Argus Posted October 24, 2015 Report Posted October 24, 2015 The Sunni's were thrown out of power creating a serious imbalance in the wake of the US invasion. Now we have to deal with them under the title ISIL. The PEOPLE of Iraq were given the opportunity to see freedom and democracy, but were neither politically nor socially advanced enough to prefer that to bombing each other's mosques and putting in place corrupt leaders who happened to share their tribal origins. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 24, 2015 Report Posted October 24, 2015 Pre 2011 it was one of the safest middle eastern countries to visit. Yeah, well, brutal autocratic dictatorships with vast networks of secret police to monitor everything people do or say tend to be relatively safe for tourists. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted October 24, 2015 Report Posted October 24, 2015 The PEOPLE of Iraq were given the opportunity to see freedom and democracy, but were neither politically nor socially advanced enough to prefer that to bombing each other's mosques and putting in place corrupt leaders who happened to share their tribal origins. They were't bombing each others mosques when I worked there....and then came "enduring freedom". But anyway, this thread is about Syria. Quote
G Huxley Posted October 24, 2015 Report Posted October 24, 2015 "The religious hatred within Syria and Iraq tore them apart, not the West."It simply wasn't tearing the countries apart prior to the West's destabilization of them. Quote
G Huxley Posted October 24, 2015 Report Posted October 24, 2015 "They were't bombing each others mosques when I worked there....and then came "enduring freedom". But anyway, this thread is about Syria."Syria is a spillover from Iraq, so it's relevant. Quote
Exegesisme Posted October 24, 2015 Report Posted October 24, 2015 (edited) "German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble has said members of the ruling CDU party are unhappy over Chancellor Merkel's pro-refugee policy. Right-wing violence has increased in Germany in the wake of the migrant crisis." http://www.dw.com/en/merkel-faces-growing-party-pressure-on-refugee-crisis/a-18803777 Canada should learn Germany's lesson, do not introduce violence into Canada, and do not worsen the issues of safety of Canada. Edited October 24, 2015 by Exegesisme Quote
Argus Posted October 24, 2015 Report Posted October 24, 2015 "The religious hatred within Syria and Iraq tore them apart, not the West." It simply wasn't tearing the countries apart prior to the West's destabilization of them. They both gave exceedingly good cause to major powers to attack them. They brought it on themselves. But the US is an extremely benign and absurdly naive attacker. They didn't wreck the countries, destroy their infrastructure, enslave their women and then leave. They rebuilt everything and gave the people the opportunity to rule themselves through democratic means. That neither country's citizenry, by and large, chose to do that, is on THEM, not the west. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 24, 2015 Report Posted October 24, 2015 "They were't bombing each others mosques when I worked there....and then came "enduring freedom". But anyway, this thread is about Syria." Syria is a spillover from Iraq, so it's relevant. Syria is a spillover from the Arab Spring. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted October 24, 2015 Report Posted October 24, 2015 Yeah, well, brutal autocratic dictatorships with vast networks of secret police to monitor everything people do or say tend to be relatively safe for tourists.I agree with what you're saying, but it was a far more moderate country than...Iraq, for example. Quote
G Huxley Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 (edited) They both gave exceedingly good cause to major powers to attack them. They brought it on themselves. But the US is an extremely benign and absurdly naive attacker. They didn't wreck the countries, destroy their infrastructure, enslave their women and then leave. They rebuilt everything and gave the people the opportunity to rule themselves through democratic means. That neither country's citizenry, by and large, chose to do that, is on THEM, not the west. Syria hardly did anything to provoke the West. In fact it was working with them. The only problem with Syria is that it is allied to Russia and Iran. As for Iraq Saddam did squat to provoke the invasion in 2003, except I guess to try to switch to the Euro. They did destroy their infrastructure 'and the rebuilding' was simply a method to fill the coffers of companies like Becthel and Halliburton. Paul Bremer specifically set out to destroy the country's administration and military which left it to the warlords. Edited October 25, 2015 by G Huxley Quote
G Huxley Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 Syria is a spillover from the Arab Spring. It's a spillover of both. Quote
G Huxley Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 The PEOPLE of Iraq were given the opportunity to see freedom and democracy, but were neither politically nor socially advanced enough to prefer that to bombing each other's mosques and putting in place corrupt leaders who happened to share their tribal origins. There is no words for freedom or Democracy in their language. The very word Islam means 'to submit' e.g. the opposite of freedom. To expect them to turn into a western style democracy after being invaded and occupied is criminally insane. Quote
