| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
||||||
| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
|
||||||
| The Alley |
|
Syria |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
Well, Syria is proving to be much more radical than Egypt or Libya. Seen the videos lately? Seen the civilian body count lately? What's a Barack to do now? Ignore it and completely invalidate his actions in the other two countries or get us involved in another war? His knee-jerk reactions are coming back to haunt him... |
||
| © Copyright 2011 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
If he's learned anything he'll do nothing. The US policy of intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan was plain dumb, the intervention in Libya was slightly less so (at least they had an exit strategy). Hopefully the lesson of 'learning by your mistakes' will result in the right decision this time. But I'm not holding my breath. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, not doing anything would indicate that he learned something. Indications that he learned something would indicate that he screwed up. Somehow I don't see him making that admission although I agree with you on the preferred course of action. While we are pondering imponderables, where is the Untied Nations?? (no, tht is not a spelling error). Syria should fall right into the reasons why they exist. We have a massacre of unarmed citizens by a government on steroids. We have videos of soldiers standing on downed citizens, singing while they stomp their heads with boots and gun butts. We have applause from the onlookers, probably some of the same people who were shocked and aghast at the pictures from Abu Ghrab. Isn't the UN supposed to unite to deal with things like this? If not, what the heck are they for? To pass out sanctions they don't enforce?? |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: Of course he screwed up - he was gambling that a short intervention would give the rebels the chance to overthrow the Libyan government - the gamble failed. What makes Libya a vast improvement over Iraq and Afghanistan though is that, unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, he didn't go all in. That's a lesson learned. quote: The UN was formed primarily to keep the peace between nations not to interfere in the internal politics and policies of individual nations. The exception would be upholding the principles of human rights which is also one of their stated goals. Normally that would entail imposing sanctions on governments who were clearly and systematically abusing the rights of their citizens, physically intervening where there was a high risk of a de facto civil war or genocide. That was the excuse in Libya. It's the same one the EU is trying to peddle this week at the UN with regard to Syria. They've taken the first step but Russia and China will probably veto any resolution especially any that even hints at future military intervention - they're quick at learning lessons too.  |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Syria is allied to Iran. End of story. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Yes, he screwed up. You know it, I know it, anybody with half a brain at least knows it. Funny thing about politicians, though, is that they will not acknowledge that and will even add to the screw-up not to acknowledge it, believing that if they tell the lie convincingly enough they can make people believe they didn't. Obama is doing that right now with the economy figures. Let's see what happens..... The exception would be upholding the principles of human rights which is also one of their stated goals. Normally that would entail imposing sanctions on governments who were clearly and systematically abusing the rights of their citizens, physically intervening where there was a high risk of a de facto civil war or genocide. Well, that makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? Imposing sanctions on governments slaughtering it's citizens, as if the decree of a sanction is something a murderous regime would pay attention to. That sanction sharing hasn't had too successful of a past record, has it? physically intervening where there was a high risk of a de facto civil war or genocide Hmmmm...woudn't you consider a 1300 (and climbing) dead body count, tanks bearing down on civilians, soldiers stomping unarmed people to death, and mass exoduses of people to neighboring countries....couldn't that be called a high risk of genocide? Maybe just a little, UN??? It's just another incident showing how the UN is nothing more than a sad joke no one is laughing at.....or that everyone is laughing at. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I heard somewhere, don't know how valid it is, that Libya, right before being attacked, had decided to require gold only for its oil, no more fiat currencies, and that is why Gadhafi has to be removed. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Interesting thought, Denise. Do you think the oil companies are pushing President Obama in that direction? Mike, it sounds like you'd actually love to have somebody intervene in Syria, so long as it wasn't the United States. If the U.N. takes part, however, wouldn't that involve us? I'm not sure if we've paid our back dues there or not, but how can you be urging us to get involved one way and not the other? You may have forgotten that Syria as well as Egypt were go-to guys for us when we wanted to have prisoners tortured but didn't want to do it ourselves. Despite the behavior you now deplore, we used them to exert exactly that behavior on people we didn't like through several administrations. What I saw on tv sure appeared to be a lot like torture to me, or maybe they were simply beating people to death. Exactly whose side do you want the U.N. to come down on, in what way, using how much force, and how will you know if that intervention makes things better or worse, Mike? The whole area is a nightmare of chaos right now, and in order to have a decent outcome, you need to think things through more clearly than I've been able to do so far. My concern has mostly been with American domestic politics and domestic civil rights and human rights issues, and only secondarily with the outcomes in Syria and in Libya. What about yours? |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: They'd be stupid if they did acknowledge Libya as a mistake Mike. That would throw away the only positive thing they gained from the whole debacle - the belief among would-be tyrants that they might just do it again. Announcing that Libya was a mistake and that you weren't likely to do the same thing again would be like building a nuclear deterrent and then insisting that you wouldn't use it under any circumstances - slightly dumb. quote: It could Mike. However it could just as easily be called a political uprising by armed dissidents being legitimately suppressed by the Syrian Government depending on who you ask. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You may have forgotten that Syria as well as Egypt were go-to guys for us when we wanted to have prisoners tortured but didn't want to do it ourselves. Bob. please don't expect me to respond to comments like that...except to say I won't respond. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
That would throw away the only positive thing they gained from the whole debacle - the belief among would-be tyrants that they might just do it again. Yes, that worked well for deterring Syria, didn't it? it could just as easily be called a political uprising by armed dissidents being legitimately suppressed by the Syrian Government depending on who you ask. Don't need to ask at all. Watch the videos that have been smuggled out. There is plenty of evidence to view out there without asking anyone. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Exactly whose side do you want the U.N. to come down on, in what way, using how much force, and how will you know if that intervention makes things better or worse, Mike? Change U.N. to NATO and you could ask the same question about Libya and Egypt. Did you? |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: That depends on how much worse it might have been Mike, my guess is that the Syrian government certainly factor in what happened in Libya when considering their options, one thing's for sure - it didn't make the situation any worse. quote: In that case what should the UN be doing about the genocide perpetrated by the US in Iraq Mike or doesn't that situation fit your criteria? There were more than 0.006% of the civilian population killed, civilians were tortured, tanks in the streets and a mass exodus - what makes Iraq different? Just asking. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "In that case what should the UN be doing about the genocide perpetrated by the US in Iraq " Genocide? I think the media would have been all over it . . . . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
