In the news today...

[LMAO]

about that assad stuff earlier, wikipedia, just the header of the page (page name=human rights in syria):

From 1973–2012, Syria was a single-party state. The authorities have been accused of harassing and imprisoning human rights activists and other critics of the government.[3] Freedom of expression, association, and assembly are strictly controlled.[2][3] Women and ethnic minorities face discrimination.[2][3] According to Human Rights Watch, President Bashar al-Assad failed to improve Syria’s human rights record in the first 10 years of his rule,[4] and Syria's human rights situation remained among the worst in the world.[5] According to Amnesty International, the government may be guilty of crimes against humanity based on "witness accounts of deaths in custody, [6][7] torture and arbitrary detention," during the crackdown against the 2011 uprising.[8]

It's not as if Syria was a great place to be before the civil war...

what part of that gives the USA the right to impose regime change on a sovereign nation? I could name 10 African or Asian nations with just as poor or worse human rights, why do the Arabs get all the special attention?

1. American exceptionalism further increasing our sphere of influence under the guise of providing democracy and freedom to the rest of the world. I'm not saying we have a right to do it, but that's the basic reason for why my government is doing it. It's nothing more than power plays.

2. The world is focused on the Middle East and Semites. When the day comes that African resources become a worldwide issue again, we'll see a shift back to Africa like during the Scramble for Africa (1881-1914) by European powers (Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Belgium). I could see a cold war occurring between the US and China over control of Africa within our lifetime; the stage is already being set for it.

[Yago]

about that assad stuff earlier, wikipedia, just the header of the page (page name=human rights in syria):

From 1973–2012, Syria was a single-party state. The authorities have been accused of harassing and imprisoning human rights activists and other critics of the government.[3] Freedom of expression, association, and assembly are strictly controlled.[2][3] Women and ethnic minorities face discrimination.[2][3] According to Human Rights Watch, President Bashar al-Assad failed to improve Syria’s human rights record in the first 10 years of his rule,[4] and Syria's human rights situation remained among the worst in the world.[5] According to Amnesty International, the government may be guilty of crimes against humanity based on "witness accounts of deaths in custody, [6][7] torture and arbitrary detention," during the crackdown against the 2011 uprising.[8]

It's not as if Syria was a great place to be before the civil war...

what part of that gives the USA the right to impose regime change on a sovereign nation? I could name 10 African or Asian nations with just as poor or worse human rights, why do the Arabs get all the special attention?

I haven't even come close to saying the USA have any right to "impose regime change" in any country anywhere? I was just responding to posts downplaying Assad's crimes. And the arabs get the attention because of terrorism.

[GoonerAlexandre]

DO people really believe the governments of democracy are wrong and the dictator is right? Is this how far the Russian propaganda has spread? Another Mccarthy is needed.

[DiamondGooner]

about that assad stuff earlier, wikipedia, just the header of the page (page name=human rights in syria):

From 1973–2012, Syria was a single-party state. The authorities have been accused of harassing and imprisoning human rights activists and other critics of the government.[3] Freedom of expression, association, and assembly are strictly controlled.[2][3] Women and ethnic minorities face discrimination.[2][3] According to Human Rights Watch, President Bashar al-Assad failed to improve Syria’s human rights record in the first 10 years of his rule,[4] and Syria's human rights situation remained among the worst in the world.[5] According to Amnesty International, the government may be guilty of crimes against humanity based on "witness accounts of deaths in custody, [6][7] torture and arbitrary detention," during the crackdown against the 2011 uprising.[8]

It's not as if Syria was a great place to be before the civil war...

what part of that gives the USA the right to impose regime change on a sovereign nation? I could name 10 African or Asian nations with just as poor or worse human rights, why do the Arabs get all the special attention?

I haven't even come close to saying the USA have any right to "impose regime change" in any country anywhere? I was just responding to posts downplaying Assad's crimes. And the arabs get the attention because of terrorism.

What???

