supremacist gang, tattooed on his chest. Mower reportedly confesses to the attack.
Sept. 7, 2010
The FBI arrests 26-year-old Justin Carl Moose, a self-described “freedom fighter” and “Christian counterpart to Osama bin Laden,” for allegedly planning to blow up a North Carolina abortion clinic. After earlier receiving tips that Moose was posting threats of violence against abortion providers and information about explosives on his Facebook page, the FBI set up a sting operation to capture him. Moose later pleads guilty to distributing information on manufacturing and use of an explosive and is sentenced to 30 months in prison. He is released in November 2012.
March 27-28, 2010
Nine members of the Hutaree Militia are arrested in raids in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana and charged with seditious conspiracy and attempted use of weapons of mass destruction. The group, whose website said it was preparing for the imminent arrival of the anti-Christ, allegedly planned to murder a Michigan police officer, then use bombs and homemade missiles to kill other officers attending the funeral, all in a bid to set off a war with the government. Joshua Clough pleads guilty to a weapons charge in December 2011. A federal judge dismisses charges against seven members of the group during a trial in March 2012, saying their hatred of law enforcement did not amount to a conspiracy. Militia leader David Stone and his son Joshua Stone plead guilty to gun charges two days after the trial. In August 2012, a federal judge chooses not to send the Stones back to prison. They are each fined $100 and placed on two years’ supervision. Another member, Jacob Ward, awaits a separate trial.
May 14, 2011
Three masked men break into the Madrasah Islamiah, an Islamic center in Houston, and douse prayer rugs with gasoline in an apparent attempt to burn the center down. Images of the men are captured on surveillance cameras, but they are not identified. The fire is put out before doing major damage.
August 24, 2011
Cody Seth Crawford, 24, is arrested on federal charges accusing him of the Nov. 28, 2010, arson of the Salman Alfarisi Islamic Center in Corvallis, Ore. The firebombing occurred two days after a former Oregon State University student was arrested in a plot to detonate a car bomb during Portland's annual tree-lighting. Crawford had ranted about Muslims and described himself as a Christian warrior during previous run-ins with police.
Frazzled wrote: 4,000 dead so far. We're not stripping down at the airport because of Christian terrorists.
Get real.
Yeah, bluntly if you take 9/11 and the grand total of the KKK into account, good white American Christians and those dirty Islamic untermench are pretty much neck and neck for dead Americans. But foiled terror plots, arson, and bombings with low media visibility (either not on camera or had low body counts) don't make the national news unless they happen to pay to whatever narrative the media outlets are pushing at the time. Neither do Americans killing people in other countries in the name of God. (Unless the dead people are also Americans).
Seriously, blow up a building with a rag on your head and make the news. Derail a train in Arizona in the name of God and no one ever hears about you.
And, as far as stripping down at airports because of terrorism, you aren't. That entire charade exists to make it look like the US government is doing something about terrorism.
d-usa wrote: Terrorism is probably one of the lowest causes of death in the US.
The fact that we are letting them win like this is just stupid.
Even if it wasn't, media coverage makes it seem like there's a terrorist lurking behind every woodpile.
I'll be honest, the US has no idea what to do with itself if there's not some big scary thing lurking out there someplace, waiting for them. Before terrorists it was communists, and before them anarchists, and then before that it was Indians, with a brief interlude of abolitionists/copperheads/redlegs. You never know if Joe the Postman is secretly in bed with the KGB.
d-usa wrote: Terrorism is probably one of the lowest causes of death in the US.
The fact that we are letting them win like this is just stupid.
You are an order of magnitude more likely to be killed by a policeman than by a terrorist, statistically.
Or a bee, or a dog, or a dog that when he barks, he shoots bees.
Police have pointed guns at me.
My inlaws are deathly allergic to bees. Father In Law almost died.
I had a pit bull that could crush a ribcage.
TBone's farts could kill. I've seen it.
You are an order of magnitude more likely to be killed by a policeman than by a terrorist, statistically.
Or a bee, or a dog, or a dog that when he barks, he shoots bees.