one thing's for sure - it didn't make the situation any worse. I have no idea what you are saying there. Obama's actions in Libya didn't make the Syrian situation any worse....so that's ok then? That's a positive for Obama and Libya? We don't know how much worse it might have been? You're saying there's a possibility the Syrian gov't actions could have been worse, had Obama not jumped into Libya??? You see some kind of restraint on their part that you can base on their fear of Obama? You're trying to speculate on the possibility of a positive by taking into account things that didn't happen?? That's little more than a safe tidy cop-out, since it is impossible to validate. You trying to imitate Obama, explaining the rising unemployment rate or why his stimulus plan didn't stimulate? Uncas, you can normally build a pretty good case for whatever point you are trying to make, whether I agree with them or not, but inferring that the Syrian situation could have been tempered by our going into Libya is too far out there for me to even consider. If the Syrian gov't had, for example, imposed a curfew, suspended individual rights, closed newspapers, banned smoking hashish on Sundays or something of the like, you could have a case. Instead they are slaughtering them, hunting them down, attacking them with tanks and troops, killing them in the streets while laughing about it on camera. You want to make the case that they could be restraining themselves because we jumped into the Libyan situation is just way, way too far out there to even consider. "In that case what should the UN be doing about the genocide perpetrated by the US in Iraq " I wasn't aware of American genocide in Iraq. What the UN should have done was to have done something about Saddam Hussein genocide when he was in power, |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
No, if it's true, Bob, I don't think it's the oil companies behind the Libyan attack because of the gold requirement. More likely, France and the U.N., with of course, help from Obama. I mean the nerve of that Gadhafi, wanting payment for oil in something with actual value like gold, instead of the world's funny money. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
John, the results of my google search for U.S. genocide in Iraq ran to about 32 million items. Perhaps that doesn't count for the media having been all over it in your book unless the media is in complete agreement or is entirely on the right, but to me it indicates a serious discussion about a problem in which folks have shown substantive interest. We should both probably have a closer look before dismissing the subject as too trivial for discussion, don't you think? As for Sadaam Hussein, he was a bad fella, but for a long time, people tend to forget, he was our bad fella, and served as our proxy in the area. Neither we nor the soviets had terribly clean hands when it came to our unternational cars-paws, and I fear that we were both correct quite frequently when we accused each other of consorting with and supporting tyrants. Why at this late date should we pretend otherwise? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: You certainly could make that change and pose that question of me, and I would feel an obligation to at least try to answer it, especially if I'd seem that you were willing to answer the questions I asked you beforehand, and didn't feel as though you were changing the subject to avoid grappling with them. As an attempt at good faith, though I felt that NATO was asked to intervene in Libya by other muslim countries, I was against it. If you remember, I've said so before. There is a problem with congressional approval; even though a significant number of republicans in congress did approve, no vote was taken. Despite attempts to edge toward an imperial Presidency separate from congressional oversight, I am against it. On these grounds I was against the involvement in Libya. In short, nobody's side, without force and in large part because it is pretty much impossible to know if application of force will improve things or make them fall apart and impossible to know who will be left holding the bag. This, by the way, is much the same way (I saw the Iraq scenario, and it is pretty much the way that situation is playing itself out. The predictions about a series of revolutions across the middle east made by neocons at the beginning of that conflict is, however, playing itself out. Apparently those folks at that time thought that would be wonderful. I was against military involvement in Egypt. There was none. I would hope that you will take a good faith shot at answering my questions before asking for further clarification on my answers. Fair enough?. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Exactly whose side do you want the U.N. to come down on, in what way, using how much force, and how will you know if that intervention makes things better or worse, Mike? Well, you have a government gunning down over a thousand unarmed civilians demanding freedom, Do you really need to ask me which side I would want action against? How much force? That would depend on what they determine the objective to be. According to Uncas, one of the objectives ofthe UN is "physically intervening where there was a high risk of a de facto civil war or genocide." How would you know if the intervention would make things better or worse? No one can ever know that. We certainly don't know it in Libya....or Egypt, for that matter. I think it would have been better for the 1300+ who have died and the unknown number that will follow them. Btw, I am answering because I want to. I feel no obligation to answer just as you have no obligation to answer mine and I don't accept your premise that I should feel the obligation to do so. If I feel that something is worth responding to, I will....the same choice you have. |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: I think that's because you've assumed, wrongly, that my saying "it didn't make the situation any worse" was a suggestion that it automatically made it better. Take a deep breath Mike and read my full statement again: " That depends on how much worse it might have been Mike, my guess is that the Syrian government certainly factor in what happened in Libya when considering their options, one thing's for sure - it didn't make the situation any worse." If the Syrian government were planning a genocide then the attack on Libya could either encourage them, discourage them or have no effect whatsoever. My guess is that not attacking Libya would encourage them and attacking Libya would either discourage them or have no effect whatsoever. If I'm right attacking Libya would have two possible effects, neither of which would make the situation in Syria any worse. I wasn't handing out praise to Obama Mike, I think the decision to attack Libya was wrong, not as wrong as the decision to attack Iraq and Afghanistan but still wrong. I was simply explaining that your suggestion that he should announce to the world just how wrong he was would negate the only positive to come out of the whole debacle - the deterrent factor. quote: I was using your criteria Mike, civilian deaths, tanks in the street, mass exodus etc. You said that we didn't need to ask, that the conclusion was clear - if it's clear in one case why isn't it in the other? A double standard perhaps? An inconsistency or hypocrisy? . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
If I'm right attacking Libya would have two possible effects, neither of which would make the situation in Syria any worse. Still a bit confusing to me but, then, I'm not always the sharpest knife in the drawer. If it is your assertion that neither scenario would make the situation in Syria any worse, would you claim, then, that either situation would make the situation any better? If your answer is yes, I'd like your reasoning. If it is no, then you are saying that, in either case, Obama's actions with regards to Libya would have no effect on Syria at all. This would seem to contradict your claim that the positive of Obama's action was to deter others,which it would not have done with Syria at all, which was my point. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I was using your criteria Mike, civilian deaths, tanks in the street, mass exodus etc. You said that we didn't need to ask, that the conclusion was clear - if it's clear in one case why isn't it in the other? Does having civilian deaths make it genocide, especially when records show that over 80% of civilian deaths in Iraq are caused by other than the military? Is there a mass exodus of Iraquis fleeing the country so the Americans won't kill them? genocide (ˈdʒɛnəʊˌsaɪd) — n the policy of deliberately killing a nationality or ethnic group [C20: from geno-, from Greek genos race + -cide ] geno'cidal The deliberate destruction of an entire race or nation. The Holocaust conducted by the Nazis in Germany and the Rwandan genocide are examples of attempts at genocide. Is the US seeking out and killing people based on their ethnic origin or nationality? Are they organizing a mass destruction of an entire race or nation? Your use of the word genocide relating it to US actions in Iraq is way out of line. Now, if you wanted to ask that question about genocide being perpetrated by the terrorists and their bombings of civilians, it would be closer...but still not genocide. |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: If it discouraged Syria from a planned genocide then yes - if there was no effect at all, no, but either way the situation wouldn't be any worse Mike. quote: It was one of the criteria you applied to Syria. quote: The records are questionable, but even if we accept your figures that means that 20,000+ civilians were killed by the military. quote: I simply applied the same criteria to Iraq that you applied to Syria Mike. If you insist that one is unquestionably genocide why isn't the other? Personally I don't think either qualifies. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