Wtf has Syria got to do with terrorism exactly? the terrorists that are there now is because America and their allies funded a load of Jihadi mercenaries to take out Assad and splinter groups like ISIS have taken over them and its back fired ......... again (like Al-Qaida).

What would of been ore accurate and factual is if you said "And the arabs get the attention because of oil".

[EliteKiller]

DO people really believe the governments of democracy are wrong and the dictator is right? Is this how far the Russian propaganda has spread? Another Mccarthy is needed.

Which 'governments of democracy' are wrong? the ones supporting Assad or the ones opposing him ...

Would that be the US 'democracy' where the side with the most votes loses? ... or the UK 'democracy' where a 'dictator' prime minister illegally fought two wars in the middle east totally against the democratic will of his population?

You need to define which 'fake' democracy you are supporting here ....

FYI - Assad is a democratically elected leader, so is Putin, so is Khamenei ... are they on the side you are supporting?

Bottom line Assad is a **** ... but the US are bigger ****s for illegally trying to overthrow him and then running away when the going got tough ... as per usual it's the civilian population that has suffered terribly from US interference ... was it a shithole before? sure ... but it's a whole lot worse now ...

Check out Iran, Iraq, Libya and Egypt all suffering from previous US interference ... and all now abandoned to sort out the mess ...

I'm guessing none of us agree with the way many not only Middle Eastern but also African and Asian countries are run, however trying to encourage regime change through civil war? that's not the answer ...

Here's a telling fact ... at a time when worldwide arms sales have decreased ... by far the worlds largest supplier of arms, the USA, has increased it's market share ... so was this the plan all along? .... start wars, create a demand, supply weapons to anyone with cash ... now that's got feck all to do with 'democracy' and a whole lot more to do with capitalism and profit ....

[Yago]

about that assad stuff earlier, wikipedia, just the header of the page (page name=human rights in syria):

From 1973–2012, Syria was a single-party state. The authorities have been accused of harassing and imprisoning human rights activists and other critics of the government.[3] Freedom of expression, association, and assembly are strictly controlled.[2][3] Women and ethnic minorities face discrimination.[2][3] According to Human Rights Watch, President Bashar al-Assad failed to improve Syria’s human rights record in the first 10 years of his rule,[4] and Syria's human rights situation remained among the worst in the world.[5] According to Amnesty International, the government may be guilty of crimes against humanity based on "witness accounts of deaths in custody, [6][7] torture and arbitrary detention," during the crackdown against the 2011 uprising.[8]

It's not as if Syria was a great place to be before the civil war...

what part of that gives the USA the right to impose regime change on a sovereign nation? I could name 10 African or Asian nations with just as poor or worse human rights, why do the Arabs get all the special attention?

I haven't even come close to saying the USA have any right to "impose regime change" in any country anywhere? I was just responding to posts downplaying Assad's crimes. And the arabs get the attention because of terrorism.

What???

Wtf has Syria got to do with terrorism exactly? the terrorists that are there now is because America and their allies funded a load of Jihadi mercenaries to take out Assad and splinter groups like ISIS have taken over them and its back fired ......... again (like Al-Qaida).

What would of been ore accurate and factual is if you said "And the arabs get the attention because of oil".

The arabs certainly got the attention because of oil, I was talking about this 1 specific case (current intervention in syria), mainly caused by the presence of IS, al nusra and other terrorist groups in the region. Certainly a point to be made about the USA (or the west in general) being the cause of them being present there in the first place, but that wasn't what I was talking about.

[Yago]

DO people really believe the governments of democracy are wrong and the dictator is right? Is this how far the Russian propaganda has spread? Another Mccarthy is needed.

Which 'governments of democracy' are wrong? the ones supporting Assad or the ones opposing him ...

Would that be the US 'democracy' where the side with the most votes loses? ... or the UK 'democracy' where a 'dictator' prime minister illegally fought two wars in the middle east totally against the democratic will of his population?

You need to define which 'fake' democracy you are supporting here ....

FYI - Assad is a democratically elected leader, so is Putin, so is Khamenei ... are they on the side you are supporting?

