Because there were also a lot of protests against their regime a few months ago, and I don't need to explain how they were dealt with by the regime.. Not surprised you haven't even heard about them..
Livestream out of Syria
- Thread starter ooeat0meoo
- Start date
Because there were also a lot of protests against their regime a few months ago, and I don't need to explain how they were dealt with by the regime.. Not surprised you haven't even heard about them..
U.S. expels Syrian envoy Zuheir Jabbour
Which reminds me of the great vision young Obama had for the ME. Turns out his policy was every bit as daft as that of his predecessor.
Which reminds me of the great vision young Obama had for the ME. Turns out his policy was every bit as daft as that of his predecessor.
Did you mean to quote me?
I dont understand your angle, educate me on your stance please.
Really, why are you not surprised. I asked you a valid question?
Excellent post.
Actually only the first line was a reply to your post. The rest wasn't directed at you personally.
It's not your fault you haven't heard about it. It's the fault of the people who decide what needs attention, and what doesn't.
It was Obama than restored the US ambassador to Syria as part of his PR attack on the Arab world. It appears that the same administration that plotted the assasination of Hariri isn't going to switch sides just because Obama decided to open a new chapter in US-Arab relations.
Starting with his Cairo speech, his ME policy since has proved to be just as clumsy as that of GWB. Nevermind, this derails the thread from discussion of latest events in Syria and perhaps it's better discussed elsewhere.
Syrians cheering on the army 
Qaddafi had plenty of rent a mobs in Libya as well. Strangely, there was almost no opposition when the rebels came in to take the city.
Since when has the ME policy of a western leader ever been effective or carefully thought out?
How do you know they are rented ? Everyone in syria is not against assad. And most of those who are against assad are not pro-armed rebels.
Many of the armed rebels aren't even syrians
How do you know they are rented ? Everyone in syria is not against assad. And most of those who are against assad are not pro-armed rebels.
Many of the armed rebels aren't even syrians
It's nice how you are so sure, it's like you live in Syria!! I deny that any of the armed rebels are not Syrians, so please be careful what you say!!
Syrians cheering on the army
After watching this, I found that this video was taken in Al-Zahra(a pro-regime neighborhood in Homs) those people are the people who attack protests with security forces and the Army, one of there chants is "go to Al-Khaldieh" where protests are happening and I will post a video from a protest there, they are responsible of the murdering of many of the kids from Karm Al-Zeitoun and Al-Sabil neighborhood and also killed more than 300 in Al-Khaldie in on day, and to be more frank with you, this is an AlAwitie neighborhood, and to be more frank, it's not security forces only who did the Houleh massacre, AlAwities also participated and I don't mean to be sectarian at all, but this is facts which I saw in and heard from people from Homs(more than 50% of my friends are from Homs as my college is near Homs) and Al-Houleh!!
Al-Khaldieh:
You may have a point there, but I gues Obama gets away with his poor efforts much more than his predecessor. Regardless, I should have left this for another thread.
No its fine in this thread, yes Im pro Obama but im not foolish to say he is doing better than any other president. The whole Middle East issue is just too complex for any one man to change I doubt the region will ever be completely stable
You don't solve complex rergional issues by stabbing your closest ally there in the back, bringing the biggest Arab country to the brink of falling to the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. You also don't declare that Israeli-Palestinians negotiations can only resume when Israeli settlements are frozen when this wasn't a Palestinian pre-condition originally, and by that putting Abbas in a position where Obama is more hardline than he is. I guess you also do not relieve the pressure off Assad in the Hariri case, and by that not only giving his regime legitimacy but also send a message that the international investigation into the assasination means shit.
To sum up his policy so far, Obama takes a reasonable chunk of the blame for the region being in more mess than it did before he took office.
How do you know they are rented ? Everyone in syria is not against assad. And most of those who are against assad are not pro-armed rebels.
