Al Qaeda tends to pop up in places where there is turmoil or power vacuums. That doesn't mean that the revolution is defined by their presence, try as they might to co-opt it. They're a sideshow.
Syria: The "Rebels" Are Terrorists
- Thread starter RedStar
- Start date
Al Qaeda tends to pop up in places where there is turmoil or power vacuums. That doesn't mean that the revolution is defined by their presence, try as they might to co-opt it. They're a sideshow.
Revolutions are messy things. The fact that nasty things occur in the process does not necessarily define them. You're simply cherry-picking scary anecdotes and using that to characterize the whole issue, in what is pretty clearly a dishonest and agendad manner.
Probably because Russia does not have a credible free press, while the West does.
And others are sick of yours. Maybe you should stop hanging out in the gutter, if you hate it there so much.
Which is totally not what you do.
Here we go again. "West is free, everyone else isn't, blah blah blah, we're more civilized". Your arrogance is rather off-putting, and you're naive if you think the United States has a "credible free press" considering 4 or 5 corporations own virtually the entire press. I also provided evidence from Modern Tokyo News, and other sources. The Esotercist provided WESTERN sources.
You don't accept it because you don't want to. You want to go on believing the false narrative of "if America supports it, it must be good". Ignoring, again, all the evidence presented suggesting otherwise; suggesting that the Syrian people support Assad; suggesting that the rebellion has been a sham from the beginning. Your biggest problem is that you have this unshakeable faith that you are indeed more free and more fair and more legitimate than the sources and groups I present against you, but you're not.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Russia doesn't have a free press.
I'm as concerned as you are about Al Quida, but I find the Arab spring encouraging in general. Perhaps if Islamists feel empowered through democracy they won't feel they can blame the West for everything anymore.
/facepalm
This is why I hate arguing with Americans.
1. Presuming America does have a free press
2. Failing to back up assertion about Russia
3. Ignoring the Western sources provided throughout this thread supporting the points suggested in my favor
You people are the biggest cherry-pickers. You completely ignored several of my posts and dismiss ALL of my sources while asserting your own are the ONLY sources we can trust. How can I argue against that? You're acting like religious fanatics.
Look, if you are going to limit me from the very beginning to only your approved sources, and your approved opinions, then how am I supposed to have a discussion? How can we have a discussion when you dismiss everything I say as "Russian/pro-Assad propaganda" as if, somehow, there is news which isn't propaganda? This is frustrating. You people are assuming automatically that your argument is correct. That's not how an honest debate works.
Fair enough. Now answer me this. Why hasn't the United States encouraged an "Arab Spring" in Saudi Arabia? Maybe, just maybe.....they are going for convenience above principles?
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Is there one?
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
We have a corporate press. It's a different kind of not free.
What? An "Arab Spring" in Saudi Arabia? If at all, a very small one, that is not being supported by the United States. I simply can't support the rebellion in Syria when it is very obvious that the United States is unprincipled and hypocritical. Like I said, it's not about liking Assad (although the majority of Syrians apparently do), but about opposing American intervention.
Yes, that is correct.
If you can't deal with simple observations of fact without resorting to bluster, it just makes your nationalism look insecure.
As opposed to Russia, where the state owns virtually the entire press.
Compared to which, indeed, 4 or 5 competing private companies does look pretty good.
Good for you guys. However, you may recall that what I addressed was your equivocation between the credibility of Western media and Russian media.
Again, you resort to pathetic strawman tactics when challenged. Unimpressive.
I didn't ignore any of that - we got to this juncture exactly because you didn't like how I explicitly dealt with such. Which was to point out that you haven't presented credible "evidence," but simply cherry-picked anecdotes and editorials from partisans.
Sure I am. You can denounce me all you want, but you have no credibility yourself. You're openly, cravenly partisan and routinely argue in bad faith. So, denounce me all you like: it just goes to my point.
We can't have a discussion, because everything you say is obvious Russian/pro-Assad propaganda. You aren't interested in a discussion, you're here to attacfk strawman and congratulate yourself on your righteousness - all of which comes off as terribly insecure and craven, by the way.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
We cannot help appearing to be hypocritical, we get a new leader every 4 or 8 years.
More to the point, it's not about Syria at all. This is just about you siding with an ostensible ally of Moscow, and denouncing any development that might play into America's interests - totally regardless of the implications that has for Syria and its people.
quadrophonics, I've presented you with evidence detailing the sectarian nature of the FSA and that many Syrians support Assad. If you don't care to acknowledge it, I'm not debating with you any more. The USA is not any more concerned with the "Syrian people" than Russia is. It's a political game.
