Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

Syrian regime makes chemical warfare threat

Announcements Posted on
Applying to Uni? Let Universities come to you. Click here to get your perfect place 20-10-2014
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Iran will get nuclear weapons before Russia allows the west to invade Syria
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wingasia)
    the west these days they only seem to invade little nations, the west dare not pick a fight with Russia, because Russia will take the west down with it.
    Oh yeah because Russia has never acted in an imperialistic manner towards little nations :rolleyes:. Oh wait nvm it has
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaliack)
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...e-threat-assad



    Is this game over for Assad? Surely if Britain is willing to invade Iraq on suspicion of weapons of mass destruction, then they will have no problem invading Syria? I'm also wondering how they got their hands on these weapons, do you think they were manufactured in Syria, or where they given to it by an ally?
    except britain wasn't really willing to invade on suspicion WMDs
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clessus)
    That's my point. You bitch about "westerm intervention", but have not once condemned intervention by any non-western regime. It's funny how mention Afghanistan later in your post. You do not condemn Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, even though it was incomparably more bloody than Western internention in the same country(800,000 dead due to Soviet intervention, minimum estimate)





    I have not misquoted you anywhere.



    Ba'athism is a foul, right wing ethno-nationalist ideology, modelled on European fascism. Those who consider Assad "secular", "anti-imperialist" or "socialist" are really scraping the bottom of the barrel.



    More nonsense and clichés. 'The Present is written by the mainstream media', yet here we are debating the present on equal terms. History is not always "written by the victors", there is a great deal of history written by the losers, to give a few examples;

    1. The Treaty of Versailles - German criticisms of the treaty are widely accepted by many people, although many of them are BS.
    2. The American Civil War (until recently) - The issue of slavery was downplayed, more history books have been written from the souther perspective.
    3. The Reconstruction (until recently) - The Radical Republicans were blamed for the failure of the Reconstruction.
    4. The westward expansion of America - Most history is quite sympathetic to the Native Americans.
    5. The Ottoman Conquest of the Balkans - Ottoman attrocities and oppression are very well known about, and often exaggerated
    6. Irish History (even before 1922) - Even though the rebellions of 1798, 1803, 1848, 1867 and 1916 failed ignominiously, most history (even before 1922) was sympathetic towards them.
    not even worth a response...but

    afghanistan was the most forward thinking country in the region before russia and america faught a proxy war there and the result was that it turned it into a muslim fundamentalist state, we in the west must learn not to support terrorists and rebels in other countries, else we deal with the blowback down the line as happened on 9/11....why are they not trying to topple the saudi dictatorship after this fiasco...

    it is people like you with an interest in history who are doing such a grave misservice to it...i recommend you use the socratic method on everything you think you think.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robin22391)
    not even worth a response...but
    Don't say something is "not worth a response" and then proceed to respond. it just makes you look silly.


    afghanistan was the most forward thinking country in the region before russia and america faught a proxy war there
    This is one of the most rediculious things I have ever read. It requires no further comment from me.

    and the result was that it turned it into a muslim fundamentalist state,
    :rolleyes:, you are aware that America never funded the Taliban, who only became relevent AFTER the Soviets had already left. Their rise can be blamed on Pakistan, whose ambition to rule Afghanistan remains strong. And besides, it's funny that you complain about Islamic fundamentalism, considering the fact that you are an apologist for the Iranian regime

    we in the west must learn not to support terrorists and rebels in other countries, else we deal with the blowback down the line as happened on 9/11
    Why not? Does Russia and China worry about funding "terrorists" and "rebels" in other countries? You are aware than the USA never funded Al-Queda, aren't you? Considering the fact that you are an apologist for the IRA, I don't think that you should be compalaining about "funding rebels" (Yes, even the IRA of the War of Independence, which I regard as a legitimate resistance movement).