Argus Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 I agree with what you're saying, but it was a far more moderate country than...Iraq, for example. It was moderate if you had no political views but those of the Ba'ath party, and never said anything critical of the government or anyone with ties to it. Get in its way, though, and the regime would cut your head off, along with your family. The Baathists killed thousands of opponents even before the Syrian civil war began. They had no reluctance whatsoever to use force against anyone or any group which opposed them. I used to compare the casualties of the Palestinian Intifada to the Syrian casualties during an uprising in the city of Hama in 1982. The Syrian military slaughtered an estimated 25,000 people in Hama in a week or so, which was ten times more than had been killed by Israel in the entire multiple years of the ntifada - or at least, was back when i used to mention it. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 Syria hardly did anything to provoke the West. In fact it was working with them. The only problem with Syria is that it is allied to Russia and Iran. As for Iraq Saddam did squat to provoke the invasion in 2003, except I guess to try to switch to the Euro. The West had nothing to do with the Syrian civil war starting. That was a result of the Arab Spring. Once it did start, however, there was extreme pressure on western governments to help the rebels against the vicious dictatorship which allowed terrorist training bases on its soil and was deeply involved in destabilizing Lebanon and attacks on Israel. In any event, very little help was ever given. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 There is no words for freedom or Democracy in their language. The very word Islam means 'to submit' e.g. the opposite of freedom. To expect them to turn into a western style democracy after being invaded and occupied is criminally insane. Well, it was certainly stupidly naive. On the other hand, what was the alternative, given an invasion was considered necessary? Just walk out afterward? Set up a western backed dictator to oversee the place? It was certainly stupid of the Bush government to not have a plan for what to do with the place once resistence collapsed. They paid for their error, though, with tens of thousands of casualties, and they did wind up setting up a government. But what then? If the locals could not be persuaded to form any sort of reasonable compromise government where is the out? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
dialamah Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 (edited) There is no words for freedom or Democracy in their language. The very word Islam means 'to submit' e.g. the opposite of freedom. To expect them to turn into a western style democracy after being invaded and occupied is criminally insane. Huh? Islam is not a language, so it doesn't have words for anything. Given the Arab spring, it seems pretty unlikely that there aren't words for 'freedom' and 'democracy' in any of the languages in that region. So, this doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. But I agree that to expect non-democratic countries to turn into a Western style democracy is not realistic, and especially after being invaded and occupied. Though on a more positive note, in recent elections in Egypt, the secular candidate beat out the Islamic candidate in their first round of voting. Edited October 25, 2015 by dialamah Quote
BC_chick Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 They both gave exceedingly good cause to major powers to attack them. They brought it on themselves. But the US is an extremely benign and absurdly naive attacker. They didn't wreck the countries, destroy their infrastructure, enslave their women and then leave. They rebuilt everything and gave the people the opportunity to rule themselves through democratic means. That neither country's citizenry, by and large, chose to do that, is on THEM, not the west. That's what every colonial power says. England was also very 'magnanimous' while exploiting the resources of Africa and India. Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
Argus Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 That's what every colonial power says. England was also very 'magnanimous' while exploiting the resources of Africa and India. Except THIS colonial power clearly wanted nothing more than to get the hell out and leave the place to the locals as soon as possible. If the locals weren't slaughtering each other by the truckload the US would have left Iraq and Afghanistan years and years ago. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
hitops Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 (edited) Right, the peaceful ones are but the areas of violence you identify are mostly from one race aren't they ? In large part they would include arab, north african, other african, Pakistani/Afghani (not sure if this counts as a race), or Indonesian. The vast majority of violent groups would be contained within those. Why do you "have" to ask ? Because if you don't ask, you won't find out. Why are Christians and Jews able to suppress/ignore parts of their holy books that call for violence ? The books don't cause anything is the answer. No books are just paper. The message is the problem. If you hold certain worldview, that can affect how you conduct yourself and how you view others. I cannot believe that you would not accept that. It is a simple to understand as the idea that a boy who grows up witnessing violence against his mother and hearing it reinforced as legitimate, would be more likely than average to propagate it against his own partner. As a reasonable person, are you actually going to say to me "well we can't know FOR SURE that the family violence lead him to become violent himself, because there are many factors". Really? We are going to dismiss the messaging of violence in his as a major factor because we do not have a 100% video record of his life to examine? Edited October 25, 2015 by hitops Quote
