Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by northbrad30)
    I don't support either side, i think they are both as bad as each other.
    And you believe Islam is the "truth", basing a way a country is run based on the Quran which has its flaws and many would argue its fictional is also arguably a pretty silly idea. Especially considering most countries which have a Muslim dominated government usually are much more violent and have higher poverty rates than those which are ruled based on common sense.
    One side is the government.

    If I started biting peoples' faces off ... and the British government started doing the same ... would you shrug-your-shoulders crying "everyone is as bad as each other" :rolleyes:.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Apocrypha)
    Because a smart person would see that proper 'democracy' in Syria is highly unlikely, whereas an Islamic caliphate is probably a likely occurance if Assad was to fall.
    You think a renascent Caliphate is around the corner :lol:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    One side is the government.

    If I started biting peoples' faces off ... and the British government started doing the same ... would you shrug-your-shoulders crying "everyone is as bad as each other" :rolleyes:.
    Yup, because over-throwing the government only to bring in another argument which would be just as bad arguably even worse would have no point.
    If i thought the rebels were genuine citizens trying to fight against government abuse i would support them, but it has clearly been taken over by a terrorist element who wish to control the government.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by northbrad30)
    If i thought the rebels were genuine citizens trying to fight against government abuse i would support them, but it has clearly been taken over by a terrorist element who wish to control the government.
    Is the British government allowed to start randomly shooting in London, for instance, if the gangsters decided to blast a café when their adversary was having a cup-of-tea and killed everyone? Do we not hold governments to certain standards? The genocide and Geneva conventions? Doesn't sovereignty entail certain liberal and democratic obligations? Legitimate governments don't massacre unarmed demonstrators. And if the proceeding government wishes to undertake this road, we should unreservedly oppose them too. If the rebels kill unarmed citizens, then this is a very serious infraction. But infinitely worse, if a government undertakes this policy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Is the British government allowed to start randomly shooting in London, for instance, if the gangsters decided to blast a café when their adversary was having a cup-of-tea and killed everyone? Do we not hold governments to certain standards? The genocide and Geneva conventions? Doesn't sovereignty entail certain liberal and democratic obligations? Legitimate governments don't massacre unarmed demonstrators. And if the proceeding government wishes to undertake this road, we should unreservedly oppose them too. If the rebels kill unarmed citizens, then this is a very serious infraction. But infinitely worse, if a government undertakes this policy.
    And i am saying what is the point aiding rebels overthrowing and creating a new government, when it is likely to be just as violent and oppressive as the current.
    These are not random gangsters blowing up a cafe for no apparent reason, these are militants attempting to take over the country and it is obvious the Syrian government would have to respond with force.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    You think a renascent Caliphate is around the corner :lol:
    Well there's quite a lot of Jihadis in Syria right now; so tell them they can't have their Caliphate and watch what happens :rolleyes:
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by northbrad30)
    And i am saying what is the point aiding rebels overthrowing and creating a new government, when it is likely to be just as violent and oppressive as the current.
    These are not random gangsters blowing up a cafe for no apparent reason, these are militants attempting to take over the country and it is obvious the Syrian government would have to respond with force.
    You're prevaricating on the moral distinction between a government and militia (or gangsters, it doesn't matter) ... Are you willing to concede a difference?

    They're battling against the government. It was the Syrian government that responded with force, and propelled the country into a turmoil. But I am not sure I understand your fatalism. Following the Libyan intervention of 2011, the liberals defeated the Islamists in elections. At any rate, I suspect the Nirvana fallacy at work but this conflict isn't static. If the proceeding government infringes on civil liberties, then I will condemn them. I will argue for intervention for humanitarian and geopolitical reasons if they ally with Iran and execute dissenters over 90k+.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by iSoftie)
    Well there's quite a lot of Jihadis in Syria right now; so tell them they can't have their Caliphate and watch what happens :rolleyes:
    I wouldn't discuss anything with them.

    Only want to find ways to eliminate them - preferably with a drone.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iSoftie)
    Well there's quite a lot of Jihadis in Syria right now; so tell them they can't have their Caliphate and watch what happens :rolleyes:
    Do you remember what people were saying about Egypt (Libya too)? This was this same hyperbole going around, it's never going to happen.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    Do you remember what people were saying about Egypt (Libya too)? This was this same hyperbole going around, it's never going to happen.
    No but at least they got an idiot that's a Muslim Brotherhood dog! Which means is bad itself but since people voted Mursi in I guess he has to stay.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    I wouldn't discuss anything with them.

    Only want to find ways to eliminate them - preferably with a drone.
    I don't get you? Assad's doing that already! He's killed thousans of Jihadi goats, why don't you support him then? Because BBC news got you thinking he sends his "henchmen" to rape and kill young girls :mad:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Can someone please tell me what is actually happening in Syria right now? When did it start? what was the spark? who is involved? why is this conflict/genocide or whatever you call it happening?

    All I've gathered is that Assad is hated by his people and they rebelled against him and thus caused a civil war. But what is this about different political groups acting on each other? Some say it is not a civil war, so then what is it? I'm really confused!

    I heard the other day that the UN stepped in, so does that mean the US and Britain have sent their troops over to Syria to sort the crisis out? Or is it that they have gotten involved just to mess it up even more, because you never know what the USA's intentions are..

    please someone explain to me what is actually happening.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iSoftie)
    Our "free" media shows a few of Assad's men bury 'unlawfully' smashing a Salafi goat, but they're not keen to show us this. After all his henchmen rape daughters before their mothers. :rolleyes:

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ca0_1371475194

    I had a translated version. And I've got many videos of wrong-doings from both sides.
    I will agree that all sides are comitting war crimes but the Assad side is just overrated. But it is also the truth that the Rebels started the war and they are more war crimes.