    why are they not trying to topple the saudi dictatorship after this fiasco
    For a few reasons. There is no great push to remove the Saudi Monarchy, Saudi Arabia is a US ally, and Syria's human rights record is worse than Saudi Arabia's (though not much).
    • 30 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robin22391)
    i never said they loved assad like a son, but they support him staying until fair and peaceful elections can be held rather than supporting a civil war led by extremist right wing muslims...the fact is the people do not all support the rebels, they want to be civilised, not another libya, not another iraq and not a western puppet or right wing muslim state. they do not want sectarianism...but nato is encouraging it.
    But its still a junk poll. It does not say how many Syrians it asked and it included the views of other people in the Middle East whose's view on Assads leadership is completely and utterly worthless. Its not a good indicator of support for Assad.
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robin22391)
    not even worth a response...but

    afghanistan was the most forward thinking country in the region before russia and america faught a proxy war there and the result was that it turned it into a muslim fundamentalist state
    :toofunny:

    You're clearly having a laugh, aren't you?

    we in the west must learn not to support terrorists and rebels in other countries, else we deal with the blowback down the line as happened on 9/11....why are they not trying to topple the saudi dictatorship after this fiasco...
    The West's support for the mujahideen was not what triggered 9/11, but rather it's actions in the Middle East: it's unconditional support for Israel over Palestine, its military presence in Saudi Arabia during the First Gulf War; its support and propping up of dictatorships across the Islamic world; et cetera.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    :toofunny:

    You're clearly having a laugh, aren't you?
    Look up King Zahir Shah: the last King of Afghanistan. In 1964, his constitution transformed Afghanistan into a modern democracy, with free elections, a parliament, civil rights, emancipation for women and universal suffrage.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Yeah well nato has tomahawk cruise and stormshadow missiles that can travel over 1500 miles.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by B-Man.)
    Look up King Zahir Shah: the last King of Afghanistan. In 1964, his constitution transformed Afghanistan into a modern democracy, with free elections, a parliament, civil rights, emancipation for women and universal suffrage.
    While it's true that Afghanistan under King Zahir and later under Daoud underwent modernisation, this was before the Soviet backed coup in 1978, which led the country into chaos, and before the Soviet Army invaded the country in 1979 (an invasion which robin22391 implicitly defends, despite it leading to more deaths than the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan put together). This modernisation only really affected Kabul, so to call Afghanistan the "the most forward thinking country in the region before russia and america faught a proxy war there" is frankly silly, as Kazakstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyistan and Uzbekistan had also underwent modernisation, and this was far more successful.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    >Implying they actually have them and aren't just bluffing
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vedderfan94)
    >Implying they actually have them and aren't just bluffing
    > Implying it hasn't been well-documented by intelligence community for some time now.

    It would be akin to Israel confirming it's nuclear weapon.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    :toofunny:

    You're clearly having a laugh, aren't you?



    The West's support for the mujahideen was not what triggered 9/11, but rather it's actions in the Middle East: it's unconditional support for Israel over Palestine, its military presence in Saudi Arabia during the First Gulf War; its support and propping up of dictatorships across the Islamic world; et cetera.
    Slavoj Žižek-What phenomena like Taliban demonstrate is that Walter Benjamin’s old thesis “every rise of Fascism bears witness to a failed revolution” not only still holds today, but is perhaps more pertinent than ever. Liberals like to point out similarities between Left and Right “extremisms”: Hitler’s terror and camps imitated Bolshevik terror, the Leninist party is today alive in al Qaida – yes, but what does all this mean? It can also be read as an indication of how Fascism literally replaces (takes the place of) the Leftist revolution: its rise is the Left’s failure, but simultaneously a proof that there was a revolutionary potential, dissatisfaction, which the Left was not able to mobilize. And does the same not hold for today’s so-called (by some people) “Islamo-Fascism”? Is the rise of radical Islamism not exactly correlative to the disappearance of the secular Left in Muslim countries? Today, when Afghanistan is portrayed as the utmost Islamic fundamentalist country, who still remembers that, 30 years ago, it was a country with strong secular tradition, up to a powerful Communist party which took power there independently of the Soviet Union? Where did this secular tradition disappear? In Europe, exactly the same goes for Bosnia: back in the 1970s and 1980s, Bosnia and Herzegovina was (multi)culturally the most interesting and alive of all Yugoslav republics, with an internationally-recognized cinema school and a unique style of rock music; in today’s Bosnia, there are effectively strong fundamentalist forces (like the Muslim fundamentalist crowd which brutally attacked the gay parade in Sarajevo in September 2008). The main reason of this regression is the desperate situation of Muslim Bosnians in the 1992-1995 war, when they were basically abandoned by the Western powers to the Serb guns. (And, as Thomas Frank has shown, the same goes for Kansas, the US homegrown version of Afghanistan: the very state which was till the 1970s the bedrock of radical Leftist populism, is today the bedrock of Christian fundamentalism