Many of the armed rebels aren't even syrians
Its been a standard tactic by Qaddafi. Get foreign media on a tour of the city and have a spontaneous mob chanting Qaddafi's name under the pretext that journalists would be sufficiently gullible to not know any better. This one seemed a bit more legit though.
Im not arguing with you I am just saying no prick knows what to do with the Middle East and never has in my lifetime.
Are you an Arab Danny?
So sorry, to clarify, leaving aside the Israel/Palestine thing especially, you would have had Obama do what in Egypt? Order Mubarak's army to shoot and crush the protesters?
Egypt's problems were never going to be solved by Mubarak, Hosni or Gamal. He'd taken the country to the lowest possible point it could go. Just about anything, even the Brotherhood, are better than Mubarak right now.
matter of time before we get it.
Assad's rule needs to be terminated with extreme prejudice.
Assad's rule needs to be terminated with extreme prejudice.
I doubt one person could solve the massive challenges Egypt faces as a result of decades of dictatorial stagnation. Still, I'd expect a gradual transition to democracy to result in better prospects for economic and social stability in comparison with a political revolution and an Islamic thecracy.
Bush brought democracy to the Palestinians by force and Obama did the same with Egypt by pulling the carpet under its dictator's feet. The Palestinians are still licking the woulnd of their own "democracy" and by the look of the presidential election in Egypt people there apear to have grasped the idea of what may lie ahead for them.
The gradual transition to democracy occurring in Egypt involved rigged elections in 2005, followed by the arrest of Ayman Nour. Then possibly the most rigged elections ever in 2010 and the improsoning and torture of thousands of Brotherhood members and liberals after they dared to put themselves forward for elections. Mubarak has been priming Gamal to become the next president.
The chances of an Islamic theocracy are small. The chances of any real dictatorship from now on, certainly one in the mould of Mubarak's repressive regime, are small. Even Shafiq would likely have to buck his ideas up. The Egyptian people are sick of dictatorship. And to be quite honest, they're sick of the Brotherhood. As I said in the other thread, far more people voted for pro-revolutionary candidates than voted for either Mursi or Shafiq. And the percentage of people voting for secular politicians vs. religious was 57-43. That 43% also involves moderate or post-Islamist AF.
45% of the population live in absolute poverty. 40% of the population can't read or write. Tens of millions are unemployed. Tens of millions of the population can find no jobs. The healthcare system is almost on its knees and is a way of finishing people off more than it is about treating them. The education system no longer functions either, with everyone who can afford it having to hire private tutors and everyone else coming out with a subpar education. Even those who come out with degrees rarely find jobs. Millions live in slums without water, sewage or electricity, drinking water mixed in with their own sewage. Some live in ancient Egyptian tombs. Egyptians are tortured, raped, humiliated by state security on a daily basis. This is what sixty years of military and FAO rule, and especially 30 years of one of the worst dictators in the world has created in a country with vast potential. And you want a 'gradual transition' which would inevitably mean even more corruption, waste of talent, torture, theft of the country and an entrenchment of the NDP's position?
No one person can solve Egypt's problems. Not a council of people could solve Egypt's problems. But democracy is the way forward. Because the NDP and everyone in there had taken the country about as low as it could go. Dictatorship, especially theirs, was the solution to nothing. The fundamental issue is the employment opportunities for the youth. They make up a huge portion of the population. On top of the already huge demographic of 18-30, there are 40 million or so under the age of 18. Anyone, liberal or conservative, left or right, secular or religious, civilian or military, dictator or democratically elected leader will be usurped if they do not start creating some jobs for the young population. Its that simple.
Obama didn't do anything to Mubarak. The Egyptians had their revolution organically. No calls for it abroad, no military presence in Egypt's skies or lands. People out in the streets for 18 days, calling for the fall or a regime and man which has treated them worse than animals for the past 30 years. So again, what exactly was your suggestion for what Obama should have done?