Getting back to the point, however, as I said, religious wackos of all flavors do find followers all over the world, whether Muslim or Jew or Christian, and regardless of if they're in the US or down town Mecca.
d-usa wrote: Terrorism is probably one of the lowest causes of death in the US.
The fact that we are letting them win like this is just stupid.
Even if it wasn't, media coverage makes it seem like there's a terrorist lurking behind every woodpile.
I'll be honest, the US has no idea what to do with itself if there's not some big scary thing lurking out there someplace, waiting for them. Before terrorists it was communists, and before them anarchists, and then before that it was Indians, with a brief interlude of abolitionists/copperheads/redlegs. You never know if Joe the Postman is secretly in bed with the KGB.
I'd say there's plenty of Christian extremism and violence to be had. If you'd like to up the bodycount by several orders of magnitude we could toss in the Crusades, but I felt that we should stick to recent events and organizations.
Verily, because then you'd have to include the forced Islamization of the Eastern Roman Empire and the middle east, the 19th century massacres of christian populations within the Ottoman Empire, most notably in Bulgaria and Armenia, the ethnic cleansing of Greeks from the east coast of Turkey in the early 20th century and more massacres of Armenians. You can also include current muslim populations engaging in gang rapes of European women and rioting in European cities on a semi-regular basis, the 4 day Stokholm riots being the most recent.
Interesting information. I admit that I'm biased here, I don't want to see Assad replaced by the rebels, I think that would be terrible given the make up of those groups, it certainly would be bad for the Christian minority in Syria. I also don't see why the government would target two separate locations or seemingly low to no military value while the world was looking on. It screams false flag. I would also expect both attacks to be carried out with the same munitions if fired from the same base, having two different types looks like someone scraping together the materiels to make this attack.
So Mr Scary Tax Accountant, who appears to be winning, not only used CW when there was UN Inspectors in the country, he also launched them directly over his own head?
Something doesn't add up here. I'm not saying he didn't do it, but I have my doubts that we are being told the whole story.
Some refugees from Damascus have
been extolling a wild conspiracy
theory about the start of the Syrian
civil war. They say there's a feeling
among Syrians on the street that
the troubles stem from a row
between Russia and Qatar.
In short, their story goes like this:
Qatar has been wanting to build a
pipeline to Turkey to break European
reliance on Russian oil. So the
Qatari royal family started chumming
up to Assad in order to be able to
put the pipe across Syrian land.
However, Assad is good pals with the
Russians and wasn't having any of
it. So Qatar decided to take
advantage of all that Arab Spring
business and try to engender a
public uprising against Assad in
the hopes that they'd get a more
useful leader in instead. And how
do the conspiracy theorists think
they did this? By showing
made films of anti-Assad demos on
the West's favourite Arab channel,
Al-Jazeera, (a channel owned, funnily
enough, by the Qatari government.
cadbren wrote: You can also include current muslim populations engaging in gang rapes of European women and rioting in European cities on a semi-regular basis, the 4 day Stokholm riots being the most recent.
And you know that the area is majority Muslim because...? There's no data on that, because it'd be illegal to collect in Sweden. Furthermore, are you REALLY making the argument that a majority of the Muslim population in Europe is OK with gang rape? Because that's stupid on a staggering level and the sort of froth-at-the-mouth rethoric used by some rather unsavory groups that don't tend to back their arguments up very well beyond "dem darnz moslemz!!1!".
Some refugees from Damascus have
been extolling a wild conspiracy
theory about the start of the Syrian
civil war. They say there's a feeling
among Syrians on the street that
the troubles stem from a row
between Russia and Qatar.
In short, their story goes like this:
Qatar has been wanting to build a
pipeline to Turkey to break European
reliance on Russian oil. So the
Qatari royal family started chumming
up to Assad in order to be able to
put the pipe across Syrian land.
However, Assad is good pals with the
Russians and wasn't having any of
it. So Qatar decided to take
advantage of all that Arab Spring
business and try to engender a
public uprising against Assad in
the hopes that they'd get a more
useful leader in instead. And how
do the conspiracy theorists think
they did this? By showing
made films of anti-Assad demos on
the West's favourite Arab channel,
Al-Jazeera, (a channel owned, funnily
enough, by the Qatari government.
