#321
Online
Post rating: +
There's not actually anything remarkably "evil" about Assad. He put down some demonstrations, but that involved less violence than used by Bahrain or Egypt in putting down unrest. However, the Syrian state was singled out to be destroyed by Western interests and gulf states as part of a proxy battle against Iran. The west would prefer a friendly liberal democracy, I guess, but a fractured state and millions dead is in the acceptable range of outcomes to them. The rebels are majority ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other radicals rather than liberals who want more democracy. Supporting the Assad regime in this situation is such an immense no-brainer because the US's current course of conduct actually is "evil" more or less.
#322
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~
He's not especially evil but he's still evil imo
#323
Online
Post rating: +
thats good enough for me
#324
Dont Mess With Sucess
Post rating: +

babyfinland posted:

He's not especially evil but he's still evil imo

Oorah

#325
Dont Mess With Sucess
Post rating: ~
Lets see some of those graphs of the evil levels in Saddam HUssein, in DPRK guy, and in Assad, all versus babyfinland, over time. Time for me to learn about
#326
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: +++++
I agree with swampman that comparing "evil levels" is weird, everyone is sinful in the eyes of God, we shouldn't hold up any worldly leader as our ideal.
#327
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~
ilmidges raised the idea of comparative evil levels not me.
#328
Post rating: +
well you did ask "do you guys think assad is good" which is just vague moralism without getting specific by what measure u mean or what ur comparing him to
#329
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~
indeed
#330
hi
Post rating: +

Prospero posted:

HenryKrinkle posted:

majority of the SAA is likely sunni muslim but preferring them to ISIS is Islamophobic, or something.

Is that really a thing now?

You have any example of people like this I could read?


i was referring to this:

#331
Post rating: +
how could we forget the trenchant questioning of forums user "ass struggle"?
#332
Post rating: ~
what do you guys think of Assad? This is a sincere question not motivated by the need to get material to bitch about people on twitter
#333
Post rating: ~

HenryKrinkle posted:

i was referring to this:


Ah right, I thought you meant it was a semi-popular position or something

#334
hi
Post rating: +
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/19/u-s-may-have-killed-prisoners-not-troops-in-syria-strike.html

i know the daily beast is as neocon and CIA-ey as they come but holy fuck.
#335
Online
Post rating: +

It is the first explanation the Pentagon has put forth for why coalition warplanes mistakenly attacked Syrian forces in a strike that was supposed to target the self-proclaimed Islamic State. But it is only one of several theories being examined as investigators try to find out why the strikes, which killed at least 62 people and injured 100 more, went awry.

“That is where we are right now,” one of the officials explained to The Daily Beast. “But that could change.”


they can just leave it at that and a few weeks from now anyone mentioning the US bombing syrian troops allowing isis to advance will be told authoritatively by all the Good Dems (scoffing like samantha power) that those were prisoners

#336
Post rating: ~

Prospero posted:

HenryKrinkle posted:
majority of the SAA is likely sunni muslim but preferring them to ISIS is Islamophobic, or something.

Is that really a thing now?

You have any example of people like this I could read?


isnt this guy supposed to be in ifap.

#337
Online
Post rating: +
It's a jubilee year
#338
[account deactivated]
#339
Online
Post rating: +

Gibbonstrength posted:

what do you guys think of Assad? This is a sincere question not motivated by the need to get material to bitch about people on twitter


Would yo ucall what Toms doing here "entrapment"

#340
Post rating: +

HenryKrinkle posted:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/19/u-s-may-have-killed-prisoners-not-troops-in-syria-strike.htmli know the daily beast is as neocon and CIA-ey as they come but holy fuck.


aaaaaa

The errant airstrikes do not seem to be the result of mistaken coordinates, officials believe. The U.S.-led coalition hit the intended target and it does not appear ISIS or anyone else misled the coalition toward that target site, the officials told The Daily Beast.
“We messed up,” one of the officials concluded.
But officials have yet to explain how they chose the purported ISIS target, particularly one so close to an airbase in the eastern city of Deir el-Zour long under Syrian regime control. Nor could they say why two days of watching the site did not alert them that ISIS was in fact not based there.


is this really the propaganda line now. "we uhh deliberately chose those coordinates, with good information, we watched the site for 2 days solid, and then we bombed it a lot. but... they were prisoners or something so whatever"

#341
Post rating: ~

elias posted:

isnt this guy supposed to be in ifap.