When we get down to a "Why not do it? It can't make matters worse." philosophy with regards to military invervention, we are in real trouble. His "only positive" you described turned out to not be a positive at all so he may just as well acknowledge he screwed up. Of course that's not going to happen but he'll have to come up with something soon. His time is almost up. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Well, Mike, I'm very sad to say that in this instance I have to say "yes." I feel reluctant to say "yes," because I'm as upset about these folks as you are, I think. But the question has come up about U.S. involvement in these things; and in the U.N. is involved, then the U.S. is involved, isn't it, if only for not vetoing that involvement in the security counsel. And that, I'm afraid, would be putting the U.S. into another war without a vote by congress, wouldn't it? Now if you could get congress to vote to do such a thing, that would be a different matter, wouldn't it? But I very much doubt you or I can arrange such a thing with the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party holding the seats it does in congress, and with the regular republican party unsure of its willingness to support such ventures as might make the President more popular and all. You might have some of the Republicans in leadership positions say that they favored such a thing, but I doubt that it would ever come to a vote; and if it did, I'm not sure how they would feel they had to go on record. And that's without even considering the potential problems in the Democratic party. I suspect there'd be more than a fair number of those as well. You might be better at listing what some of them might be than I would. As you've said, there as so many places in the world where we should or might intervene, what makes this or that one special? We can't be everywhere doing everything for everybody. This is a paraphrase of some of your own statements, but, frankly, statements that have a lot of reality to back them up. Sometimes pity and sympathy are enough; often they aren't, and the why of the matter is often a politican call. I should say that I owe you some thanks for your offering a response, and that I'm glad you were able to find it in your heart to do so. I'm quite appreciative. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Mike, in reference to the genocide discussion, I think that you may have succeeded in getting the multiple homicide thrown out of court on getting the wording wrong in the Miranda Warning. According to the definition you picked, I don't think the word Genocide is appropriate. I suspect that the word no long means quite so exactly what your definition covered, either, in the same way that an "enthusiast" today no longer means a highly eccentric religious fanatic, the way it did when Johnson first nailed it down in his dictionary. But then, the word didn't fit the murder of the Jews, either, during the second world way, by your definition. quote: The Jews are a religion, and not a nationality; nor are they a race; nor are they an ethnic group. Jews are characterized by having a common religion. They have no common nationality, they have no common race, and they have no common ethnicity. Yet half the members of that religion were murdered. A substantial number of Iraqis died, directly and indirectly at the hands of the Americans. The fact that a large number died at the hands of somebody else is a very bad thing. If you wish to call that a Genocide as well, gather your data and support it as well as you can and you may well make your case; but the case is separate. If you are not and were not aware of a case of genocide against the United States in reference to Iraq, I have no explanation for that fact. I supplied a reference for it in response to John not too many entries back, and both sides are there, pro and con, in repetitive offensive and defensive detail. You may not like the case, you may not be convinced by the case, but at this point you have been informed of it and have been directed to at least on huge trove of information that covers both sides on the issue. Both sides are well worth looking at in some detail from my point of view. At this point you know that the case is there. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, Bob. I can pass your thoughts along to the dictionary editors but I doubt they will be interested. I also doubt you will find many people who do not consider the extermination of Jews or the slaughters in Rwanda as genocide. You may point out that Hitler's actions did not constitute genocide by the strict definition of the term but just make sure they don't have tattooed numbers on their arms. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
That, Mike, is why the definition is absurd, and has been absurd for quite a while. I had loads of relatives who had that tattoo, and would qualify for one myself. Half my extended family died. My quarrel is with the definition, which manages to exclude Jews in the form you quoted it. Please try to find a definition that includes a better description of reality, next time around. I'm sorry that you see me as being blind here instead of the definition being incorrect. I'm also sorry that you didn't see fit to dignify my mention of the number of references to the Iraqi genocide in the google reference. I am not attempting to get you to agree to the proposition that the United States perpetrated a genocide in Iraq, which I certainly believe to be true personally. That is something which you can make up your own mind on, and doubtless will or already have. I have no control over that. What I do have some control over is your statement that there was no American Genocide in Iraq is a matter of considerable discussion, and that whether or not you agree with the proposition, you should be aware that it is a matter of active debate. The control I have is to inform you of that debate. How closely you choose to inform yourself is your business. Given the way you have not responded to my invitations to discussions, I can only form my own conclusions and note that you are more interested in suggesting that I don't believe that the holocaust was a genocide, despite the loss of a considerable part of my family in that particular event. That doesn't fit the definition of genocide that you proposed. Don't blame me if your definition doesn't work to define what most folks think of as the main example of genocide in the 20th century. Try to find one that does. I'm the messenger, not the message. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Please try to find a definition that includes a better description of reality, next time around. I guess it was foolish of me to use Mirriam Webster and American Heritage as the suppliers of the definitions. I personally don't find myself qualified enough to correct them, although I see you do. My quarrel is with the definition, which manages to exclude Jews in the form you quoted it. Interesting. You claim the definition excludes Jews and yet the definition uses the holocaust as an example of genocide. I am not attempting to get you to agree to the proposition that the United States perpetrated a genocide in Iraq, which I certainly believe to be true personally. Then you should have no problem stating the qualifications you use to form the assumption and definition of that genocide. I can only form my own conclusions and note that you are more interested in suggesting that I don't believe that the holoccaust was a genocide, despite the loss of a considerable part of my family in that particular event. That's one of examples of deductions you employ occasionally which just causes me to shake my head and say.... HUH? I'm suggesting you don't believe the holocaust was genocide?? Where in the world did that come from? I would assume you DO believe the holocaust was genocide, even though you point out that Jews do not fit into the categories stated in the definitions. As I said above, one of the definitions clearly uses the holocaust as an example. You take general statements made and regard them as a personal attack, which they are not. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make by showing that the Jews did not fall into any categories used to define genocide...when I doubt that you, or anyone else, would view Hitler's actions as anything other than genocide. I would say your argument is with Webster, not me. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Your understanding of what those references mean, Bob, is seriously flawed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Google_searches_and_numbers#Why_a re_Google_results_not_valid.3F |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: Bob could use the definition and criteria you used earlier Mike, when referencing Syria: quote: Personally I think it's a bad definition but if it's applicable to Syria it's equally applicable to Iraq. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, for starters, I'd never heard of American tanks bearing down on civilians or shooting at them. I hadn't heard of Amereican soldiers stomping unarmed civilians to death in the streets. I haven't heard of Iraqi civilians engaged in mass exoduses out of fear that Americans soldiers were coming to kill them. I also doubt that you can see a valid comparison being made to American military actions in Iraq and the government's actions in Syria. Why you are trying to, I have no idea. