- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 56,981
- Reaction score
- 27,029
- Location
- Chicago Illinois
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Private
I had to read again: "I didn't set a red line, the world set a red line. :shock:
:mrgreen:
I got an idea:
Let's attack the Al Nusar Front too.
I know it's radical, but just bear with me on this one.
I got an idea:
Let's attack the Al Nusar Front too.
I know it's radical, but just bear with me on this one.
I had to read again: "I didn't set a red line, the world set a red line. :shock:
:mrgreen:
President Bashar al-Assad
Only 15-25% of rebels are Islamic extremists.
And their always going to punch well above the numbers, fact.
Paul
No, they're not. The reason they're popular at the moment is because the world is standing aside while civilians are slaughtered. Those civilians, currently, have no one else to turn to. Thus, the longer we wait, the stronger the terrorists get. Once Assad is overthrown, the terrorists will lose their main impetus.
Your absolute betrays a weakly reasoned and emotional argument.
What I meant was in terms of action of the battlefield. They're not in theatre, in some passive role. But the point use raise is a substansive issue, and where many differ. But arguing over who will fill the power vacuum, is for the Syrians to decide.
Paul
Only 15-25% of rebels are Islamic extremists.
.It's for the UN to decide, via funding the moderates
Moderates? I wonder what they look like...There is still no real discernible opposition, or at least one of note.
The terrorists are merely providing security during the slaughter, they do not have the funds to compete with the UN post Assad. Islamist extremists will not be allowed to take over Syria, just as they were no allowed to take over Afghan, Iraq or Libya.
There has to be an element of population cooperation, for any force to be successful during a civil war. If the beheading of government forces is a way to provide security, what does that say about those providing it and 'those' that are supporting them? I say leave them to it. It doesn't matter who comes out on top, in this conflict, none will be inclined to feel any regard for the West.
"Arendt's essay, "On Violence", distinguishes between violence and power. She maintains that, although theorists of both the Left and Right regard violence as an extreme manifestation of power, the two concepts are, in fact, antithetical. Power comes from the collective will and does not need violence to achieve any of its goals, since voluntary compliance takes its place"
Hannah Arendt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In addition, I would argue (as I suggested above) violence in the extreme is only possible with the support of the wider public. For me, the aftermath of such a conflict is paramount, that you hold Iraq/ Afghanistan as some kind of beacon does very little to convince me. Sectarian violence in Iraq is still at an alarmingly high number, with Sunni minorities constantly protesting their lack of representation. In Afghanistan, the Taliban are waiting in the wings to re-enter the political spectrum, so hell knows what the future will bring. So please don't talk of ME success stories, better let the local populations sort their own issues, for 'themselves'.
Paul
Sovereignty ends where terrorism begins.
Moderates? I wonder what they look like...There is still no real discernible opposition, or at least one of note.
Looks like those links from the NY Times, AP, and Reuters say otherwise.....got a link to validate what you are saying? That only 15-25% are Islamic Extremists?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?