The Politics Thread

[RobSpur]

I assume that you're not including Trump or Putin in your assessment?

Erdogan's probably worse because he's doing it to a country that was a secular democracy, of sorts.
Probably moving in the right direction, too. That's all gone.
There's plenty of horrible arseholes to choose from, though. Why limit yourself to one?

He's just an evil ****er.

Unlike the other countries, he didnt need to be like that to maintain stability. Yeah, the Kurds might have seperated, but so what ? It's not the total murderousnous and/or anarchy that would happen in Iraq, Iran, Libya etc. Whereas Assad could legitimately argue that what he does/did, wasn't just to protect himself, but to protect the state itself, that doesnt wash with Erdogan. If anything his actions have made the country more partisan than it was before he came to power, and as you say, he's turning an enlightened outlooking rapidly developing country into his own little private - and ever more isolated and inward looking - ivory tower.

Furhermore, noone apart from Saddam's committed purges onnthe scale he's done during peace time. His supporters beheaded soldiers in broad daylight who had followed orders to take part in a (largely peaceful) coup, and god only knows what's happened to the 10s of 1,000s he's rounded up since. Assad never did anything on any similar scale, even after the armed (and they were partly armed) protests in 2011

He also pursecutes Kurds (over 100 were recently burnt alive in an attack thought to be carried out by the government) on a totally different scale to supression or similar undertaken in other countries like syria, iran etc.

Beyond that though, Erdogan's no only content with ****ing up his own country, but actively seeks to destabilise the region. He actively facilitated the rise of ISIS and has sought the destruction of Syria. I see no equivelant with other leaders in the region.

The bloke is just a ****. The fact that he is officially the ally of the UK and US in NATO is beyond a joke.

 

[NSIS]

“Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”
Donald Trump jr.

Ah, bingo!...

 

[RobSpur]

Ah, bingo!...

I dont know why he doesnt tell his son to just shut the **** up tbh. Everythin he tweets seems to be ammunition for Clinton.

But anyway,mas I've said before, I couldnt care less what Trump's motives are, and I dont see that anyone else should. What matters is the outcome. And if that's peace in Syria, then that's my winner.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

He's just an evil ****er.

Unlike the other countries, he didnt need to be like that to maintain stability. Yeah, the Kurds might have seperated, but so what ? It's not the total murderousnous and/or anarchy that would happen in Iraq, Iran, Libya etc. Whereas Assad could legitimately argue that what he does/did, wasn't just to protect himself, but to protect the state itself, that doesnt wash with Erdogan. If anything his actions have made the country more partisan than it was before he cake to power, and as you say, he's turning an enlightened outlooking rapidly developing into his owj little private ivory tower.

Furhermore, noone apart from Saddam's committed purges onnthe scale he's done during peace time. His supporters beheaded soldiers in broad daylight who had followed orders to take part in a (largely peaceful) coup, and god only kniws to the 10s of 1,000s he's rounded up since. Assad never did anything on any similar scale, even after the armed (and they were partly armed) protests in 2011

He also pursecutes Kurds (over 100 were recently burnt alive in an attack thought to be carried out by the government) on a totally different scale to supression or similar undertaken in other countries like syria, iran etc.

Beyond that though, Erdogan's no only content with ****ing up his own country, but actively seeks to destabilise the region. He actively facilitated the rise of ISIS and has sought the destruction of Syria. I see no equivelant with other leaders in the region.

The bloke is just a ****. The fact that he is officially the ally of the UK and US in NATO is beyond a joke.

There's also plenty of evidence to suggest that he staged the coup himself.
It makes very little sense, otherwise.

 

[NSIS]

I dont know why he doesnt tell his son to just shut the **** up tbh. Everythin he tweets seems to be ammunition for Clinton.

But anyway,mas I've said before, I couldnt care less what Trump's motives are, and I dont see that anyone else should. What matters is the outcome. And if that's peace in Syria, then that's my winner.

I wouldn't vote for that, sociopathic megalomaniac if there wasn't any competition!...

He's scary! Very scary!...