Bottom line Assad is a **** ... but the US are bigger ****s for illegally trying to overthrow him and then running away when the going got tough ... as per usual it's the civilian population that has suffered terribly from US interference ... was it a shithole before? sure ... but it's a whole lot worse now ...

Check out Iran, Iraq, Libya and Egypt all suffering from previous US interference ... and all now abandoned to sort out the mess ...

I'm guessing none of us agree with the way many not only Middle Eastern but also African and Asian countries are run, however trying to encourage regime change through civil war? that's not the answer ...

Here's a telling fact ... at a time when worldwide arms sales have decreased ... by far the worlds largest supplier of arms, the USA, has increased it's market share ... so was this the plan all along? .... start wars, create a demand, supply weapons to anyone with cash ... now that's got feck all to do with 'democracy' and a whole lot more to do with capitalism and profit ....

Ehm, the civil war was underway well before the US got into it...

[EliteKiller]

Ehm, the civil war was underway well before the US got into it...

SERIOUSLY ??????

You honestly believe that armed militia just sprung up unsupported ... that millions of dollars worth of arms and ammunition started growing on trees ... are you in fact the most naive person on the entire planet?

Read up on Syrian history .... but let's do the recent bit first .... Assad took over from his father in 2000 .... instead of a new era of democracy he continued to rule the country with the so called 'iron fist' ....

In 2011 encouraged (and illegally armed) by the West the opposition split along sectarian lines and many armed conflicts began .... emboldened by Obama's speech and US sanctions in late 2011 the opposition coalesced into a civil war .... this led to a military response from the government and the country spiralled into the killing zone it is today ...

Questions - so where did some 200 armed groups suddenly get the funding to buy modern military equipment in 2011? .... why did the US openly support Al-Nusra when even a blind man knew they were part of Al-Qaeda and supporters of an Islamic State? ... the US thus being accused of laying the foundations for ISIS to build a caliphate, the very reason Obama is so often wrongly accused of 'creating ISIS' ....

When the US and it's allies realised their terrible mistake, realised that 10's of 1,000's were dying on both sides, why did they not try and rectify things instead of just running away?

Why were Russia and Iran then allowed to become the main players in the conflict with little more opposition than CNN sound-bites from the US government?

Why now all the whining and casting blame? It was the US that started the fight, the Russians that finished it ... once again US foreign policy has allowed the bad guys to win ... will they ever learn? You don't start a fight with a bunch of mass murdering thugs if you're just going to run away with your tail between your legs when, shock horror, it all gets a bit 'dirty' ... far better to leave well alone ...

Prior to 2011 Assad was a small time dictator in a large piece of nothing ... post US interference Assad is still a small time dictator in a large piece of nothing, only now he has Russian and Iranian forces to back him up ... another great job by the world's self appointed policeman ....

For the sake of innocent civilians everywhere let's hope that the US has learnt to stop meddling in other countries internal affairs ... because frankly they're just not very good at it ....

[Yago]

ooow yeees, we've found a second CIA conspiracy theorist without proof.

The civil war/rebellion was not something magically created by the USA. It was the logical continuation of the arab spring. Protests against Assad's "crimes" ensued. In march 2011, assad's police opened fire on protestors. Protests continued in large numbers, calling for Assad to resign. Assad reacted by having his army attack civilians, causing hundreds deaths, with many more imprisoned. Protest soon transformed into rebellion. The rest is history as they say.

Now, if you have reliable sources claiming the US actively (ie, not just criticising Assad but arming the opposition) supporting the rebels before let's say June 2011, please do link them here. Otherwise, f**k off with this bullshit.

I'll be the first one to admit that giving weapons to rebel groups while not knowing who they are was a big blunder, but claiming the USA started the rebellion is another thing altogether.

[EliteKiller]

ooow yeees, we've found a second CIA conspiracy theorist without proof.