I would recommend 'On the State of Egypt' by Alaa Al Aswany as an entry point into the topic for why Egypt required democracy in some/any form immediately. The situation in the country, for the vast majority, had become basically unbearable. And the Egyptian population had the right to push for democracy on their own terms. No-one deserves democracy more than others, not the Jews and not the Caucasians. Just because you don't like the results, that does not mean that the Egyptians deserved to live like animals for longer in the name of 'gradual transition to democracy'.
Democracy is a process, not a destination. There will be hiccups along the way. The democracies in Europe did not spring up overnight, peacefully and with no hiccups.
And Assad is beyond disgusting. I have no words for what should be done to that man.
http://www.arabist.net/blog/2012/5/29/syrias-atamans.html
http://www.arabist.net/blog/2012/5/29/syrias-atamans.html
wtf?
True statistics, I have friends that started working when they were at 9th grade and stopped studying also, also people who are jobless are around 35%..
I can understand the unemployment...but fecking hell that literacy rate is abysmal.
Exactly. The gap was getting bigger as well, the few at the top with the money receiving world class education. Those with nothing leave school early to go work on the farm or in a shop if they'e lucky. If they're not, then they have nothing going for them. They join a gang/cause trouble/die on boats to Italy or Greece/get tortured by Mubarak's police for fun/do nothing.
These may also be official figures, which obviously are hardly going to be fully accurate. The real situation may be even worse.
specially that the population of Egypt is more than 80 million.
Susan Rice just now saying that there are three outcomes now; Assad implements Annan plan (unlikely), then I missed the second outcome (any ideas?) and the third is Syria descending into civil war, prompting intervention from others (she said this was most probable).
I am by nature in favour of humanitarian intervention. This has to be played carefully, because it is in such a fragile region. Russia won't spark anything over it; they are simply posturing and trying to save their trade links. However, the thought of Iranian troops in Syria worries me somewhat.
The international community should not, in exceptional cases like this, be bound by unity of the UN. Russia and China, in it for their own gains, are not fit to govern the world.
I'm sure this has been said before, I haven't read the thread and will do so now. Just adding my thoughts.
I am by nature in favour of humanitarian intervention. This has to be played carefully, because it is in such a fragile region. Russia won't spark anything over it; they are simply posturing and trying to save their trade links. However, the thought of Iranian troops in Syria worries me somewhat.
The international community should not, in exceptional cases like this, be bound by unity of the UN. Russia and China, in it for their own gains, are not fit to govern the world.
I'm sure this has been said before, I haven't read the thread and will do so now. Just adding my thoughts.
So is the west.
Do you really believe wars, interventions and coups engineered by the west was to spread democracy and freedom instead of there self interest ?
Oh, are you this thread's resident loon? If so, I won't even bother.
Couldn't respond so you came up with that shit
Ok, I'll respond. Put your tin hat on.
Yes, actually, I do think that the West wants to spread it's own self interests. I just happen to also know, as any sane observer does, that those self interests are peace and democracy. The West is built on trade and open communication, which is aided through peace and democracy, not through supposed conspirational seizes of strategic nations, no matter what you may think.
Unlike Russia and China, we understand the responsibility to protect. We understand that when a Syrian child dies at the gun of its own government, we have a responsibility to prevent it happening again. We don't see a massacre in a foreign village and think 'roll the tanks in, that could be ours'. No matter what crackpot conspiracy you've got yourself stuck in, that is not what the West stands for in Syria or anywhere else.
It is also totally incompatible with how international relations work, of which you obviously have no working knowledge.
Sorry to piss on the parade here, but getting rid of Assad would be the easy part. If the West is to get involved not only militarily but also on the ground, it will have to stay in Syria long enough in order to make sure the Alawites aren't massacred in revenge for decades of brutal minority rule.
Unfortunately I can't see any country committing to such a long-term project following the Iraq debacle and Afghan adventures.
Unfortunately I can't see any country committing to such a long-term project following the Iraq debacle and Afghan adventures.