 

[SpursDisciple]

HC's policy on Syria continues to be a total, total mess. And that's the main reason why I still want her to lose, in spite of seeing the ferocity of a pissed off attump last night.

She stated 5 policies last night :

1. Getting rid of ISIS and Assad
2. Imposing a no fly zone across syria
3. Getting more leverage against russia before going back to the negotiating table
4. Arming and training the Kurds
5. Forming stronger coilitions with gulf partners

It's a shame noone asked whether by 2 she meant military or financial, but either way she seemed intent on grabbing Russia by the balls.

It's not easy to see how she intends to impose a no fly zone without starting WW3, or how she intends to use the Kurds to depose Assad, when theyve acted in a largely non fighting partnership with each other for the first 4 years of the conflict.

In short, it sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Trump's plan is much more simple. Join the Russians to fight ISIS. Leave Assad to sort the rest of them out.

Trump's plan brings the quickest peace to Syria. Clinton's continues to drag it out, and risks global conflict.

Assad and Russia do not fight ISIS, they fight the anti Assad forces. Some conflict with ISIS, but they are more intent on damaging the anti Govt. forces. Assad welcomes ISIS, as they take the focus off him and his crimes.

 

[RobSpur]

Assad and Russia do not fight ISIS, they fight the anti Assad forces. Some conflict with ISIS, but they are more intent on damaging the anti Govt. forces. Assad welcomes ISIS, as they take the focus off him and his crimes.

I suggest that Russia would be more than happy fighting ISIS under Trump's plan (as they were under Kerry's that was sabotaged by the CIA), if it meant (as Trump intends) that they and Syria were then left to finish off the other rebels.

Totally dispute the claim that Assad welcomes ISIS. ISIS was created by Saudi to soread Wahabii islam. It was facilitated by Turkey, and permitted by the US as a policy of creating a buffer between Iran and Syria. In no way does Assad welcome the invasion of any of his country, and the first premise of both his and his father's government have been to prevent the rise of such an organisation.

 

[RobSpur]

These are an interesting read for anyone interested in the origin and establishment of ISIS :

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ke-over-the-north-of-the-country-9602312.html

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...ed-isis-tool-overthrow-syrias-president-assad

 

[BobbyD]

now this is interesting...

You must log in or register to see media

We only get what they want us to hear (well i already knew this anyway)

 

[RobSpur]

now this is interesting...

You must log in or register to see media

We only get what they want us to hear (well i already knew this anyway)

Interesting viewing Bobby. Whilst the news studio and presenter looks like a bit of a kid in his bedroom job, the interviewee is clearly bursting with a truth she's desperate to get out.

The role the west plays in Syria, and the lies they tell us, is a sick disgrace. They have destroyed the country, and could not care less about the hundreds of thousands killed. All they care about is their policy of removing Assad come what may. It sickens me, and so far as I'm concerned, the complicit western governments are no better than Saddam, Pol Pot, or any other genocidal murderer you care to mention.

I hope that one day the truth comes out, and our leaders, governments and press are seen for what they really are. Mass murderers.

 

[humanbeingincroydon]

You must log in or register to see images

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

now this is interesting...

You must log in or register to see media

We only get what they want us to hear (well i already knew this anyway)

Is there any reason why we should take this as gospel? The journalist works for some very dodgy organisations.
The Youtube channel that hosts it is Ron Paul's, too. He's a total nut.

 

[BobbyD]

Is there any reason why we should take this as gospel? The journalist works for some very dodgy organisations.
The Youtube channel that hosts it is Ron Paul's, too. He's a total nut.

to be fair i don't know too much about them. Saw someone else post it. I've taken into the fact the journalist is probably very biased but shes also a british investigative journalist telling her side of the story.

at the time of posting i thought ron paul was the guy who ran for presidency as an independent and was highly respected. on second thoughts I think that might have been newt gringrich.

Just thought i'd stoke up some fires

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

to be fair i don't know too much about them. Saw someone else post it. I've taken into the fact the journalist is probably very biased but shes also a british investigative journalist telling her side of the story.

at the time of posting i thought ron paul was the guy who ran for presidency as an independent and was highly respected. on second thoughts I think that might have been newt gringrich.