*shrugs*
Well if that is the case then Qatar can stump up the money for the rebel's new weapons. Even less reason for us to get involved in their p*ssing match with Russia. Anyone started to chant "No blood for gas!" yet?
It screams false flag. I would also expect both attacks to be carried out with the same munitions if fired from the same base, having two different types looks like someone scraping together the materiels to make this attack.
The problem is that then you run into someone infiltrating the military base, setting up a launcher, and firing it, without anyone noticing you do this (and the smallest of these launchers is towed). As for as the munitions difference: not really. We don't know what the big one was, but it might have had a longer range than the MS 14. Remember that the MS 14s were firing at near the limit of their range, so they might have decided to hedge their bets. Or possibly they were testing a new munition they developed (would explain why it's unknown to the Weapons Inspectors).
Qatar has been buying them weapons. So have the Saudis.
What the rebels actually need is air cover. FSA has already made it clear that if they win the war the Jihadists are next on their list after Assad, but without air support, or at least the suppression of the Syrian airforce, they're fighting an uphill battle.
2) That the 1940 Marine Corps Small Wars Manual was absolutely right in that one needs to be prepared for counter insurgency actions and an understanding of the languages and cultures involved.
3) That the all volunteer model for the military does actually work when confronted with wars that last more than a year.
2) That the 1940 Marine Corps Small Wars Manual was absolutely right in that one needs to be prepared for counter insurgency actions and an understanding of the languages and cultures involved.
3) That the all volunteer model for the military does actually work when confronted with wars that last more than a year.
Not from an armed forces perspective, but a personal lesson for me:
If you are going to start a conflict resulting in the creation of hundreds of thousands of veterans with service related issues, you should probably start to put the infrastructure in place to deal with their needs when you get ready to deploy them so that you are actually ready for a giant influx of new veterans into a system that is already taxed instead of playing catch-up for the next 10 years.
Something I have been wondering: Maj Gen Adnan Silu, commander of the Syrian Army's chemical weapons brigade, and most of that units commanders have defected either to the FSA or fled outright (apparently they disagreed with orders). How will the Syrian's draw up a comprehensive list if everyone who knew has taken off?
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote: If some were willing to defect to the rebels maybe someone working for the rebels launched from inside a government camp?
You still run in to the problem of getting access to them and then setting the launcher up without anyone noticing. Most people keep their WMDs under a little bit more security than, say, a padlock and a do not enter sign. Besides, with hat sort of access, why not just shoot Assad?
Yeah, bluntly if you take 9/11 and the grand total of the KKK into account, good white American Christians and those dirty Islamic untermench are pretty much neck and neck for dead Americans.
Lynchings, which weren't just carried out by the KKK are recorded over an 80 year period and the vast majority of those killed were rapists and murderers. Most were black, about a quarter were white.
80 years compared to a single day.
None of those killed on 911 were wanted for rape, murder or some other heinous crime either, they were innocents. Most of those hung in lynchings were criminals. The idea that lynchings were all random killings against black people is wrong.
cadbren wrote: You can also include current muslim populations engaging in gang rapes of European women and rioting in European cities on a semi-regular basis, the 4 day Stokholm riots being the most recent.
And you know that the area is majority Muslim because...? There's no data on that, because it'd be illegal to collect in Sweden. Furthermore, are you REALLY making the argument that a majority of the Muslim population in Europe is OK with gang rape? Because that's stupid on a staggering level and the sort of froth-at-the-mouth rethoric used by some rather unsavory groups that don't tend to back their arguments up very well beyond "dem darnz moslemz!!1!".
I don't except someone from a country where masturbating in public is legal to understand. The rioters were overwhelmingly of muslim background as reported by people on the ground there and supported by the video of the rioters.
I said nothing about the majority of muslims being okay with gang rape, I said that muslims are responsible for nearly all gang rapes.