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Ron, your point is well taken, and would be better taken if you had checked out the list of possibilities yourself, not for items to be disposed of, but for items which might be of interest and value. Thirty two million hits would be far to many to expect useful data on all or even a a great number of them. Many would and — given my limited net experience — are likely to be duplications, and hare-brained comments. So? Do I need to tell you not to accept candy from strangers? That doesn't mean that you shouldn't check out information from sources listed on Google. If there are a lot of sources, it suggests that you might have to go through some extra time vetting. Nor does it suggest that that you look at the sources uncritically. In fact, what I said was quote: The point of my comment, and the reason I raised the number of mentions of the American Genocide in Iraq was not to insist that it was irrefutable and immutable reality — though that is my opinion, I doubt it is a proposition I could prove to somebody who does not wish to even acknowledge the reality of a widespread discussion of such a thing — but to point out that there were a significant number of people who felt such a thing existed. Agreement is too much for me to ask; though I can always put it on my wish list, I'm not holding my breath. Acknowledgement that such a discussion exists, yeah, I think evidence exists out there that the discussion is real. Folks on the right may not like it, and there is no reason they should have to; nor is there reason for them to agree with my assessment of the validity of that position. People don't have to go along with my opinion about that. But a simple examination of the Google list will turn up enough articles to show the actual existence of the debate itself. "American Genocide in Iraq" has some content differences from "if." And I was interested in running a quick and dirty search, not going after scholarly articles. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Only if you insist on offering us candy, Bob. quote: And the point of my comment, Bob, was to suggest the evidence you offered is frivolous. That is NOT to necessarily slight your argument, which I wasn't addressing, just the meaninglessness of your evidence. You apparently drew the conclusion and argued that "32 million items" returned in a Google search indicated "a serious discussion about a problem in which folks have shown a substantive interest." In reality, Bob, all it probably indicates is there are approximately 32 million web pages out there that include ANY of the words you used in your search term. A search engine ranks its results for relevance for a reason; most of the results it returns after the first hundred pages are decidedly IRrelevant. This search might be closer to what you thought you were getting? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22American+Genocide+in+Iraq%22 FWIW, you should know that by your own logic there are considerably more people showing "a substantive interest" in fake moon landings than in American genocide in Iraq. You can take that for what it's worth, Bob, because my evidence is no less meaningless than yours. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22fake+moon+landings%22 |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
hmmm....from 32 million to 4190....quite a drop. Take out the muslim sites showing bias and prejudice on everything American and even that figure drops significantly....of course you will still have the Huffington Post.  |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Ron, I appreciate your attempt to educate me in the sophisticated methods of data collection you point out. I see that it provides a shorter list of articles to look through. But I think it missed, for example, this article, which not only has interesting things to say on its own, but also has an interesting list of secondary sources that are worth following up for their own sakes. Some of these articles may be familiar to you from prior research and general reading in the area. I will list them after I give the main reference. http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article23760.html 135. Nancy Youssef, "U.S. attacks, not insurgents, blamed for most Iraqi deaths,” Miami Herald, September 25 2004. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0925- 02.htm 136. Les Roberts et al., "Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey,” The Lancet, Vol 364, November 20 2004. 137. Owen Bennett-Jones, "Iraq deaths survey was robust,” BBC World Service, March 26 2007. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6495753.stm 138. Nicolas J. S. Davies, "Burying the Lancet report,” Z Magazine, February 2006. 139. http://www.iq.undp.org/ilcs.htm 140. "BBC obtains Iraq casualty figures,” BBC News, January 28 2005. Original report at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7906.htm 141. "Iraqi civilian casualties,” United Press International, July 12 2005. http://www.upi.com/Security_Terrorism/Analysis/2005/07/12/iraqi_civilian_casualties/ 2280/ 142. Gilbert Burnham et al., "Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a crosssectional cluster sample survey,” The Lancet, October 11 2006. 143. Iraq Family Health Survey Study Group, "Violence-related mortality in Iraq from 2002 to 2006,” New England Journal of Medicine, Vol 358: 484-493, January 31 2008. 144. http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=88 While there are considerably more people interested in your edited version of Fake MOON LANDINGS (48,000) than in your edited version of “U.S. Genocide in Iraq” (about 10,500), the straight out unedited statement versions of these two questions are considerably different. (28 Million for U.S. Genocide in Iraq is what I get this time as against 185 thousand on the fake moon landings.) Does this mean anything? Darn if I know. But I find that I’ve had a more difficult time getting at some of the more interesting and better researched data IN THIS CASE by doing it your way. I’ll need to have to try it out a lot more to find out what sort of data gets sorted out by refining my search the way you suggest. It might prove to be very useful and productive in another sort of search. Perhaps if you have a search that is far longer than a hundred pages, your method might do a better job for sorting out data at the right level of abstraction, while a search that is far shorter might not work as well, or vice versa. My mathematical reasoning is not very good, so I couldn’t tell you. Perhaps it’s better for me to look at more of this sort of raw data? Though raw statistical data wouldn’t be very helpful at all. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
An exact phrase search is rarely a good way to find information, Bob, at least not by itself. I just used it to demonstrate the very different results available with just a simple change in your query. Your query resulted in millions of results that weren't relevant. Mine resulted in far fewer results that were highly relevant -- but no doubt missed some that were equally relevant. My point remains the same: The number of results returned by a search engine is utterly meaningless data. FYI, here's a quick little Cheat Sheet for getting the most out of Google: http://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answer.py?answer=35890 |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
BEIRUT – Syrian security forces killed at least 16 people Friday, including a teenage boy, as thousands of people poured into the streets across the country calling for the downfall of President Bashar Assad's autocratic regime, activists said. Since the protests erupted in mid-March, Assad has unleashed the military to crush street demonstrations. Human rights activists say more than 1,400 Syrians have been killed and 10,000 detained "What is our guilt? We just demanded freedom and democracy nothing else," said Mohamed, who spoke to The Associated Press from a refugee camp in neighboring Turkey and asked to be identified only by his first name. He and other refugees offered fresh accounts of summary executions to suppress the pro-democracy movement. "I saw people who were beheaded with machine-gun fire from helicopters," and a man tortured to death when security forces "poured acid on to his body," he said. Mohamed fled with his family as the military besieged Jisr al-Shughour, a rebellious town the government recaptured last Sunday. He said a sugar factory in the city was turned into a jail where they "hold quick trials and execute anyone who they believe participated in protests." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110617/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_syria That relates to AMerican actions in Iraq....how? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Thank you, Ron, I see what you mean. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I would believe that the quotation you offer here, Mike, is something that seems to be more of a reason that some folks might find to get involved in Syria. I would remind you, however, that the same problems which generated you outrage against our involvement in Libya apply in Syria as well. Your outrage against Libya is as yet undiminished, and you remain as clear in your protest that there are many many countries that certainly deserve American intervention on humanitarian grounds and yet do not get it. You remain clear that all of them cannot be given American aid, and should not get it. If the aid is funneled through the U.N., which you appear to dislike, bypassing the Congress here, how does that help? It would still seem illegal. You would still condemn the action, wouldn't you? I would, for going around the constitution, the same reason that I find myself being against the intervention in Libya. What's the deal, here? Do you see any congressional groundswell of support for a declaration of war against Syria? Or a demand that we intervene supported by an appropriate majority? I hear a deafening silence from pretty much everybody, including the Republicans, in this matter. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Going around the constitution has become the norm for the past two years, Bob. I don't believe we should be a driving force in getting involved in Syria any more than we should be in Libya. I don't know how a president could involve us in Libya WITHOUT involving us in Syria. In short, I cannot follow his reasoning here at all. It all seems very poorly orchestrated, in my opinion. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Well, Mike, involvement in Libya was probably not a great idea without congressional approval. Economically speaking, maybe not even with congressional approval; though at least the President sought to put some limitations on the depth of the involvement, I find little comfort in that. Nor am I comforted by the invitation of the Arab League for us to go into Libya. They may not have invited us into Syria, and that may constitute a difference, but I find little joy in it. I'm not certain I would wish to have them at my back as friends. I'd be very nervous about where they'd place their knives. Suggesting that the depredations on the constitution have been only going on over the past two years is simply incorrect, though, Mike. Warrantless wiretaps have been going on for a very long time, to offer a single example. The fact that President Obama has not gotten rid of the regulations that seem to allow torture over the past two years doesn't mean that the regulations weren't in place before that time. The retreat from the Posse Comitas goes back further than two years. I mentioned to you several years back that some of the regulations that you found benign or even congenial during a Republican administration would only appear that way to you because of the apparent political advantages granted the party in power. I said that when the party changed, you would probably find some of these measures oppressive. I find them almost as distasteful now as I did then because nothing has been done to roll back the attacks on civil liberties. Not simply a matter of the last two years at all. If they were that shallow, the disjunctions would be simpler to mend. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. It's been going on in Syria since March. . . What's the difference from Libya beyond Iran? . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: I understand, "It's been going on in Syria since March. . ." to mean that the civil disturbances in Syria have been going on since at least March. I understand and follow you that far. I don't understand, "What's the difference from Libya beyond Iran?" I would like to and I feel a little embarrassed to be asking; but if I don't ask, I won't be able talk with you about it, and I would like to. I believe the question may have something to do with The President's actions in Libya in supporting the revolution there and in aiding NATO activities. While Mr. Gingrich initially criticized the President for not acting in that conflict, Mr. Gingrich changed his position and criticized the President for acting. I was against the President's actions, myself, because he had not gotten direct congressional approval. Grinch pointed out that in acting in support of already existing treaty alliances, ratified as they were by congress, the question was rendered moot. I felt that this was a telling point then and still do, but overall felt that the President should have gotten approval from congress. Perhaps I am belaboring a point here. This would be a reasonable response on my part to you if you were talking about the difference "between" Libya and something else — perhaps "Iran." But the use of the preposition "beyond" in this case renders my interpretation nonsense. The relationship between Libya and Iran in this case is utterly mysterious and requires some sort of clarification. You've generally got some interesting take on this sort of stuff, John, and I'd like to see where you're headed. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/07/syria-is-much-stronger-than-libya/ . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Thanks for that illuminating article. It sounds as though there would need to be some really pressing need to get involved in Syria to go anywhere near the place, doesn't it? I'd have to say that this seems to me to be a really really go reason to put some money into alternative fuels and trying to come to some sort of understanding of what the various folks in the middle east actually want and how we can help them start talking to each other rather than blowing each other's heads off in such a zestful and enthusiastic fashion. If we limit ourselves to seeing things in a military way, we'll have boxed ourselves into a very expensive corner. There will bve trouble enough with scarce resources around land and water soon enough, and we need to start planning on how to cope with the clashes that should start emerging along those lines in the next 10-15 years or so by investing in desalinization and waste management and reclamation and aquaculture science. If we can stay ahead of that curve we may be able to sidestep major srmed conflict, including nuclear conflict in the area, given the increasing population pressures from the very heavyily weighted youth population. We need to get away from oil in the area to remove that as a source of conflict as well. A few thoughts, anyway. What about yours or other people? If we get caught up in wars there, we'll be in a very large very deep pile of odoriferous substance that sounds like that golden finny thingy — you kmow — Carp. Oh pshaw! I amuse myself. I blush. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. The UN is useless . . . . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You had doubts, John...? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
The Libyans might disagree. I don't think it was useless in helping free Libya from Qadhafi. The question is how can it help Syria. Is there as uniform a movement to get rid of Assad? It doesn't appear so. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No, and hundreds are dying every day. It's nothing new to see the U.N. doing nothing as genocide or mass murder prevails. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Maybe someone could pass this on to the U.N.?  |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
What would you like to see the UN do Mike? Do you think they should intervene militarily or impose sanctions? . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Good question.. What I do know is that UN sanctions are a joke and toothless, as has been proven many times. I also know that supposedly the UN was set up to protect countries and not allow genocide of citizens. The UN has stood by and watched genocide in many countries without doing a thing. The UN has proven time and time again that they are either powerless or refuse to use power to protect their members. They even put terrorist countries on the security council. Obama is simply double talking.. "A Syria without Assad could be a Syria in which all Syrians are subject to the rule of law and where minorities are able to exercise their legitimate rights and uphold their identities and traditions while acting as fully enfranchised citizens in a unified republic," Obama said. "The United States and our international partners support the Syrian people in achieving their aspirations and will continue to assist the Syrian people toward that goal." We support and assist the Syrian people? Tell that to the lady holding up the sign. What would I do. I would give the al-Assad and ultimatum to stop the government violence and step down or be declared a war criminal to be shot on sight. I would take control of the air and supply arms to the resistance. Yes, if necessary I would send in troops. I would call a session of the UN, explain to the members that UN action is necessary and create a multi-national force, if needed. I would also send in hit squads....but I guess I'm just a war-monger. I do know that, if I were in a country ruled by a murderous dictator who was killing thousands of citizens weekly, I would hope that the UN or someone would do something more than sitting a few thousands miles away, declaring that "we are with you". SOmething was done with Egypt. Something was done with Libya. What is it about Syria that no one will do anything? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. The UN didn't free Libya . . . . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. The UN is where Russia and China and the Arab Union on occasion stop good things from happening. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
