Why does the government of the United States hate Syrian president Bashar al-Assad

[Erhabi]

They can fart at the bombs to repeal them with air pressure

Dont reveal ur mom's secret on PDF.

 

[jamahir]

Fascism is a myth....

fascism is myth and vedic spacecrafts are real.

 

[Erhabi]

what air defense do the saudi ideology terror jihadis have against barrel bombs ?

none

What defense do women in India have against rapes?

Steel underwears

 

[mike2000 is back]

1. Because Assad allowed Syria to be used as a staging ground for the Iraqi insurgency
2. Because Assad has kept arming Hezbollah despite repeated warnings to stop

LOOL Just took the words from my mouth. He tried to play with the big boys , now he is crying foul. Let this be a good lesson to him and others(his Mullahs Patrons) who want to indulge in big power games that is above them, instead of minding their own business and focusing on their own country. Play with fire and it will burn you badly.

 

[AugenBlick]

fascism is myth and vedic spacecrafts are real.

As real as Jabreel reavealing god's will or White horses flying a man into Jannat Infact more real than that

 

[mike2000 is back]

There is no refugee crisis. There are Sunni Arabs and other tribals taking advantage of the occasion to do what they would want to do anyway, leave the dumps which are the result of their culture behind and live in the society created by the people they hate. They are bringing their **** with them and insisting it doesn't stink.

I as an American Jew who lost many friends and family in the Holocaust say the Muslims should be expelled from Europe. It is no injustice to peacefully evict those who already have countries to live in but instead bring their poverty and violence elsewhere - no comparison with expelling by murder, and for the purpose of extortion, those who brought innovation and prosperity wherever they went, who had no country to return to, and when they finally got one, turned it from being a desert into a great nation in its own right.

If Muslims want to stay, they should be forced to reapply as citizens, take a verbal and signed oath of loyalty to the Western ideals of the European Union, and explicitly "refute and disavow allegiance to Muhammed, his dogma, and those who follow it" while standing on a carpet with his picture on it.

I don't actually have a problem with Muslims being Muslim. The problem is that Muslims will never politically oppose other Muslims and this is ironically the main reason the Middle East is such a mess: Arabs have no cogent internal politics because they are more apt to murder than criticize each other. This basic attitude also drives them into irrational violence against kaffirs: because moderates never criticize extremists, their attitude towards other cultures is always couched in violence. But if they can overcome that taboo and behave like Westerners who freely criticize each other, join the civic dialogue to other ends than actioning Islam's will to power, then allowing some small number of them to remain is not a problem.

Bismarck offered my lineal ancestors the same choice in 1871. We were offered the choice to be "emancipated" by the German government and become loyal German citizens or leave. My family chose to leave for Russia because there was cheap land there. We were forced out by the 1905 Kiev pogrom, and from there came to the US. I have friends whose ancestors remained and became very loyal to Germany. Some had relatives who died fighting the French in WWI. It was a huge shock when the country turned on them. But the death toll was even higher amongst unassimilated ghetto Jews living in Poland who were so out of touch with the mainstream world that they had no idea what was coming their way.

The whole thing could have been avoided had the Germans not been radicalized in the first place. By the same token, I would argue that, as with the internment of the Japanese, expelling the Muslims from Europe today will prevent another Holocaust tomorrow. Those who are not radicals will inevitably benefit from this lest they be caught up in the backlash from Europeans getting fed up with the status quo caused by those radicals they will not oppose.

lol Do you really expect the majority of muslims to criticize or organize mass protests against their own 'muslim brothers'? lol Then you will have to wait until judgement day.lool Of course its easier for them to organize mass protests and campaign all over the world when Israel retaliates/protects itself from a palestinian terrorists or terror group like hamas when it launches suicide bombings or stabbing against Israeli citizens, but when muslim extremists/jihadists kill people/civilians gruesomely around the world(their own people included) by the ten of thousands you hardly hear any mass protests/criticism against such groups from the so called 'moderates'. In short they obviously find it easy to criticize the tafikri infidel west/Jews etc than their own 'brothers'. Nothing surprising there, thats music to our ears.

 

[AugenBlick]

lol Do you really expect the majority of muslims to criticize or organize mass protests against their own 'muslim brothers'? lol Then you will have to wait until judgement day.lool Of course its easier for them to organize mass protests and campaign all over the world when Israel retaliates/protects itself from a palestinian terrorists or terror group like hamas when it launches suicide bombings or stabbing against Israeli citizens, but when muslim extremists/jihadists kill people/civilians gruesomely around the world(their own people included) by the ten of thousands you hardly hear any mass protests/criticism against such groups from the so called 'moderates'. In short they obviously find it easy to criticize the tafikri infidel west/Jews etc than their own 'brothers'. Nothing surprising there, thats music to our ears.