As far as I'm aware, the current klan is a series of independent groups that have no real connection with either themselves or the original klan. Anyone can start a KKK group and put their own spin on it, there is no klan like the stereotyped one from the 1950s. The heyday of the klan was the early 20th century. It included politicians, doctors, lawyers etc. Today it's mostly low income or welfare types who can barely scrape 20 people together for a rally.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Considering what the results of the Reformation (MORE pointless cruelty and manipulation of the superstitions of the general population, etc) then yes I'd say that conclusion is fairly well founded for any central religious movement.
Yeah, violence due to the instability of the split. But to argue that a central power is inherently more moderate would be to argue that Catholicism over history has shown itself to be more moderate than Protestantism, which is kind of ridiculous.
The roots of the sectarian divide in Islam go back to the 8th century and the death of the Prophet without a clear successor. That's where all this Sunni/Shiite fun comes from. Start with that divide, add in a culture with a passion for revenge and long memories about perceived insult or slight, let that run for a couple centuries with periods of intense decline and out comes this BS.
In a conversation on extremism within modern Islam thought I was stretching cause and effect by going back to the origins of Wahhabism... but you dragging to back to to the death of Mohammed is something else entirely
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: The Klan was an organization designed to keep Jim Crow going. It had as much to do with Christianity as my ass does to why Trexas liked coconuts. Plus they're effectively dead.
Are you genuinely unaware of the heavy Christian elements of the KKK, or are you just playing at some kind of no true scotsman defence?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: It does seem odd he would fire at targets of little to no military value, while he was being investigated over chemical weapons use.
The targeted towns had significant strategic value and had been assaulted by Syrian forces previously.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote: If some were willing to defect to the rebels maybe someone working for the rebels launched from inside a government camp?
While this isn't a criminal trial, I think the concept of reasonable doubt works pretty well in thinking about this. I mean, yeah, its possible that some defecting group bypassed the security systems to access both the chemical munitions and launchers, and then made several attacks against rebel targets over a period of time without being stopped by loyalists... but I'm not going to call it alikely enough scenario to cast reasonable doubt on the default assumption that chemical weapons owned by Syria and launched from within the area controlled by a Syrian regular army group against rebel controlled points was, in fact, an attack by the Syrian government.
a country where masturbating in public is legal
I said that muslims are responsible for nearly all gang rapes.
A question thrown out to dakka at large - of the above two quotes, which is crazier?
I don't except someone from a country where masturbating in public is legal to understand. The rioters were overwhelmingly of muslim background as reported by people on the ground there and supported by the video of the rioters.
I said nothing about the majority of muslims being okay with gang rape, I said that muslims are responsible for nearly all gang rapes.
If you could attach your arguments to this reality when posting it'd be better all round.
It would be even better if you'd not actually post nonsense.
d-usa wrote: Terrorism is probably one of the lowest causes of death in the US.
The fact that we are letting them win like this is just stupid.
But terrorism isn't about killing the most people, it's about instilling fear. Killing 100,000 people isn't as effective as getting 100,000,000 to worry about taking that flight or getting on that bus.
cadbren wrote:
None of those killed on 911 were wanted for rape, murder or some other heinous crime either, they were innocents. Most of those hung in lynchings were criminals. The idea that lynchings were all random killings against black people is wrong.
Is this not the same person posting who sat here and lectured us on rule of law and justice that is now claiming that lynchings are OK?
cadbren wrote:
I said that muslims are responsible for nearly all gang rapes.
They never left. They just have not made the news as much. Foiled terror plots don't last long in the 24 hour news cycle if they are not Muslims.
cadbren wrote:
As far as I'm aware, the current klan is a series of independent groups that have no real connection with either themselves or the original klan. Anyone can start a KKK group and put their own spin on it, there is no klan like the stereotyped one from the 1950s. The heyday of the klan was the early 20th century. It included politicians, doctors, lawyers etc. Today it's mostly low income or welfare types who can barely scrape 20 people together for a rally.
Well, first of all, the one in the 1950's didn't have much connection to the original KKK either, which was a insurgency against Union occupation during the Reconstruction.