BEIRUT/UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Western and Arab countries responded with outrage on Sunday after Russia and China vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution that would have urged Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to give up power. The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said she was "disgusted" by the vote, which came a day after activists say Syrian forces bombarded the city of Homs, killing more than people in the worst night of bloodshed of the 11-month uprising. "Any further bloodshed that flows will be on their hands," ambassador Susan Rice said after the Russian-Chinese veto. . Russia said the resolution was biased and would promote "regime change." Syria is Moscow's rare ally in the Middle East, home to a Russian naval base and a customer for its arms. http://news.yahoo.com/russia-china-veto-u-n-draft-backing-arab-004002028.html Regime change???No kidding, Vladimir!  |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I agree with regard to sanctions Mike, they tend to hurt the people of the country they're imposed against rather than dictators. There's an argument that if you make the people suffer enough they may rise up and depose the dictator but in the middle-east you're just as likely to ferment hate against those imposing the sanctions. However I'm not convinced about your ideas with regard to military intervention. For a start I'm not sure who the bad guys really are. The little girl in the picture looks cute but that doesn't mean her dad isn't part of an armed rebel minority intent on overthrowing a largely stable government to replace it with a less stable or more autocratic Muslim regime. I'm with Russia and China on this one, this is an armed internal dispute in a sovereign country and the UN shouldn't get involved unless innocent civilians are purposely targeted. . [This message has been edited by Grinch (02-05-2012 03:26 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
unless innocent civilians are purposely targeted? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14414257 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14413680 http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle09.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2012/January/middleeast_January192.xml§ion=middleeast http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16138932 There are many other reports if these aren't enough. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I've seen similar reports held up as evidence that the US were targeting Afghan civilians Mike, I discounted them, largely because they're hard to verify and are generally contradicted by the numbers killed. Armies tend to be extremely proficient when it comes to killing people, if the US army actively targeted unarmed civilians the number of dead would get really high, really quickly. Since the uprising in Syria began the total number of Syrians killed on both sides is estimated to be around 7000, the Syrian army claims that insurgents have killed 2000 military personnel. That leaves roughly 5000 possible civilian deaths in 10 months. You'd need to take off the armed insurgents killed to get to the actual number of innocent civilians but even if the Syrian army hadn't managed to kill a single insurgent 5000 is still an extremely low number as far as genocides go. If the Syrian army were really targeting civilians, I'd expect the civilian death toll to be up in the high hundreds of thousands yet the numbers are comparable with the civilian/insurgent deaths in Afghanistan. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Hey, fine with me, Grinch. If you want to look at the info and not think civilians are targeted because to count is too low, that's up to you. Perhaps the count is low because they know that, if they kill hundreds of thousands, world reaction will be too intense to let them continue to get away with it....who can say? I didn't expect to change your way of thinking by presenting news reports and videos....been down that road too many times. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Residents of the city say snipers and tanks are firing on civilians and food and medicine are running low. International criticism of Syria has been mounting since the UN Security Council adopted a statement on Wednesday condemning the government of President Assad for "widespread violations of human rights and the use of force against civilians". He said artillery was firing at buildings and snipers were shooting at anyone they saw on the streets. Another resident said "people are being slaughtered like sheep while walking in the street. "I saw with my own eyes one young boy on a motorcycle who was carrying vegetables being run over by a tank," the man told Associated Press news agency. Human rights activists have sent pictures of tanks and troops apparently sweeping into the city and targeting people. Syrian troops on Thursday pursued an offensive in a region where activists reported the deadliest assault in a nine-month-old crackdown on unrest, as the vanguard of an Arab League team set to monitor compliance with a peace plan headed for Damascus. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said two people were killed in gunfire during a raid on a village by the army and security forces on Thursday, while soldiers backed by tanks and armored troop carriers swept into the town of Khan Sheikhoun. Various media sources are reporting updated numbers of between 15 - 30 civilians killed Thursday. Two days earlier Syrian forces had killed 111 civilians and activists in the northwestern province of Idlib bordering Turkey, the British-based Observatory said, an attack that France condemned as an "unprecedented massacre". Over 100 army deserters were killed or wounded, according to the Observatory. One has to wonder why the UN Security Council adopted a statement condemning the government of President Assad for "widespread violations of human rights and the use of force against civilians" if there were actually no violations? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16902819 I think it started out with protesters and after Assad started killing them some then turned into rebels having this urge to shoot back . . . Was the kill rate in Libya higher before the West came to the rescue? Does Assad have to exceed his father’s body count? . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: If you change that to say that some of the protesters joined the rebels, I'd agree 100%. The armed rebels have always been there Huan - they're the same rebels Assad's father was fighting against - their ranks have been swelled by protesters who've picked up arms and joined them and external forces friendly to the rebel's cause. They could be called freedom fighters or terrorists depending on your point of view. Assad believes that they're terrorists, the western media sees them as freedom fighters, the truth is probably somewhere between the two. It'll be interesting to see if the West decides to join al-Qaeda to oppose Assad. The enemy of my enemy and all that. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57376121/al-qaeda-urges-muslims-to-help-syria-rebels/ quote: No, it was actually lower, in Libya the death toll only started to rise sharply once the West got involved and there's no reason to believe that the same won't happen in Syria. . |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Either way Assad is going to be following Qadhafi. The only question is how long his grip can maintain such cruelty over the people and how many more mass murders his forces will be able to commit before he himself is murdered. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Today's renewed assault comes one day after UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay warned that the UN Security Council's failure to take action has only strengthened Bashar al-Assad's forces. "The failure of the Security Council to agree on firm collective action appears to have emboldened the Syrian government to plan an all out assault in an effort to crush resistance with overwhelming force… I am particularly appalled by the ongoing violence in Homs," Pillay told the UN General Assembly on Monday. Pillay said that in addition to the tens of thousands reported missing and detained inside the country, the conflict has spilled over Syria's borders. The UN estimates that over 70,000 people have been internally displaced and at least 25,000 people have fled, seeking refuge in neighboring countries. "The breadth and patterns of attacks by military and security forces on civilians, and the widespread destruction of homes, hospitals, schools and other civilian infrastructure indicate approval or complicity by authorities at the highest level," Pillay added. God is great," screams the man filming. "Look at the explosions in Bab Amr, the city's houses are on fire." That's some God you've got there, Bab.. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "Either way Assad is going to be following Qadhafi. The only question is how long his grip can maintain such cruelty over the people and how many more mass murders his forces will be able to commit before he himself is murdered." His father killed tens of thousands . . . . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. So why are they killing each other being they all hate the Jew? . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/05/16/horrific-video-appears-to-show-syrian-rebel-executing-kneeling-assad-soldiers/ This more and more looks like a rabid mad dog fight in which there is no good side . . . . |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