    Warning it is shocking https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFfnxK-YGGQ

    Here you see the control damage coming from the Western media: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOxGQBGF7lc. According to them that are just extremist while of cource the FSA is not islamistic .
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Al-Mudaari)
    1. What might be common sense to you isn't common sense to someone else. That's why not everyone agrees with the Governments legislations.

    2. A bit silly blaming Islam for poverty or violence, I'm guessing you haven't really read history much.

    3. A lot of the governments tend to be western puppets. One that was based on the Qur'an would end up being powerless (and poor for that matter), something as you can imagine, when one is in power, they don't wish to have that undermined, especially dictators.

    As the Jewish/Israeli historian (Bernard Lewis) recalled a famous moment in history;

    There is a fascinating letter written by the french ambassador in Istanbul a few years within the french revolution. He had been instructed to carry on with a few negotiations with the Ottoman government and they were proceeding very slowly and he received a rather sharp reprimand from Paris saying, why the hell don't you get on with it why are you taking so long.

    And the ambassador wrote a memorable reply, which I have often quoted, he said "Here", meaning here in the Ottoman empire, he said "here it is not like france, the king is the sole master and does as he pleases", he said "Here the Sultan has to consult, he has to consult with all sorts of people".

    And this was true, the sultan has to consult with all sorts of institutions where power or authority arose from within the group, and that was certainly the case before the modernization, the tragedy is all that was destroyed by modernization, it was the process of modernization that made the middle east in that respect a much worse place, because what modernization did was to vastly increase the power of the state, the power of supervision and control and vastly reduced the authority of the various local institutions.


    I personally blame imperialism though.
    Are you suggesting that the Middle East should be a better place if there is not such things as secularism and human rights?

    And yes, islam is to blame for poverty, violence... You will notice all muslim countries without oil are third world failed states (Turkey is secular; just in case that you starting to use it as a argument)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yg95)
    Hello everyone I want to know what what's your opinion on the the Syrian president. I personally think he's the best person for Syria currently

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    ....No I disagree you little Bashar following toad
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Afghan Warrior)
    All I've gathered is that Assad is hated by his people and they rebelled against him and thus caused a civil war. But what is this about different political groups acting on each other? Some say it is not a civil war, so then what is it? I'm really confused!
    Assad is not hated by his people except by islamist who are making up around 30% of the country. With the help of the West; the islamists launched a civil war to overthrow a secular government (Baath party).

    Also, dont listen to everything what BBC says, they are biased.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    You're prevaricating on the moral distinction between a government and militia (or gangsters, it doesn't matter) ... Are you willing to concede a difference?

    They're battling against the government. It was the Syrian government that responded with force, and propelled the country into a turmoil. But I am not sure I understand your fatalism. Following the Libyan intervention of 2011, the liberals defeated the Islamists in elections. At any rate, I suspect the Nirvana fallacy at work but this conflict isn't static. If the proceeding government infringes on civil liberties, then I will condemn them. I will argue for intervention for humanitarian and geopolitical reasons if they ally with Iran and execute dissenters over 90k+.
    You're either with Assad, or supporting western imperialism and Zionist rule.

    What's your pick?
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by player19)
    Assad is not hated by his people except by islamist who are making up around 30% of the country. With the help of the West; the islamists launched a civil war to overthrow a secular government (Baath party).

    Also, dont listen to everything what BBC says, they are biased.
    You can be as anti-NSC as you'd like, without transmogrifying into a grotesque apologist for the al-Assad dictatorial dynasty. Have you no scruples?

    Moreover, Syrians are not "his" people. You wouldn't dare rhapsodize mindlessly about "David Cameron's people" ... but when it comes to Middle Eastern Arabs, it's spontaneously expected off them to be blithely genuflecting before their dictators. And how could you presume to enlighten us on his approval rating when dictatorships obviate quadrennial elections.

    And, as I have demonstrated above, Assad's government may not be categorised as 'secular'.

    What next? The Muslim Brotherhood is secular too?
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Rovey)
    You're either with Assad, or supporting western imperialism and Zionist rule.

    What's your pick?
    You think al-Assad is not propped-up by imperialism? You think supporting Assad mysteriously precludes you from the imperialist charge?

    Have you ever heard of Iran? Or Russia? Or do they not appear on your morally-skewed radar because they're not 'Zionist'?

    In fact, your paltry computational skills might even be considered reminiscent of Bush's manicheanism ...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    You can be as anti-NSC as you'd like, without transmogrifying into a grotesque apologist for the al-Assad dictatorial dynasty. Have you no scruples?

    Moreover, Syrians are not "his" people. You wouldn't dare rhapsodize mindlessly about "David Cameron's people" ... but when it comes to Middle Eastern Arabs, it's spontaneously expected off them to be blithely genuflecting before their dictators. And how could you presume to enlighten us on his approval rating when dictatorships obviate quadrennial elections.

    And, as I have demonstrated above, Assad's government may not be categorised as 'secular'.

    What next? The Muslim Brotherhood is secular too?
    What do you imagine will happen to the Shia's after this Shia Dictator has 'slaughtered' loads of Sunni rebels?

    I think if there is democracy in Syria, political parties based on religion should not be allowed to stand.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.