Again, your "evidence" (read: cherry-picked anecdotes and editorial pieces) has been aknowledged and addressed. That you don't like the response you got is just that. Insisting that people are misbehaving in the way that you so frequently do does nothing but eat into your credibility.
And we haven't been "debating." You're obviously here to beat your chest and denounce some projected stereotype of Americans. This is why nobody seriously engages you in "debate" to begin with.
So you concede that neither you nor Russia give two shits about Syrians. That's progress.
Moreover, something being a "political game" is not exclusive of concern for human rights and freedoms, in the first place.
And even if it was, the putative realpolitick of American policy-makers does not thereby invalidate the genuine moral concerns of the actual Americans whose actual perspective you are actually engaging here. You aren't engaging with AMERICA. You are engaging with individuals who have their own ideas and perspectives. Your insistence on treating them all as punching bags for your projections about American politics are just that. You aren't fooling anyone here: we've been dealing with your sort for years and years before you ever popped your head up here.
You can have moral concerns about Syrians. So do I. My moral concern is that the Syria should remain secular and that Syrian politics should not suffer from American harassment and intervention, based on recent material history in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even more history as we go back.
You are the one constantly characterizing me as a "Russian chauvinist", apparently because I can't support Assad unless I'm a "Russian chauvinist". You are treating this as if I have to agree with you or else I fit some mold of being a "chauvinist" who buys into "propaganda" and "doesn't care about human rights". My evidence is evidence, and my sources are sources. Let me ask you this: no matter what source I provide supporting my position, are you going to dismiss it as "cherry-picking" and "propaganda"? Is it the case that the only way I can not be cherry-picking is if I agree with you?
You are the one constantly characterizing me as a "Russian chauvinist", apparently because I can't support Assad unless I'm a "Russian chauvinist". You are treating this as if I have to agree with you or else I fit some mold of being a "chauvinist" who buys into "propaganda" and "doesn't care about human rights". My evidence is evidence, and my sources are sources. Let me ask you this: no matter what source I provide supporting my position, are you going to dismiss it as "cherry-picking" and "propaganda"? Is it the case that the only way I can not be cherry-picking is if I agree with you?
You have no particular standing to demand such. That's up to Syrians.
Since America is not harassing Syria nor intervening there, your concerns seem overblown.
Meanwhile, where is your concern for Russian intervention in Syria?
No, it's because you are obviously a Russian chauvinist.
No, I'm treating you as a Russian chauvinist who buys into propaganda and doesn't give a shit about human rights because that's exactly how you behave, consistently and forcefully, across many threads now, from your first posts here.
Anecdotes and editorials (and rank speculation) are not "evidence."
No, only if you are cherry-picking propaganda statements. Problem is that you don't seem to do anything else. You do not evince a scientific attitude. You pretty clearly start with the conclusion that Russia is moral and justified, the USA are evil and stupid, and then latch on to any piece of information or rhetoric that plays into that. It's a standard game here - including the pretense of scientific seriousness - and you are unlikely to fool me with mere bluster to the contrary.
Fine. Then you and I are both irrelevant; the Syrian people are the only people with a legitimate opinion regarding the matter. And as I've pointed out, many Syrians support Assad. Hell, we even have one on this forum (Norse who is an Alawite) and I linked you to several other examples.
Why are some Syrians pro-Assad if Assad is just an "evil despot"? Maybe there is more to the story than that. And I'll be fair and acknowledge that there may indeed be members of the FSA who genuinely think they are fighting for "freedom and democracy". But it's been pretty firmly established that the organization also suffers from sectarianism, Islamic extremism, and support from British and American intelligence agencies. That's undeniable. So even if some members of the FSA are naive idealists, on the whole, I don't trust the organization. The way I see it, the United States is just trying to isolate Iran.
Why are some Syrians pro-Assad if Assad is just an "evil despot"? Maybe there is more to the story than that. And I'll be fair and acknowledge that there may indeed be members of the FSA who genuinely think they are fighting for "freedom and democracy". But it's been pretty firmly established that the organization also suffers from sectarianism, Islamic extremism, and support from British and American intelligence agencies. That's undeniable. So even if some members of the FSA are naive idealists, on the whole, I don't trust the organization. The way I see it, the United States is just trying to isolate Iran.