Let's all invade Syria!

[anglolawyer]

I think circumstantial evidence points towards Syrian intelligence groups planning the bombings and possibly supplying the material while Turk sympathizers actually carried it out.

Link

The war in Syria involves a lot of different interests. Reuters reports on the reason Israel fighter-jets recently launched attacks inside Syria.

Link

From the first link:

Damascus denied involvement, but Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said those behind the attacks were from an "old Marxist terrorist organization" with ties to Assad's administration.

How do they know?

It's interesting that Assad should have links with Marxist terrorists. This supports my provisional theory that 'we' are against Assad for the same reason as Hussein and Milsovevic - they are left wing.

 

[newyorkguy]

It's interesting that Assad should have links with Marxist terrorists. This supports my provisional theory that 'we' are against Assad for the same reason as Hussein and Milsovevic - they are left wing.

I think you're very much mistaken. First of all, no offense but I don't think you actually know too much about it. Second, you're trying to define this in purely Western terms. Syria isn't a Western nation.

This is from a pro-Marxist website.

The Assad clique has made significant changes to the Syrian economy to expand private ownership. This has made a tiny layer of Syrians immensely wealthy. This obscene inequality was displayed, for example, when the Italian luxury car company, Maserati, launched its range of high-priced vehicles in Damascus in 2010. The sale of luxury cars has in fact skyrocketed in Syria.

Syria has become a capitalist society in which the majority of the economy is in the hands of a mafia clique around the Assad regime. Privatisation has to a degree taken place by transforming members of the regime into owners of important sections of the economy. However, this process of liberalisation has not been fully completed, and there is still an important state sector.

Link

 

[anglolawyer]

I think you're very much mistaken. First of all, no offense but I don't think you actually know too much about it. Second, you're trying to define this in purely Western terms. Syria isn't a Western nation.

This is from a pro-Marxist website.



Link

Well, I admit I don't know much about it, which is why my theory is only provisional. 'Left wing' does not exclude corrupt, as was seen when the wall came down and the extraordinary life styles of Ceaucescu and of Honecker and their cronies was exposed. But it does mean a market with restricted access and which does not operate in a manner perceived as accommodating to western capitalism. I don't think what you posted goes against my provisional theory.

There must be a reason behind western hostility towards Serbia, Iraq and Syria besides proclaimed humanitarianism which I just don't believe.

 

[angrysoba]

Eat your heart out Assad!

Before the rebels do it for you...

Very NSFW video of a Syrian rebel cutting out the heart of a Syrian soldier and taking a bite out of it.

Hey, lets give these guys guns!

 

[anglolawyer]

Eat your heart out Assad!

Before the rebels do it for you...

Very NSFW video of a Syrian rebel cutting out the heart of a Syrian soldier and taking a bite out of it.

Hey, lets give these guys guns!

Yes, this will take some spinning. Lessee. It's just a one off and in no way representative of the freedom-loving rebels (like the ones who murdered Ghaddafi and the US ambassador in Benghazi) who so richly deserve our support.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I think you're very much mistaken. First of all, no offense but I don't think you actually know too much about it. Second, you're trying to define this in purely Western terms. Syria isn't a Western nation.

This is from a pro-Marxist website.



Link

That is from a fake Marxist pro-imperialist propaganda site, IMO. There are a few of those around.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Yes, this will take some spinning. Lessee. It's just a one off and in no way representative of the freedom-loving rebels (like the ones who murdered Ghaddafi and the US ambassador in Benghazi) who so richly deserve our support.

Because we didn't give them guns, they've had to ... well, they opted to ... well this one went a bit nuts.

Do note too this is more or less FSA, not al-Nusra. Farouq brigades and some others are a nasty few lots as well.

Incidentally, I think you're onto something with the left wing thing. It's not just Assad but the people there. In fact, the Communist party did second best behind Ba'ath in the May 2012 elections. That's with 52% of eligible Syrian voters turning out, despite rebel threats to avoid all reforms short of the full jihad.

 

[Childlike Empress]

That is from a fake Marxist pro-imperialist propaganda site, IMO. There are a few of those around.

http://www.marxist.com/

Obvious indeed. Marxists never think in singular and would never register a .com URL.

There you go:

http://www.marxists.org/

 

[Caustic Logic]

http://www.marxist.com/

Obvious indeed. Marxists never think in singular and would never register a .com URL.

There you go:

http://www.marxists.org/

Lol. Looking at the site, I dunno. Looks okay (as it would have to!). But the tone of that argument is classic Louis Proyect fake-Marxist pro-war drivel. "Peaceful protesters," "repressive regime," immense blindsides, etc. Total cartoon. This ... support the heart-cutting Salafists sent by the Saudis and the CIA because ... Bashar did some privatizing recently? Yeah...

 

[newyorkguy]

Okay let's see...

The West was against Saddam because he was a leftist. The Marxist site I found is a false flag site. Assad is too socialist for 'us' thus we want him removed. The rebels are cannibals.

Why does this suddenly feel like IMdB?

 

[anglolawyer]

I yielded and looked at wikipedia on Ba'athism and waddya know?

The Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party (Arabic: حزب البعث العربي الاشتراكي‎ Ḥizb Al-Ba‘ath Al-‘Arabī Al-Ishtirākī) was a political party founded in Syria by Michel Aflaq, Salah al-Din al-Bitar and associates of Zaki al-Arsuzi. The party espoused Ba'athism (from البعث Al-Ba'ath or Ba'ath meaning "renaissance" or "resurrection"), which is an ideology mixing Arab nationalist, pan-Arabism, Arab socialist and anti-imperialist interests. Ba'athism calls for unification of the Arab world into a single state. Its motto, "Unity, Liberty, Socialism", refers to Arab unity, and freedom from non-Arab control and interference.

Let's do the same for Gaddafi

Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi[6] (Arabic: معمر محمد أبو منيار القذافي‎ pron.: /ˈmoʊ.əmɑr ɡəˈdɑːfi/ audio (help·info)) (c. 1942 – 20 October 2011), commonly known as Colonel Gaddafi,[nb 3] was a Libyan revolutionary, politician and political theorist. He served as the ruler of the Libyan Arab Republic from 1969 to 1977 and then the "Brother Leader" of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya from 1977 to 2011, during which industry and business was nationalized. Politically an Arab nationalist and Arab socialist, he formulated his own ideology, Third International Theory, later embracing Pan-Africanism and serving as Chairperson of the African Union from 2009 to 2010.

and finally Milosevic

Slobodan Milošević (pronounced [slɔbɔ̌dan milɔ̌ːʃɛʋitɕ] ( listen); Serbian Cyrillic: Слободан Милошевић; 20 August 1941 – 11 March 2006) was a Serbian and Yugoslav politician who was the President of Serbia (originally the Socialist Republic of Serbia) from 1989 to 1997 and President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from 1997 to 2000. Amongst his supporters, Milošević was known by the nickname of "Sloba". He also led the Socialist Party of Serbia from its foundation in 1990. His presidency was marked by the breakup of Yugoslavia and the subsequent Yugoslav Wars. In the midst of the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, Milošević was charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity in connection to the wars in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).[2]

Isn't it funny how little attention is paid in the media to the fact these three are all socialists?

 

[Ryokan]

Isn't it funny how little attention is paid in the media to the fact these three are all socialists?

There's quite a high probability that it was news only to you.

 

[A'isha]

Plus, "Arab socialism" is kind of its own thing distinct from other kinds of socialism. To lump Ba'athism and Marxism together as just plain "socialism" and using it to claim that the West is only going after those regimes because we're all about fightin' Commies is severely mis-stating the underlying geopolitical issues.

 

[Childlike Empress]

The issue isn't socialism, it's independence. As long as they are puppets, nobody in power will complain about any nastiness some sick absolut monarch can come up with.

But of course we all knew that already.

 

[anglolawyer]

There's quite a high probability that it was news only to you.

I demur. I watch the news attentively and recall no references to Arab socialism. Certainly not in comparison with the obsessive and irrelevant focus on whether this or that leader is a bad person, which is the usual level at which things are pitched to the masses.

And before you protest, it's the masses whose opinions count in this discussion.

 

[newyorkguy]

The issue isn't socialism, it's independence. As long as they are puppets, nobody in power will complain about any nastiness some sick absolut monarch can come up with.

But of course we all knew that already.

See the problem I have with these kinds of statements is, what does it really mean?

It means the situation is real simple. Black and white.

The brutal dictators are actually good. It's the phony Western democracies are bad.

The problem I have with it is, it has nothing to do with reality.

 

[Childlike Empress]

The brutal dictators are actually good. It's the phony Western democracies are bad.

This has nothing to do with what I said. This kind of insistence in a black and white picture is a sorry excuse for critical thinking and born in self-deception, and you produced it yourself.

What I said - in case you honestly didn't understand it - was that the Empire doesn't give a flying **** about good/bad when it comes to leaders of countries who are meant to pay tribute. Either they do or they are in trouble.

 

[newyorkguy]

Isn't it funny how little attention is paid in the media to the fact these three are all socialists?

Then most socialist groups, from China on down, support Assad, Milosevic and Saddam?

Plus I have to tell you, yesterday at work I said to the three people in my work area, "Hey listen to this."

I told them someone had written the "real" reason the US opposed Saddam was that he was a communist. They all burst out laughing.

You could not have this conversation face-to-face. People would either laugh or walk away. Sorry but I'm telling you the truth.

 

[Ryokan]

I demur. I watch the news attentively and recall no references to Arab socialism. Certainly not in comparison with the obsessive and irrelevant focus on whether this or that leader is a bad person, which is the usual level at which things are pitched to the masses.

And before you protest, it's the masses whose opinions count in this discussion.

You really didn't know Slobodan Milosevic and Gaddafi were socialists?

And news shouldn't be your only source of information in life. Try reading a book some time.

ETA: The reasons why the news aren't repeating it over and over is because most of the time it isn't relevant.

 

[newyorkguy]

As long as they are puppets, nobody in power will complain about any nastiness some sick absolut monarch can come up with.

See the problem I have with these kinds of statements is, what does it really mean?...The brutal dictators are actually good. It's the phony Western democracies that are bad.

This has nothing to do with what I said. This kind of insistence in a black and white picture is a sorry excuse for critical thinking and born in self-deception, and you produced it yourself.

Then I'm not sure what you mean. Can you define who're you're referring to when you write, "nobody in power?"