The 1st world leftist. Immediatly desires to imprison and build a wall when a third worlder enters his space and doesn't act lily white

roseweird posted:

yeah i think so


literally me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIMVrX9CaVw

#342
Post rating: ~
It's a bit disheartening that the same logic justifying the 2001 war on terror and it's ever expanding arc of chaos is still in mostly full effect, Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad are evil and neo liberal and their destruction is a good thing.
Smart people like dnd posters and rhizone exiles know this (I get a sense there might be hope of some learning on the part of those dumb ordinary people who are a bit different from politics nerds)

Is the key lesson that people who have not heard the good word of Stalin and accepted it into their hearts will live a life of rampant sin that puts many souls on the path to damnation?

In the meantime would be great if people counterarguing could say why the Syrian government is evil.
Like what policies, pushed by what factions in what context meeting what resistance as a basic start.
Unless you're happy going with the flow of mediocrity for another decade or 2 while the wars roll by
#343
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~
i never said any of that. not everyone who thinks you're ridiculous is pro-war

http://sanhati.com/excerpted/4249/ this explains the neoliberal character of the assad regime

i find it hilarious that you accuse me of moralizing but then conclude that assad is good bc of secularism or something
#344
[account deactivated]
#345
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~

tpaine posted:

i too find that hilarious. hahah aha...sniff...just like old times, huh guys. hehe...sniff....



how do you post youtubes here

im p much here for you brodie

#346
[account deactivated]
#347
[account deactivated]
#348
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~
#349
Post rating: +
here are my pointless opinions about assad:
#350
Online
Post rating: +

babyfinland posted:

i never said any of that. not everyone who thinks you're ridiculous is pro-war

http://sanhati.com/excerpted/4249/ this explains the neoliberal character of the assad regime

i find it hilarious that you accuse me of moralizing but then conclude that assad is good bc of secularism or something


Hmm, seems like you came in here with your mind made up that people would say insane things, asked "do you tihnk assad is good," and then ignored the fact that nobody really said anything ridiculous at all in reply

#351
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~

ilmdge posted:

babyfinland posted:

i never said any of that. not everyone who thinks you're ridiculous is pro-war

http://sanhati.com/excerpted/4249/ this explains the neoliberal character of the assad regime

i find it hilarious that you accuse me of moralizing but then conclude that assad is good bc of secularism or something

Hmm, seems like you came in here with your mind made up that people would say insane things, asked "do you tihnk assad is good," and then ignored the fact that nobody really said anything ridiculous at all in reply



#352
[account deactivated]
#353
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~
#354
[account deactivated]
#355
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: ~
i will respect that, i can be needlessly irritating in many other ways
#356
[account deactivated]
#357
[account deactivated]
#358
[account deactivated]
#359
Online
Post rating: +

The United Nations rowed back on Tuesday from describing an attack on an aid convoy in Syria as air strikes, saying it did not have conclusive evidence about what had happened.

The incident, in which 18 trucks from a 31-vehicle convoy were destroyed on Monday evening, had looked likely to deal a death blow to a week-old ceasefire. It drew vigorous denunciations from around the world.

The U.N., Red Cross and United States had all described it as an air strike, implicitly pinning the blame on Russian or Syrian aircraft that fly in the area for breaking the ceasefire with a strike on a humanitarian target.

But Russia, which denied its aircraft or those of its Syrian government allies were involved, said on Tuesday it believed the convoy was not struck from the air at all but had caught fire because of some incident on the ground.

The Syrian Red Crescent said the head of one of its local offices and "around 20 civilians" had been killed, although other death tolls differed.

After the Russian explanation, the U.N. put out a revised version of an earlier statement, removing wording on "air strikes" and replacing it with references to unspecified "attacks".

U.N. humanitarian spokesman Jens Laerke said the references to air strikes in the original statement, attributed to the top U.N. humanitarian officials in the region and in Syria, were probably the result of a drafting error.

"We are not in a position to determine whether these were in fact air strikes. We are in a position to say that the convoy was attacked," he said.


Hmmm - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-idUSKCN11Q1NR

#360
[account deactivated]