I like the western way of dealing with them....pay them money and they shout (Islam is in Danger) and go on a slaughter spree against their own kind.

 

[Aestu]

what is the difference between Holocaust and this current situation in Syria?? Did EU say same thing to jews/Hindu/Japanese/ Chinese/Budhists??

None of those groups came to Europe because of violence they themselves instigated and brought it with them when they arrived. You don't see Chinese/Japanese/Hindu/Buddhist/Jewish mobs threatening Europeans or their institutions or demanding handouts.

For that matter, none of those groups demanded their own slice of the British Raj for themselves alone. American citizens of Japanese descent were interned by the US during WW2 because of concerns they would be a fifth column. It was a controversial move at the time, but in retrospect it was probably for the best and there was no enduring hatred.

So there is no comparison between the Syrian crisis and the Holocaust, or with the various other groups of immigrants that have come to Europe over the years. Simple as that. The best comparison would be with the Scientologists, who are legally considered a cult in the EU because they have a history of challenging American and European governments.

 

[Gauss]

Even after the end of cold war, usa has stuck to its policy of destroying socialism in the world. The three countries whose political systems it destroyed were all socialists. Iraq, Libya and Syria.

 

[Aestu]

i don't understand the western obsession, even well meaning, with elections as the only thing that should drive anything called democracy. can't they imagine a political system that has neither career politician representative nor political party and where a socialist people's decisions and ideas at neighborhood-level can reach country-level through the people themselves??

...eu should really be looking into the lives of the modi lovers in britain and how these sanghis contribute to various injustices in india, including farmers suicides on astounding scale and "honor killings" and aborted female foetuses being fed to dogs. those anti-human crackpots in britain who support modi government now would have themselves or had their family participating in this mania in 1995. if eu doesn't want burqa wearing taliban lovers in germany and britain, it is fair that it should also kick out anti-human-ideology terrorist-rss supporters from britain... fair is fair.

It's really, really funny how you don't see the contradiction between these two paragraphs.

You won't get it, so I will spell it out for you. Gandhi's vision of an anarchic social democracy was a non-starter because the system isn't viable. Traditional societies are in practice always

1. fragile
2. superstitious
3. unjust

The Western system of centralized government and professional politicians didn't evolve or spread across the world by chance. The Western democratic federal system has the winning strengths of being able to organize tremendous numbers of people and resources to achieve complex goals, and to effect great change in a short period of time.

You say you want a traditional decentralized system of rule. But then you say you are unhappy with the realities that kind of system produces in practice (superstitious and ineffectual societies) and expect the power of federal democratic states to solve these problems for you. This kind of hypocrisy is ubiquitous in absolutely all anarcho-libertarian leftists.

Fwiw, I spent a year living on a Quaker colony in the US. They believe the same things as you and are just as hypocritical in their implementation.

 

[mike2000 is back]

None of those groups came to Europe because of violence they themselves instigated and brought it with them when they arrived. You don't see Chinese/Japanese/Hindu/Buddhist/Jewish mobs threatening Europeans or their institutions or demanding handouts.

For that matter, none of those groups demanded their own slice of the British Raj for themselves alone. American citizens of Japanese descent were interned by the US during WW2 because of concerns they would be a fifth column. It was a controversial move at the time, but in retrospect it was probably for the best and there was no enduring hatred.

So there is no comparison between the Syrian crisis and the Holocaust, or with the various other groups of immigrants that have come to Europe over the years. Simple as that. The best comparison would be with the Scientologists, who are legally considered a cult in the EU because they have a history of challenging American and European governments.

100% AGREE BRO.

 

[Aestu]

Even after the end of cold war, usa has stuck to its policy of destroying socialism in the world. The three countries whose political systems it destroyed were all socialists. Iraq, Libya and Syria.

What's your basis for claiming that Iraq was more socialist than Israel, Scandinavia or the EU? Merely because it was poorer and more autocratic?

Most of which are closest U.S allies. An ugly irony we have here.

What about Japan, South Korea, Turkey and India?

See, that's the trick. I don't claim US foreign policy is anything but driven by wealthy corporations. But ultimately, the reason the US corporate imperialist agenda succeeds is that the Arab countries have to be ruled by somebody other than their own people. Some would say Iran is where it is, rather than asserting itself as an equal with the West, only because of too much influence from Arab culture.

