Lxxx Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 16 hours ago, manxb&b said: Problem is Pongo that's only one theory among countless others both for and against the Assad regime, and still doesn't answer why the Saudi's are allowed to act with impunity. Because Pongo likes being contrary. If you're lucky he might even honour you by talking down to you shortly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 25 minutes ago, Lxxx said: Because Pongo likes being contrary. If you're lucky he might even honour you by talking down to you shortly. You never miss an opportunity do you? The thing is though that there is no "because". I answered a question with two links and passed no personal opinion. You should get that chip looked at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 On 15/04/2018 at 8:09 PM, pongo said: I disagree with the conspiracists who believe that NATO is backing ISIS. I disagree with those who believe that the Assad / Putin regime is legitimate. I disagree with those who believe that Assad is a bulwark against terrorism. He isn't - he backs Hezbollah and Hamas. I agree with Woody (OMG) about Russia. Putin's representatives said the chemical attack never happened. Then said it was Britain - feeding the inevitable "false flag" conspiracy nonsense. -- However. I don't understand the point of bombing Syria. The Guardian, supporting action a few days ago, talked about "retaliation". That doesn't seem useful to me. The only point of action should be towards a clear and decisive outcome which makes things better. "Retaliation" isn't a good reason to do anything. I've this horrible feeling that the US, France and UK basically got backed into a corner and had to be seen to do something. Or else they would lose face. In which case Putin and Assad are driving the agenda. Hope I'm wrong. PS - Trump's idiotic Twitter nonsense is also not helpful. But I am fairly certain that he isn't running things anymore anyhow. He's obviously massively over compensating from the investigation which is getting ever closer. Even if he goes to a second term he is never going to really be in charge, NATO member Turkey have been funding ISIS for years. https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/former-turkish-counter-terror-chief-exposes-governments-support-for-isis-d12238698f52 Assad is the democratically elected President of Syria, whatever your views of their political process. Russia is an ally of Syria in much the same way the US is an ally of the UK. Assad presides over a secular state, which in itself is a bulwark against radical Islam in his country. Syria may back external terrorist forces, as the UK/US does when it suits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 3 minutes ago, pongo said: You never miss an opportunity do you? The thing is though that there is no "because". I answered a question with two links and passed no personal opinion. You should get that chip looked at. Quite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 4 minutes ago, Lxxx said: Assad is the democratically elected President of Syria And Putin is the "democratically" elected President of Russia. And Kim Jong-un is the "democratically" elected leader of North Korea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 1 minute ago, pongo said: And Putin is the "democratically" elected President of Russia. And Kim Jong-un is the "democratically" elected leader of North Korea. Whilst on holiday in the region a number of years ago I had the pleasure of talking for an entire evening to a very wise gentleman who gave a great insight into the thoughts of rational people who live in the middle east. He told me that the western idea of democracy is incompatible to the majority of the region as there are just too many different factions, cultural differences and agendas all vying for power and influence and as much as we in the west choose to look down our noses at the rule of Mubarak of Egypt, Hussein of Iraq, Gaddafi of Libya and Assad of Syria as being 'undemocratic' they bring some semblance of calm so people in the main can go about their everyday lives. Of course there are preferred sects and persecuted minorities in this form of rule but as a whole it allows the state to function and a society to develop. It's not ideal but it's a hell of a lot better than what we see now in Libya and Iraq and very likely soon to be Syria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 The uk and america seem to be the only countries without a democratically elected leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 Assad had 80 odd per cent of the vote in elections that were overseen and signed off by 30 un countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 6 minutes ago, Lxxx said: Whilst on holiday in the region a number of years ago I had the pleasure of talking for an entire evening to a very wise gentleman who gave a great insight into the thoughts of rational people who live in the middle east. He told me that the western idea of democracy is incompatible to the majority of the region as there are just too many different factions, cultural differences and agendas all vying for power and influence and as much as we in the west choose to look down our noses at the rule of Mubarak of Egypt, Hussein of Iraq, Gaddafi of Libya and Assad of Syria as being 'undemocratic' they bring some semblance of calm so people in the main can go about their everyday lives. Of course there are preferred sects and persecuted minorities in this form of rule but as a whole it allows the state to function and a society to develop. It's not ideal but it's a hell of a lot better than what we see now in Libya and Iraq and very likely soon to be Syria. the uk in the year 2050....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 3 minutes ago, the stinking enigma said: The uk and america seem to be the only countries without a democratically elected leader. If you take the view the Russians were very efficient multi-taskers over the past 12 months then yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 4 minutes ago, the stinking enigma said: The uk and america seem to be the only countries without a democratically elected leader. In the case of the UK that's most certainly true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, woody2 said: the uk in the year 2050....... The Isle of Man 2018. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 10 minutes ago, Lxxx said: Whilst on holiday in the region a number of years ago I had the pleasure of talking for an entire evening to a very wise gentleman who gave a great insight into the thoughts of rational people who live in the middle east. He told me that the western idea of democracy is incompatible to the majority of the region as there are just too many different factions, cultural differences and agendas all vying for power and influence and as much as we in the west choose to look down our noses at the rule of Mubarak of Egypt, Hussein of Iraq, Gaddafi of Libya and Assad of Syria as being 'undemocratic' they bring some semblance of calm so people in the main can go about their everyday lives. Of course there are preferred sects and persecuted minorities in this form of rule but as a whole it allows the state to function and a society to develop. It's not ideal but it's a hell of a lot better than what we see now in Libya and Iraq and very likely soon to be Syria. It's not just about factions though, these factions are usually tribal with underlying tribal --- difficulties --- it's that in predominantly is!amic countries the actual power of democracy is very restricted and always in danger of becoming blasphemous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 It's a shame as Damascus was a city I would have loved to have visited in my lifetime. Maybe next one now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Down Posted April 17, 2018 Share Posted April 17, 2018 36 minutes ago, Lxxx said: It's a shame as Damascus was a city I would have loved to have visited in my lifetime. Maybe next one now. Visiting there could bring the next one quicker than you think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.