Just thought i'd stoke up some fires

Ron Paul got quite a lot of support, but he's a libertarian lunatic, so I don't really know why.
His political positions are crap and his beliefs are crazy. He's a climate change denier, for example.
He has a couple of decent ideas, but they're overwhelming outnumbered by his bad ones.

 

[RobSpur]

one reason that she should be believed, is that - unlike the story told by western governments - her explanation makes sense :


a)

Syrian government decides it doesnt like the people that live in one part of one of its cities

So decides to start bombing them

Some rebellious helpers go there, to kind of hold hands with the people being bombed, and support them

The helpers wear white helmets because they are the good guys

the government decides to bomb all the hospitals because it hates the people so much


OR


b)

Terrrorists capture part of a major city

All the population that can, flees to the government held part of the city

The terrorists prevent the rest from leaving

The government bombs the terrorists

The terrorists take shelter in and set up bases in hospitals

The government bombs the hospitals / terrorist bases



I know which one I believe.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

one reason that she should be believed, is that - unlike the story told by western governments - her explanation makes sense :


a)

Syrian government decides it doesnt like the people that live in one part of one of its cities

So decides to start bombing them

Some rebellious helpers go there, to kind of hold hands with the people being bombed, and support them

The helpers wear white helmets because they are the good guys

the government decides to bomb all the hospitals because it hates the people so much


OR


b)

Terrrorists capture part of a major city

All the population that can, flees to the government held part of the city

The terrorists prevent the rest from leaving

The government bombs the terrorists

The terrorists take shelter in and set up bases in hospitals

The government bombs the hospitals / terrorist bases



I know which one I believe.

And why is this not being reported?

 

[RobSpur]

And why is this not being reported?

- Because the US and their allies primary objective is to take down Assad, and they will seemingly stop at just about nothing to achieve this

- Because the press is influenced by the governments / because it's just the line they took and theyre sticking with it / because they have hated Assad since a journalist was killed in a bombing in 2011


It sounds like a whacky conspiracy, but it is the truth.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

- Because the US and their allies primary objective is to take down Assad, and they will seemingly stop at just about nothing to achieve this

- Because the press is influenced by the governments / because it's just the line they took and theyre sticking with it / because they have hated Assad since a journalist was killed in a bombing in 2011


It sounds like a whacky conspiracy, but it is the truth.

Or it's a whacky conspiracy. Look up the journalist in the clip and see what you think of who she works for.

 

[RobSpur]

Or it's a whacky conspiracy. Look up the journalist in the clip and see what you think of who she works for.

There's nothing whacky about it in the slightest though. It is the reality of the situation.

 

[RobSpur]

Presentation of the outbreak of the conflict

Right from the start of this conflict, facts would suggest that we have been misled about the nature of the conflict, and the role played in it by the Syrian government.

Western politicians and western press portrayed the outbreak of civil unrest in 2011, and the start of the civil war, as being due to a senseless massacre of unarmed peaceful protesters by the Syrian Army, under the orders of President Assad. This appears to be the popularly held view, based on the presentation of events given to the public in the west by their governments and mainstream media. And this narrative has been used in propaganda ever since as a way of building a case that President Assad is somehow, “at war with his own people”.

In fact, according to wikipedia, the first organised protest, on 15 March 2011, resulted in 6 arrests and no casualties. Apparently, then on 20 March protestors - who we are led to believe were peaceful and entirely innocent - burned down several buildings including the Baath party headquarters, and killed 7 police officers. Put in that perspective, it might not seem surprising that 15 'civilians' were also killed.

By the end of May 2011, the so called peaceful protestors had killed 150 police and soldiers; that does not reflect the western line that the protests were entirely peaceful, and it is in fact known that arms had been smuggled into protestors from Israel and Turkey during the Arab spring, and were being used by protestors right from the outset.

This is not the cause of the war that is presented to us by our governments and press, which would have us believe that the war started with massacres of peaceful protestors.