The rebels aren't a uniform group and some have committed horrible atrocities. But the worst and continous atrocities are from Assad and his regime. One side's mercilessness soon turns into the other side's as well. The source of it is Assad because he was supposed to be the president, but is a cruel dictator instead. None of the atrocities will end until he is out of the picture. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Agreed....but who goes in is the question. Maybe the muslim brotherhood that we helped put in power in Egypt who are burning Christians at the stake? Or are you better off sometimes with the devil you know as opposed to the devil you don't? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Balladeer Good to see you in the Alley again. I was wondering where you were hiding quote: How can that question be relevent though until there is an actually chance for someone and something better to go in. As long as a crual dictator and his regime is allowed to remain in, I don't think there is a chance for that. quote: The Muslim Brotherhood in general isn't "burning Christians at the stake". I think a variety of people are involved in mistreatment and outbursts of violence. Some may be some from the Muslim Brotherhood, some may not. It is not right to try to paint everyone as being the same. Morsi's government pledged to protect Christians and needs to work better at fulfilling this pledge and putting into action. Certain minority groups in many countries have sufferred at the hands of a majority-group, especially under colonlialism and where Christianity predominated. Knowing how long it took governments in other countries for certain minority groups and others to have better and equal protection under the law, some of whom are still struggling even now, how can you expect a a new government, a new democracy, still facing some remnants of a dictator's regime and which has not had the time to evolve and strengthen itself yet, to be free of these kind of problems - problems rhat it took decades, even centuries, to solve elsewhere - in only a couple of years? quote: I wouldn't say it is better, as it rules out any chance for anything better. There is no chance to be free from a dictator and his regime as long as the dictator and the regime are there and they can keep the people oppressed. You need to free yourself and be freed (helped) from oppression, if there is even going to be a chance to have any major change in how the country is governed. There is a possibility that another dictator could come along, but that doesn't unjustify getting rid of the current dictator for his cruelty and atrocities and giving the people at least the chance for change and to have a better life. [This message has been edited by Essorant (05-18-2013 12:26 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
We don't seem to have a very good track record in that regard, Ess....like Castro, for example. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
This is not a bad article, I think, Ess, if you have time.. http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/why_is_obama_in_bed_with_the_muslim_brotherhood.html |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
As far as referring to individuals in the muslim brotherhood instead of the organization, I present this... Obama Supporters Criticize Administration's Muslim Brotherhood Policy by John Rossomando IPT News April 12, 2013 Discontent with the Obama administration's "abominable" policies toward Egypt among some of his leading supporters on Middle East issues took center stage Friday afternoon during a panel discussion sponsored by the Center for American Progress (CAP). The program on "U.S. Engagement with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood" featured James Zogby, founder and president of the Arab-American Institute; John Esposito, head of the Prince Alaweed bin Talal Center for Christian-Muslim Understanding at Georgetown University; and Michael Hanna, senior fellow at the Century Foundation. Each expressed concern with the Muslim Brotherhood's rejection of women's rights, hostility and violence toward Egypt's Coptic Christian population, and repression of dissent and "incompetence" since the party came to power last year. This criticism is noteworthy given that each speaker admitted having had high hopes for the Brotherhood a year or more ago. Egyptian human rights abuses have been so grave that even Esposito, one of the Brotherhood's most redoubtable defenders in America, took issue with the Obama administration's Egypt policy. "The answer here is obvious," Esposito said when asked about last Sunday's siege of the Coptic Church's holiest cathedral by Islamic extremists and Egyptian riot police that left two dead and over 80 injured. "The administration should be very strong in responding to that kind of incident because this is not an incident where we want to say that, 'Oh, we are not going to intervene in Egyptian politics,' where certain segments of the Egyptian population will say 'there goes the U.S. intervening.'" It should be met with very strong statements publicly, but also privately when talking about potential economic assistance." Zogby suggested restructuring foreign aid to Egypt to be more sensitive to the facts on the ground rather than the United States locking itself an agreement that is difficult to change over the long-term. Such a change would give policy makers flexibility so aid to Egypt isn't handled in all-or-nothing terms. "Our credibility has been compromised," Zogby said. "I think the way we handled the constitutional issue itself was abominable." U.S. officials made clear what a constitution should include, yet did not follow through when the document failed to protect women and minorities. "I can't believe that we did nothing with regard to the communities in Egypt that were going to be affected by that constitution and express that we were displeased by the direction." The Brotherhood's rejection of equal status for women and the Copts, as well as its repression of opposition, have damaged its image, Zogby said. http://www.investigativeproject.org/3971/obama-supporters-criticize-administration-muslim |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
America is far from having a clean record, far from not having heaps of its own problems, from wars abroad, corruption in politics at home and some of the worst crime rates on the planet. How can Obama support such a monsterous entity?  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ess, I fail to see any connection between my responses and your last entry. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. And yet more people emigrate to the US than to all other countries combined . . . . |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Balladeer, It seemed like you were implying it was wrong for Obama to support the Muslim Brotherhood. I was just pointing out that one could also make support for the US look "wrong" by demonizing the US for many of its problems. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: When I went to school many a bully was more popular than most other people. Popularity is a very unreliable way of judging the character or quality of someone or something. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. No USA bully is forcing people to emigrate to the United States of America . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. I see this cry about chemical weapons as if somehow it makes dead different from a bullet . . . It's war there which is about winning whatever it takes . . . And I see Russia has jumped in with the prospect of anti-aircraft missiles which tell everyone outside to back off . . . . |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Of course they aren't being forced. A charismatic bully is often popular because people want to share the power of being friends with the person, or the saftey of being protected by someone so powerful, the wealth they have, the support of others that support the bully, etc. Of course it is a choice. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "A charismatic bully" Like Stalin? Pol Pot? . |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Bullies can come in many varities. Alongside examples of bullies, you can also include myriads of celebrities that are horrible role models but are very popular and make millions of dollars. My point was simply that attracting a lot of people doesn't make the US a superior country. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "My point was simply that attracting a lot of people doesn't make the US a superior country." It's just as easy to leave . . . . |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “Syrian forces under President Bashar al-Assad have used chemical weapons "on a small scale" against the opposition rebels, the White House has said. A senior aide to President Barack Obama said the US estimated 100-150 people had died in "multiple" attacks. Ben Rhodes said the US president had decided to provide unspecified "military support" to the opposition. The White House had previously warned that the US considers the use of such weapons crossing a "red line".” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22899289 And this is so different from . . . because? Are we supporting "freedom" fighters; wasn't there a video of one of them eating a dead soldier's heart; wasn't there a video of them killing captives? . |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