    Afghanistan was arguably the most tolerant Middle East Muslim country, with a pro-Western technocratic king, with a very strong local communist party and so on. And then, we know what happened. Communist party tried to take power. They did. When they started to fail, the Soviet Union intervened. Then Americans backed the Muslim fundamentalists. In other words, always bear in mind this: Afghanistan is not an old fundamentalist country that we should enlighten. Afghanistan was quite a nice, tolerant country. Its fundamentalization is precisely the result of being caught in the global politics. We, the global liberal system, generate fundamentalisms.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clessus)
    While it's true that Afghanistan under King Zahir and later under Daoud underwent modernisation, this was before the Soviet backed coup in 1978, which led the country into chaos, and before the Soviet Army invaded the country in 1979 (an invasion which robin22391 implicitly defends, despite it leading to more deaths than the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan put together). This modernisation only really affected Kabul, so to call Afghanistan the "the most forward thinking country in the region before russia and america faught a proxy war there" is frankly silly, as Kazakstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyistan and Uzbekistan had also underwent modernisation, and this was far more successful.
    where did i implicitly defend...what strange wording you use...stop misleading
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clessus)
    Don't say something is "not worth a response" and then proceed to respond. it just makes you look silly.




    This is one of the most rediculious things I have ever read. It requires no further comment from me.



    :rolleyes:, you are aware that America never funded the Taliban, who only became relevent AFTER the Soviets had already left. Their rise can be blamed on Pakistan, whose ambition to rule Afghanistan remains strong. And besides, it's funny that you complain about Islamic fundamentalism, considering the fact that you are an apologist for the Iranian regime



    Why not? Does Russia and China worry about funding "terrorists" and "rebels" in other countries? You are aware than the USA never funded Al-Queda, aren't you? Considering the fact that you are an apologist for the IRA, I don't think that you should be compalaining about "funding rebels" (Yes, even the IRA of the War of Independence, which I regard as a legitimate resistance movement).



    For a few reasons. There is no great push to remove the Saudi Monarchy, Saudi Arabia is a US ally, and Syria's human rights record is worse than Saudi Arabia's (though not much).

    you seem like a vile right wing version of a Soviet era apperatchik.



    In a column for the Guardian four weeks before his death, Cook caused a stir when he described Al-Qaeda as a product of a western intelligence:

    Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by Western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians

    in my experience when someone uses the word "apologist" they have lost all credibility.

    get your facts straight
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robin22391)
    where did i implicitly defend...what strange wording you use...stop misleading
    When I said that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan led to more deaths than the Iraq and Afghan wars put together, your response was to say how "modern" it had been before they had withdrawn, and you described the resistance to their invasion as "islamists" and "terrorists".

    you seem like a vile right wing version of a Soviet era apperatchik.
    You wound me. I'm so right wing my avatar is a picture of Stjepan Mesic :rolleyes:. Seriously though, what the hell does that even mean?

    In a column for the Guardian four weeks before his death, Cook caused a stir when he described Al-Qaeda as a product of a western intelligence:
    I suppose that Cook was the be all and end all authority on Afghanistan :rolleyes:. I should also say that the supposed relationship between the CIA and Bin Laden is at best unproven and controvertial. There are no eyewitness accounts, no first hand testimony and no official documentation to support it beyond conspiracy theory status. The aid that went towards the mujahadeen went to Afghan - not foreign - mujahideen. With a quarter of a million local Afghans willing to fight there was no need to recruit foreigners unfamiliar with the local language, customs or lay of the land.

    Contemporaneous accounts of the war do not even mention the foreign mujahadeen. Very few were involved in actual fighting. For most of the war, they were scattered among the Afghan groups associated with the four Afghan fundamentalist parties.