As far as not having 20 guys... in, say, Maine maybe. They tend to have much larger rallies the further south you go. When I posted that list earlier for Frazz, I didn't include most of the KKK ones unless they had an overt religious connection, but the FBI has been quite busy arresting klansmen for intent to commit acts of terrorism and purchasing large amounts of explosives. While your bias against the poor is nice, it's not actually true (I notice you keep coming back to that welfare thing when you insult people. I have to wonder what you have against that?). . The KKK still includes lawyers, doctors, policemen, and politicians among it's number.
d-usa wrote: Terrorism is probably one of the lowest causes of death in the US.
The fact that we are letting them win like this is just stupid.
But terrorism isn't about killing the most people, it's about instilling fear. Killing 100,000 people isn't as effective as getting 100,000,000 to worry about taking that flight or getting on that bus.
It's about changing the lifestyle of people because of that fear.
The roots of the sectarian divide in Islam go back to the 8th century and the death of the Prophet without a clear successor. That's where all this Sunni/Shiite fun comes from. Start with that divide, add in a culture with a passion for revenge and long memories about perceived insult or slight, let that run for a couple centuries with periods of intense decline and out comes this BS.
In a conversation on extremism within modern Islam thought I was stretching cause and effect by going back to the origins of Wahhabism... but you dragging to back to to the death of Mohammed is something else entirely
So fighting a constant all out war between two halves of your society for just under two millenia is a cause of stability, love and acceptance of all mankind is it? Just saying that they are still ACTIVELY murdering each other for being Sunni or Shiia, it's currently at the point of "Well a Sunni looked at me funny and kicked my grandfather in the bollocks, etc... so yeah we've just always hated them" type deal at this point, but the roots of a lot of the conflict really do start there.
cadbren wrote:
None of those killed on 911 were wanted for rape, murder or some other heinous crime either, they were innocents. Most of those hung in lynchings were criminals. The idea that lynchings were all random killings against black people is wrong.
Is this not the same person posting who sat here and lectured us on rule of law and justice that is now claiming that lynchings are OK?
Who's claiming lynchings are okay. They were always illegal though in the past they were tolerated in some areas. The point is that the lynchings weren't a bunch of "Good Christians" killing some innocent black people. Even Emmett Till was a criminal, though that didn't justify what happened to him. Comparing the victims of 911 to criminals killed by mob rule is disgraceful.
cadbren wrote:
I said that muslims are responsible for nearly all gang rapes.
The KKK still includes lawyers, doctors, policemen, and politicians among it's number.
Got proof of this? Pretty much all LEOs kick out people with ties to groups like the KKK. The US military I can believe, they're full of gang members - black, white, latino etc.
In regards Sweden and masturbation for those who thought I was making that up.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So fighting a constant all out war between two halves of your society for just under two millenia is a cause of stability, love and acceptance of all mankind is it?
No, but tryng to draw a historical narrative through 1500 years is a real stretch.
So two links to websites with anti-muslim objectives written right there on the top banner, and a quote from a main report that says this; “As for murder, manslaughter, rape, other sexual offenses, robbery and burglary are the values of brottsparticipation too small to be able to draw conclusions from them.”
Which the blog then launches off from to speculate, in English I found kind of hard to parse. But from what I could tell, he claims the exact nationalities of the attackers are unknown, but the author believes so strongly that they must be from Muslim countries that there has been a conspiracy to cover this up.
None of which actually helps your case, though, as the piece is talking about all rape, and not just gang rape, as your original claim alleged.
The second link does nothing more than quote the first, and does nothing to further your argument.
In regards Sweden and masturbation for those who thought I was making that up.
"A ruling which acquitted the man of the sex assault charges this week found that although the he was publicly masturbating, he was not directing his actions at anyone in particular, according to the Local. This was enough to clear him of the sexual assault charge, though it's unclear if the action is still in violation of other statutes in Sweden."
Oh wow, you sure showed us there. A man acquitted of a more serious charge on grounds that it didn't meet a specific legal element of that charge totally means that its a masturbation free for all.
In future, read your own links. Well, unless its that muslim hate stuff you linked to earlier - don't read that. Nobody should read that stuff.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Care to comment Mr not in this universe don't have a clue what's happening in my own country Walrus?
Huffington Post wrote:Public masturbators in Sweden now may be able to get off without charges.