If we are going to go by worst examples, the US military is far from not providing many of its own horror stories. Wasn't there a US soldier that killed sixteen innocent civilians in Afghanistan? And in another sphere, according to a report from the Pentagon didn't approx. 26,000 sex crimes take place in 2012 in the US military? This is supposed to be one of the most sophisticated, superior, trustworthy militaries in the world? Assad's dictatorship is far worse than any group among the rebels and is committing far worse tragedies. There isn't anyone we should consider too extreme to support in the fight against such a cruel dictatorship. These rebels at least deserve support for doing the dirty work of the war, something the US and other powers in the world have been too cowardly to take part in, and they are fighting a fight that is right, against a dictatorship. We should be united with them on this front no matter how much they may be enemies on other "fronts". No one is likely to become more of an enemy by supporting them and helping give them means to be part of something that is just, and be able to become a legitimate part of a better future for a country. I would argue supporting their fight in general, regardless of who they are, is an opportunity to turn some hostilities away from certain groups among them and let them become part of a legitimate direction instead of an illegitimate one. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The rebels have declared they follow Al_Quada. There was a time Al-Quada was our enemy, I thought.  [This message has been edited by Balladeer (06-17-2013 07:24 AM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Your sources of information are getting a bit bottom-of-the-barrelish, Balladeer. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
The black flag with the shahada on it in that picture is a general islamic flag of faith and unity in the face of a struggle (or "Jihad"), war, oppression, etc.. It isn't about affiliation to any specific political group, but about transcending divisions to be united in the struggle. Some people modify it slightly, but the meaning remains the same. "  Black Flag w white Sahadah is used offen for battles. "  White Flag with black Sahadah is used for campaigns etc.. [ From http://www.chess.com/groups/forumview/islamic-flags ] People also use these flags much more generally/casually just as people do flags of their country, symbols of pride, decorations, etc. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ok, Ess, let's see if I can get nearer the top of the barrel... http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/04/11/syria-al-qaeda-connection/2075323/ Why you went into such detail about the flag eludes me. I never claimed it was an Al-Qaeda flag or anything else. It is simply part of the picture. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Balladeer, If you know that it was Al Nusra that pledged an allegiance to an AlQaeda leader, why did you say the rebels (in general) had pledged allegiance, as if the rebels as a whole did? There isn't anything about the people themselves in the picture in your post that suggested "AlQaeda", so I thought you were trying to say the flag represented AlQaeda. I don't think the rebels can be blamed for mixing with groups like Al Nusra. When the rest of the world won't fight with you when thousand and thousands of your people are being massacred, groups like Al Nusra are better than nothing. Al Nusra are Syrians as well and have lived under the cruelty of Assad. It doesn't matter how much we dislike them.. While the most powerful "good guys" in the world stay home and hear about the hell in the news, these people are among the people that are actually in it and offering their lives to help in the fight for freedom from Assad's dictatorship. As much as we condemn their connection to AlQaeda, they are doing a better service for the Syrians than most of the rest of the world |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
...and do you think they are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts or to gain control of the country? And if they do gain control, then what? Will Syria be in better hands with Al-Qaeda running it? Is Egypt in better shape with the Muslim brotherhood running it? Is the Middle East a better region with countries being run by these two groups? I am certainly not for their current leader but, if there are to be rebels trying to overthrow him, I would hope they would do it without terror groups like Al-Qaeda backing them because you know as well as I that, if successful, Al-Qaeda will not relinquish the power. I don't feel that we should be joining in with Al-Qaeda. Those are just my thoughts. I don't have the answers and don't even know half of the questions. We helped the muslim brotherhood take over Egypt. How's that working out...? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: I think every group involved sincerely wishes to free the Syrians from Assad. Every group probably also wants to gain some control in the country. How they sort out their differences for the long run is a difficult question. But they can't answer that question when they are in the midst of a war where they are simply struggling to survive and when the path to any kind of new government is still prevented by a dictator. quote: I don't think anything can be worse than its present condition. But there isn't any likely chance of AlQaeda running a country. AlQaeda determines that because its ideolgies and methods are so incompatable with anything that could establish and maintain a country. Even if somehow it did succeed in establishing government, it wouldn't last very long before it were overthrown by the people under it and/or foreign forces who oppose it. I would argue that if some of the members of AlQaeda involved in the war do eventually have an opportunity for positions of power they would be far more likely to reliquish attachments to AlQaeda - which are probably not very strong to begin with - because they indeed would rather be part of a legitimate power of a country, rather than try to hold a legitimate office and still try to be part of Alquaeda which would contradict legitimacy. quote: I believe Egypt is in a far better position with the Muslim Brotherhood and democracy than it was with Mubarak and dictatorship, but it hasn't been able to evolve and do enough for the overall conditions to be much better yet. It needs a lot more time to become stablized and improve itself. Most of the people in Egypt are Muslims and therefore want Islam to be the basis of policies and governing. It has a long way to go to be an ideal muslim country, but it is on a much better direction than it was. [This message has been edited by Essorant (06-22-2013 01:29 PM).] |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23139784 . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
IN light of current events, Ess, I'm guessing there are a few Egyptians who would disagree with you. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
The situation shows how far the country still is from democracy. The protests in favour of Morsi prove that thousands and thousands still support his legitimacy and don't think he has been given enough time after only one year, especially when facing the kind of challenges of a country that still has remnants of a dictatorship and needs serious reformations in so many areas. The military took sides and staged a coup to dictate the direction. That is not democracy by direction of the president or the people. That is a military dictatorship. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
So much for the US not taking sides in Egypt: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/07/2013710113522489801.html "Berkeley, United States - President Barack Obama recently stated the United States was not taking sides as Egypt's crisis came to a head with the military overthrow of the democratically elected president. But a review of dozens of US federal government documents shows Washington has quietly funded senior Egyptian opposition figures who called for toppling of the country's now-deposed president Mohamed Morsi. Documents obtained by the Investigative Reporting Program at UC Berkeley show the US channeled funding through a State Department programme to promote democracy in the Middle East region. This programme vigorously supported activists and politicians who have fomented unrest in Egypt, after autocratic president Hosni Mubarak was ousted in a popular uprising in February 2011. The State Department's programme, dubbed by US officials as a "democracy assistance" initiative, is part of a wider Obama administration effort to try to stop the retreat of pro-Washington secularists, and to win back influence in Arab Spring countries that saw the rise of Islamists, who largely oppose US interests in the Middle East. Activists bankrolled by the programme include an exiled Egyptian police officer who plotted the violent overthrow of the Morsi government, an anti-Islamist politician who advocated closing mosques and dragging preachers out by force, as well as a coterie of opposition politicians who pushed for the ouster of the country's first democratically elected leader, government documents show." |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. There is so much about that part of the world we don't and can never understand simply because we ourselves are not part of that world . . . . |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