The civil war/rebellion was not something magically created by the USA. It was the logical continuation of the arab spring. Protests against Assad's "crimes" ensued. In march 2011, assad's police opened fire on protestors. Protests continued in large numbers, calling for Assad to resign. Assad reacted by having his army attack civilians, causing hundreds deaths, with many more imprisoned. Protest soon transformed into rebellion. The rest is history as they say.

Now, if you have reliable sources claiming the US actively (ie, not just criticising Assad but arming the opposition) supporting the rebels before let's say June 2011, please do link them here. Otherwise, f**k off with this bullshit.

I'll be the first one to admit that giving weapons to rebel groups while not knowing who they are was a big blunder, but claiming the USA started the rebellion is another thing altogether.

Sorry mate ... your arguments have always been flawed but you've moved over to delusional ... the 'Arab Spring' what the feck is that other than a construct of an American academic (look it up) ...

So the Arab Spring, if it ever existed, has long ago come to a halt in every Arab country.

Who were the winners and losers?

Libya has been ruined by the continuing chaos which followed the revolution against Gadaffi.

Egypt is back in a condition of stasis, its economy horribly damaged by the events of the past few years.

In Syria, Bashir Assad has managed to survive against the revolutionaries. Western countries, though they won't say so, have decided they would rather have him than IS.

Iraq too has managed to weather the IS storm, and democracy even seems to be surviving there after all the horrors Iraq has endured since being invaded by the US and Britain in 2003.

The political system in Jordan has been under threat, but it is still surviving.

Lebanon has held together. Algeria and Tunisia have settled down. Turkey, watching from the sidelines, has often been worried, but so far has survived unscarred.

Rebellions by necessity can only be successful when the people have the arms to fight .... the Syrian people much like those in Iraq and Libya had been ruled by Iron Fist Dictators for 100's if not 1000's of years .... are you claiming that the provision of arms and ammunition by the west (and that was 90% the US) was not the catalyst in all three countries for revolution? where the feck do you think this munitions came from? and that after the locals were slaughtered in both Iraq and Libya it required a full military intervention to bring about change ... and that in Syria the lack of a full military intervention has allowed Assad to regain control?

What bit about that do you a) not understand and b) disagree with .....

If you claim this is all wrong then my friend you're attempting to rewrite history ... it has nothing to do with 'CIA conspiracies' the pattern of events themselves are undeniable ... encourage the overthrow of the dictator, support the opposition, military intervention ... are you denying those events took place?

and then you look what it achieved ....

Iraq now governed by an even more extreme leader than Hussein ... Libya split into tribal warfare far worse than under Gadaffi .... and finally Syria, abandoned and about to feel the wrath of Assad ....

and all that was done with the unnecessary deaths of 100's US soldiers, and 10's of 1000's of civilians ... to achieve what precisely?

Please explain how the civilian population on Iran, Libya or Syria have benefited from this outside interference ... I just don't see it ....

[Yago]

Ah yes, calling me deluded because I ask for facts instead of your own personal beliefs. The arab spring was the name given to a revolutionary wave in arab countries that occurred in 2010 and 2011, starting in Tunisia and spreading to among others Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Bahrein. You arguing it didn't exist is beyond retarded.

The winners and losers? Dafuq does that have to do with my point. I wasn't talking about the result or if it benefitted said countries in the end (decidedly not). I simply indicated this movement was an instigator for the Syrian uprising against Assad. Whether they were a good thing for the region is besides the point. I am not advocating for US interference here.

Yes, the US supported the rebels in Syria after Assad killed protestors en masse, I'm not denying any of that. But there's a big difference between supporting an existing revolution and creating it yourself.

[GoonerAlexandre]

I'd rather be patriotic than traitorously support our enemy

[UFGN]

Richard Adams, author of Watership Down, has died

RIP

What an awesome novel it is.

[Cripps]

Loved the film

Need to read the book

[DiamondGooner]

Richard Adams, author of Watership Down, has died

RIP

What an awesome novel it is.

I've lost count of the amount of times I watched the cartoon as a kid, loved it.