    No U.S. official ever came in contact with the foreign volunteers (thanks to Pakistan). The foreign mujahadeen had their own sources of money and their own contacts with the Pakistanis, official Saudis, and other Muslim supporters, and they made their own deals with the various Afghan resistance leaders.

    Today, when Afghanistan is portrayed as the utmost Islamic fundamentalist country, who still remembers that, 30 years ago, it was a country with strong secular tradition, up to a powerful Communist party which took power there independently of the Soviet Union? Where did this secular tradition disappear?
    It hardly had a "strong secular tradition" whem the secular reforms that the communist government were trying to impose (along with its tyranny) made it extremely unpopular and nearly caused its collapse.

    In Europe, exactly the same goes for Bosnia: back in the 1970s and 1980s, Bosnia and Herzegovina was (multi)culturally the most interesting and alive of all Yugoslav republics, with an internationally-recognized cinema school and a unique style of rock music; in today’s Bosnia, there are effectively strong fundamentalist forces (like the Muslim fundamentalist crowd which brutally attacked the gay parade in Sarajevo in September 2008). The main reason of this regression is the desperate situation of Muslim Bosnians in the 1992-1995 war, when they were basically abandoned by the Western powers to the Serb guns.
    Mostly true (though don't overstate the influence of islamic fundementalism in Bosnia, it is still pretty marginal), but is should be remembered that peaceniks like Tony Benn and Galloway OPPOSED intervention in Bosnia, and encouraged other conspiricy theories (one of the main ones were that the Germans had caused the breakup of Yugoslavia). They also bitched when we went to the aid of the Kosovar Albanians, who faced a similar fate.

    in my experience when someone uses the word "apologist" they have lost all credibility.
    Complaining about funding terrorism, while going on record defending a terrorist organisation does far more to descredit someone that merely (accurately) calling someone an "apologist".
    • 12 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robin22391)
    you seem like a vile right wing version of a Soviet era apperatchik.



    In a column for the Guardian four weeks before his death, Cook caused a stir when he described Al-Qaeda as a product of a western intelligence:

    Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by Western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians

    in my experience when someone uses the word "apologist" they have lost all credibility.

    get your facts straight
    First, Al-Qaeda means 'the base', not 'the database' - so that far-fetched computer file conspiracy you've created is false.

    Second, Bin Laden was a billionaire who was able to finance just about everything he ever did out of his own pocket. Contrary to your claims, he certainly wasn't funded by the Saudi Royal Family because he was an outspoken critic of said dictatorship. It's hardly surprising that the House of Saud wanted him dead.

    Third, people like Hekmatyar, Haqqani and Massoud received the bulk of the arms and funding, not Bin Laden. He formed Maktab al-Khidamat, which was a mechanism to raise money and recruit mujahideen to fight in Afghanistan.

    Fourth, the mujihadeen were trained by Pakistan's ISI, not the CIA. Although the funding and weapons came from the US, the training was done by the Pakistani intelligence service.
    • 29 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rhadamanthus)
    Hezbollah with Iranian support, possibly.
    Ladies and gentlemen, the default answer by any Zionist
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    First, Al-Qaeda means 'the base', not 'the database' - so that far-fetched computer file conspiracy you've created is false.

    Second, Bin Laden was a billionaire who was able to finance just about everything he ever did out of his own pocket. Contrary to your claims, he certainly wasn't funded by the Saudi Royal Family because he was an outspoken critic of said dictatorship. It's hardly surprising that the House of Saud wanted him dead.

    Third, people like Hekmatyar, Haqqani and Massoud received the bulk of the arms and funding, not Bin Laden. He formed Maktab al-Khidamat, which was a mechanism to raise money and recruit mujahideen to fight in Afghanistan.

    Fourth, the mujihadeen were trained by Pakistan's ISI, not the CIA. Although the funding and weapons came from the US, the training was done by the Pakistani intelligence service.
    its amazing how misinformed you are...
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Watch "The Power of Nightmares" and "The Century of the self", rated as top documentaries about the way of things. Really puts it all into perspective.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: July 27, 2012
New on TSR

A-level results day

Is it about making your parents proud?

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.