G Huxley Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 (edited) The West had nothing to do with the Syrian civil war starting. That was a result of the Arab Spring. Once it did start, however, there was extreme pressure on western governments to help the rebels against the vicious dictatorship which allowed terrorist training bases on its soil and was deeply involved in destabilizing Lebanon and attacks on Israel. In any event, very little help was ever given. Yes it did it backed the syrian free army quickly and started it's anti-Assad rhetoric. The Arab Spring did start independently, but then became hijacked by the west and by the Qatari media which quickly sought to control it and use it for it's ends. The reason ISIS became a major presence controlling perhaps half of the countries' territory is due to the US' disaster in Iraq, which spilled over into Syria. Edited October 25, 2015 by G Huxley Quote
G Huxley Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 Except THIS colonial power clearly wanted nothing more than to get the hell out and leave the place to the locals as soon as possible. If the locals weren't slaughtering each other by the truckload the US would have left Iraq and Afghanistan years and years ago.If they wanted to get the hell out as soon as possible why did they stay for over a decade? Quote
G Huxley Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 Huh? Islam is not a language, so it doesn't have words for anything. Given the Arab spring, it seems pretty unlikely that there aren't words for 'freedom' and 'democracy' in any of the languages in that region. So, this doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. But I agree that to expect non-democratic countries to turn into a Western style democracy is not realistic, and especially after being invaded and occupied. Though on a more positive note, in recent elections in Egypt, the secular candidate beat out the Islamic candidate in their first round of voting. Arabic is the language of Islam specifically Old Arabic aka Quranic Arabic. The results of the Arabic Spring are not spreading freedom and democracy (with one exception Tunisia where it started), but rather the increase of the power of the Islamists which don't believe in freedom or democracy. Re: Egypt the Egyptian military took power again and it's a military dictatorship as it has been since Nasser's revolution with the exception of a brief moment when the Brotherhood was elected before being overthrown. Quote
G Huxley Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 Well, it was certainly stupidly naive. On the other hand, what was the alternative, given an invasion was considered necessary? Just walk out afterward? Set up a western backed dictator to oversee the place? It was certainly stupid of the Bush government to not have a plan for what to do with the place once resistence collapsed. They paid for their error, though, with tens of thousands of casualties, and they did wind up setting up a government. But what then? If the locals could not be persuaded to form any sort of reasonable compromise government where is the out? An invasion wasn't considered necessary. The 'necessary invasion' was just propaganda like Hitler said invading Poland was necessary. Quote
dialamah Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 (edited) Arabic is the language of Islam specifically Old Arabic aka Quranic Arabic. The results of the Arabic Spring are not spreading freedom and democracy (with one exception Tunisia where it started), but rather the increase of the power of the Islamists which don't believe in freedom or democracy. Re: Egypt the Egyptian military took power again and it's a military dictatorship as it has been since Nasser's revolution with the exception of a brief moment when the Brotherhood was elected before being overthrown. Admittedly, I get my information such as it is from my Egyptian brother-in-law, who is Muslim and speaks Arabic. I am going to have to ask him what the "moderate" Islamic belief around freedom and democracy is, and if there are Arabic words for those concepts. He also seems quite happy with Sisi, actually compared him to Trudeau today. My sister voted the day before we held elections here, it's a first round but secular "For the Love of Egypt" party won out over the Islamist "Al Nour" party. My impression from my brother-in-law and sister is that they expect to be having free elections and a full democracy, that Sisi is guiding them toward that eventually, but that in the meantime he has to maintain tight control to keep the Brotherhood from gaining power and because of ISIS. I suppose only time will tell how dedicated Sisi is to the goal of democracy. Edited October 25, 2015 by dialamah Quote
Machjo Posted October 25, 2015 Report Posted October 25, 2015 I'll just say this. If you won't allow them to stay, then don't allow them to come. They're human and have a right not to be played around with false hopes. I'd even support a law guaranteeing people the right to stay in Canada. That would make Canada think twice about allowing them in in the first place. Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.