A recent court ruling in Sweden's Södertörn District Court suggests that masturbating on the beach in Sweden is "OK," according to public prosecutor Olof Vrethammar.
Vrethammar was prosecuting a 65-year-old who was charged with sexual assault after getting literally caught with his pants down in June, giving himself a sandy handy on a the Drevviken beach in Stockholm, according to The Local's translation of the Swedish newspaper Mitti.
A ruling which acquitted the man of the sex assault charges this week found that although the he was publicly masturbating, he was not directing his actions at anyone in particular, according to the Local. This was enough to clear him of the sexual assault charge, though it's unclear if the action is still in violation of other statutes in Sweden.
"With that [ruling]," prosecutor Vrethammar told the Mitti, "we can conclude that it is OK to masturbate on the beach... [although] the act may be considered to be disorderly conduct."
Dr. Liz Davies of London Metropolitan University has researched Sweden's child protection system, and told the Daily Mail the court decision surprised her.
"Sweden has a really robust child protection system and very rigorous investigation around sexual abuse," she said. "So this judgement is surprising given that such an act could be witnessed by children as well as adults."
As if that's not enough, the actual quote from the prosecutor was:
Tingsrätten har gjort en bedömning i det här enskilda fallet. Därmed kan man inte dra slutsatsen att det är okej att onanera på en badplats. Handlingen skulle möjligtvis kunna bedömas som förargelseväckande beteende.
which roughly translates to
The Court has delivered a verdict in this particular case. That does not mean that one can draw the conclusion that it's OK to masturbate on a beach. The deed could possibly be considered disorderly conduct.
He's thus been quoted as saying the exact opposite of what he did.
So yeah, I stand by my comment that your statements have no basis in reality.
That gives us exactly one gang rape. Oh, and the Clarion Project isn't exactly a good source for unbiased info. They are, after all, owned by a Radical Zionist group.
Here's a map from the Women Stats project.
Sweden can be a bit misleading as far as what constitutes rape and how many rapes take place,due to the way they process Rape and that fact that Rape has the broadest definition under the law of any Western Nation. Unprotected Consensual sex between unmarried persons is Rape, for example. This very broad defintion has lead to Sweden also having the lowest rate of conviction per rape charge. As every single supposed incident counts as a separate rape charge. So if you have a woman turn in her boyfriend and tell the police that she was raped once a day for a year, that's 300+ separate charges.
Further, the reports state that that 77% number is primarily immigrants. Not primarily Muslims. Which does make sense, considering the wide spectrum of things that are 'Rape' in Sweden, you will probably have a lot of immigrants who are unaware that unprotected sex with their girlfriends is 'rape' there, as an example.
cadbren wrote:
Got proof of this? Pretty much all LEOs kick out people with ties to groups like the KKK. The US military I can believe, they're full of gang members - black, white, latino etc.
Cadbren. You jumped to "assuming" again. We were allowed to have "passive" members from extremist groups and former gang members in the military early 90's. Then we had a racial killing in Fayetteville on Yadkin Rd. right outside Ft. Bragg NC. Then we started to do the massive "boot" of extremist and gang members. A lot of "Good for the Army" discharges happen.
We went after Extremist first.
We went after gang members next.
How do I know? I'm a EOA.
Tattoo's were the indicators. Massive tattoo checks. Also those in high risk gang areas were double checked before entry into the armed forces. Then the monitoring throughout their career. Do me a favor Cadbren. Stop jumping to "facts" that you think to know and ask someone on here in a general question. Trust me because you are throwing a perception of having a serious issue with the US Military in general.
Edit 1
Did you know the "Mafia" (Organize crime) in the USA does not screw around with the US Military? A promise they have kept since the beginning of WWII?
This thread really has got off topic now. Has anything changed or are we still at the point of standing around awkwardly because trying to get people hyped for another war failed and then we lost the sole reason to go there.
Seems Comrade Putin wants the chemical weapon removal to be carried out by Russian troops, with maybe Arab or Turkish oversight. The US need not apply.