 

[jamahir]

Traditional societies are in practice always

1. fragile
2. superstitious
3. unjust

true.

It's really, really funny how you don't see the contradiction between these two paragraphs.

no, here's how you misunderstood my post...

Gandhi's vision of an anarchic social democracy was a non-starter because the system isn't viable.

i was not talking about not "g for gandhi" but "g for gaddafi".

please read my previous post in light of the "green book" and direct-democracy ( true democracy ) that existed in libya.

The Western system of centralized government and professional politicians didn't evolve or spread across the world by chance.

the western system of parliamentary/representative democracy is actually against true democracy.

The Western democratic federal system has the winning strengths of being able to organize tremendous numbers of people and resources to achieve complex goals, and to effect great change in a short period of time.

has usa establishment been able to remove homelessness??

 

[Aestu]

true.
no, here's how you misunderstood my post...
i was not talking about not "g for gandhi" but "g for gaddafi".
please read my previous post in light of the "green book" and direct-democracy ( true democracy ) that existed in libya.
the western system of parliamentary/representative democracy is actually against true democracy.
has usa establishment been able to remove homelessness??

I understood what you said. I associated your ideas with Gandhi because he was their most nearly credible representative.

Gaddafi was a dictator. Nothing more, nothing less. Benevolent despotism is a primitive idea that appeals to primitive minds. Direct democracy means no democracy. Benevolent dictatorship and other rule-by-consensus systems are inherently very fragile because they don't produce good leaders and provide no guidance for leaders less able than the first generation of selfless idealists.

Probably the best example in recent history is Germany itself - how Bismarck created the kind of system you describe but was destroyed in the end by its lack of moderating influences. Also the recurrent fate of Communist states and Communist idealists like Trotsky, Guevara, and Zhou Enlai and how Communist states that lack democratic systems wind up with colorless, inept leaders like Jintao or Brezhnev.

It could be said that "direct democracy" or benevolent despotism in fact has all the weaknesses of democracy - tyranny of the majority, reliance on consent of governed and susceptibility to demagoguery - with none of its strengths.

A better world is possible, but the main reason it hasn't come about yet is that the ideas held by anarcho-libertarians are so flawed and unreal.

has usa establishment been able to remove homelessness??

No. But people still come here to drive taxis in NYC. Fwiw, the causes of homelessness in the US are social rather than political or economic.

The best system is moderate socialist democracy. The main enemy of moderate socialist democracy are leftists who are led astray by anarchism, communism and social radicalism.

 

[LeGenD]

lol Do you really expect the majority of muslims to criticize or organize mass protests against their own 'muslim brothers'? lol Then you will have to wait until judgement day.lool Of course its easier for them to organize mass protests and campaign all over the world when Israel retaliates/protects itself from a palestinian terrorists or terror group like hamas when it launches suicide bombings or stabbing against Israeli citizens, but when muslim extremists/jihadists kill people/civilians gruesomely around the world(their own people included) by the ten of thousands you hardly hear any mass protests/criticism against such groups from the so called 'moderates'. In short they obviously find it easy to criticize the tafikri infidel west/Jews etc than their own 'brothers'. Nothing surprising there, thats music to our ears.

This is not true.

I will explain the situation to you with the example of internal situation of my country. You will be surprised to learn how many Pakistani [moderates] are disappointed by corruption in Pakistan and ridicule hypocrites among religious leaders. Some have even entertained the idea of recognizing Israel. Such sentiments do not get much publicity [however] due to different reasons that include concerns about personal safety, lack of interest in politics and personal factors. The moderates tend to harbor fear about a potential backlash from powerful corrupt and hypo-critic elements and therefore maintain low-profile about their political and religious views. Who would want to disrupt his peaceful life-style?

Sometimes, moderates participate in politics-driven protests [e.g. PTI-led dharna against corruption; longest in the history of Pakistan] but many would not dare to challenge extremist groups on their own because extremists tend to be united and are known to retaliate using violence.

Unfortunately, US foreign policy is not helping the cause of moderates either. Wars in Iraq and Libya have fueled extremist movements and US is not sincere about addressing these conflicts due to its business interests. US earns billions of dollars of revenue from selling arms.

Here: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/w...-arms-fuels-the-wars-of-arab-states.html?_r=0

Islamic nations have become testing grounds for latest military equipment [unfortunately].

Yes, Muslims still believe in the ideology of brotherhood but it is not much in practice due to internal rifts and power-struggles.