This thread really has got off topic now. Has anything changed or are we still at the point of standing around awkwardly because trying to get people hyped for another war failed and then we lost the sole reason to go there.
Russia can send its military personnel to help in the proposed operation to eliminate Syria's chemical arms, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says.
Mr Lavrov told Russian TV that military observers could help Syria destroy its stockpiles under a US-Russian deal.
He also accused the US of using "blackmail" over a UN resolution.
The international chemical weapons watchdog, the OPCW, says Syria has met the deadline to submit details of its estimated 1,000-tonne chemical arsenal.
This was the first step in a deal, brokered by Russia and the United States, to eliminate the weapons by the middle of next year.
Specialist monitors
A large contingent of Russian troops would not be necessary - rather a small detachment of observers - Mr Lavrov told the pro-Kremlin First Channel.
Arab states and Turkey could be part of the monitoring mission, he suggested.
In the same interview, Mr Lavrov accused the US, Britain and France of being "blinded" by their objective of regime change in Syria.
He said Western countries were threatening to stop work on Syria's chemical disarmament deal unless Russia supported a UN resolution authorising military action against the government of President Bashar al-Assad.
Russia - a key ally of the Syrian government - has blocked previous such resolutions in the Security Council.
Mr Lavrov said the OPCW was "about to make a decision" on Syria but the process had been placed in jeopardy by the "arrogant position of some Western partners".
"Our American partners are beginning to blackmail us," he said. The US, Britain and France should, he argued, be focused instead on the "unique opportunity" to solve the problem of Syria's chemical weapons.
In Syria on Sunday a mortar round hit the compound of the Russian embassy, in the capital, Damascus.
There were no immediate reports of injuries in the attack. The area in central Damascus where the embassy is located has regularly been targeted by rebel forces.
This thread really has got off topic now. Has anything changed or are we still at the point of standing around awkwardly because trying to get people hyped for another war failed and then we lost the sole reason to go there.
Russia can send its military personnel to help in the proposed operation to eliminate Syria's chemical arms, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says.
Mr Lavrov told Russian TV that military observers could help Syria destroy its stockpiles under a US-Russian deal.
He also accused the US of using "blackmail" over a UN resolution.
The international chemical weapons watchdog, the OPCW, says Syria has met the deadline to submit details of its estimated 1,000-tonne chemical arsenal.
This was the first step in a deal, brokered by Russia and the United States, to eliminate the weapons by the middle of next year.
Specialist monitors
A large contingent of Russian troops would not be necessary - rather a small detachment of observers - Mr Lavrov told the pro-Kremlin First Channel.
Arab states and Turkey could be part of the monitoring mission, he suggested.
In the same interview, Mr Lavrov accused the US, Britain and France of being "blinded" by their objective of regime change in Syria.
He said Western countries were threatening to stop work on Syria's chemical disarmament deal unless Russia supported a UN resolution authorising military action against the government of President Bashar al-Assad.
Russia - a key ally of the Syrian government - has blocked previous such resolutions in the Security Council.
Mr Lavrov said the OPCW was "about to make a decision" on Syria but the process had been placed in jeopardy by the "arrogant position of some Western partners".
"Our American partners are beginning to blackmail us," he said. The US, Britain and France should, he argued, be focused instead on the "unique opportunity" to solve the problem of Syria's chemical weapons.
In Syria on Sunday a mortar round hit the compound of the Russian embassy, in the capital, Damascus.
There were no immediate reports of injuries in the attack. The area in central Damascus where the embassy is located has regularly been targeted by rebel forces.
Well, that's a nice way of getting Russian troops in there. I wonder how much "self defense" they'll have to do. The stink on the whole situation is enough to knock a buzzard off a gak wagon and I am convinced more than ever we stay out of it.
Relapse wrote: Well, that's a nice way of getting Russian troops in there. I wonder how much "self defense" they'll have to do. The stink on the whole situation is enough to knock a buzzard off a gak wagon and I am convinced more than ever we stay out of it.
Maybe it'll be like Georgia where some Syrians suddenly find themselves with Russian nationality
).
You can of course blame Google for the link I provided. When you Google " Irish mercenaries Syria" that is the first result.
