Merkel In Tears That Assad Will Remain In Power

But he's a good dictator, and dictators are needed in the region far more than good presidents.

 

I will say that there must be a big collection being done by those who caused this mess with incompetent politics and acting that people were forced to flee from their homes there!
Biggest payer would be the USA, followed by Turkey and then on place 3 is Russia!

 

NATO countries were also incompetent? I've said it before and I'll keep saying it - if the West had supported Assad instead of supporting the effing jihadist groups , Russia wouldn't have needed to get involved. ALSO - and this is the important bit . . . the mass migration into Europe wouldn't have happened.

 

At the core I never said anything else ... B U T!

It is NOT the NATO here, but individual states, which are also by the way a member of NATO!

We have, for example, Turkey with its new old bloody dictator Erdogan at the top. For decades Turkey has been with Syria and the outbreak of the civil war was for Erdogan like Thanks Giving, Christmas and Easter together, if he were a Christian. This gentleman is the main supporter of the Al Nusra (or how they are called now after last name change) and the FSA ... and if you look at the Turkish border to the area controlled by ISIS, the border between England and Wales is more guarded! In return, however, the border to the area which control the Kurds of the YPG (allies of the USA) is secured like the Berlin wall in cold war! Weird, isn't it?
Then we have the USA! Apart from the fact that the ISIS was founded in Iraq in 2006 in reaction and after the criminal US attack on Saddam in 2003 and and both - ISIS and Al Qaeda . did not exist under Saddam in Iraq ... Thank you USA ... Their often depraved stupidity was given in Syria once again by supporting and giving weapons to everyone and everything, if fighting against Assad ... no matter who they are actually. We had had the same thing in Libya as we all know!
And as a great third, the Gulf States must not be forgotten, for Assad was "evil" for them, and since the continual religious dispute between Sunni and Shiite is one of the main points here in Syria and Iraq, some support flowed to Syria and Libya.

 

Maybe, but the thing about dictators is there is always a good reason to uprise against them.

We shouldnt have expected better from the UN but for the Syrian story to end this way is just sad, the uprising may have ceased but its not the end of the tragedy, the Kurds, the refugees, the Russian presence and Iranian presence and the fact the bloody dictator remains seated, will be the source of future conflics and no peace for the Syrian ppl, I expect...

 

Does not changes the fact that he failed to avoid a civil war, enormous amount of deaths among his people, nearly lost the said war, ended up with chunk of population fleeing the country, and in general proved himself to be a disappointment.

Eltzin did plenty of good things too in his time, but this is how he remembered:


When failures outweight achievements - there is only one way for a politician - OUT OF THE DOOR. And if he really-really-really liked by people and deserve mercy and compassion - will, give him a nice summer house and state-sponsored pension so he can live rest of his life without fearing that he will be starving, like do people in country he was president of because of what president he was.


Call me ruthless if you want, but these people are politicians. It's their job to keep people who elected them safe. You do not just forgive the surgeon who fails operation and ends up killing your daughter, or a judge who by a mistake sends your innocent father to death sentence. Some mistakes require more than just good will to forgive - so Assad have to show that he is ready to sacrifice his well being for sake of the country and the people, just like many people had to do during his last presidental term.

 

There is on the one hand some truth in it. On the other hand Jeanette is right, that under Assad's rule Syria was at least once a more or less economically successful country without genocide or systematic ethnic cleansing. I am sure evenmost od the people who startetd the Arab Spring riots would like to turn back time into the pre war situation if they could.

The Russian intervention turned the tables and I am convinced Assad is the lesser of two evils.

 

Now that's a bullshιt. They need a strong and capable president, that's for sure. But one that will come in presidental seat via a legit elections.


...which is a fuсking problem since length of presidental term there is 7 years, it probably is impossible for Assad to rebuild country or even stay in the office until 2021 considering what state country is in.

 

With a few exceptions you have to look for with magnifiers, yes, nearly all fighters against Assad in Syria are djihadist scum.

 

This is quoted for truth. Unfortunately it's correct and misled at the same time. Those jihadists never would have been there except for... the geopolitical gambit set UP by Obama, US state dept and the Saudis and Qatar.. supported by the West since they only know how to follow the US no matter how much trouble we get them into.

The Saudis detest Assad's moderate views and wanted Sharia law there along with profit.. Win win

Qatar wanted just profit mainly but sure let's kill some Christians too that's fun

The US wanted as always more control more profit in the region. And we have a spotless track record for violent regime change. Not a single time should it have been done.

So we and they set the whole thing up and would have worked too except for Russia. My country is run by idiots. Remember for years the US covertly supported the jihadists because it wasn't politically correct. Insert Russia and Assad starts winning and we said fk it we will tell the head chopping jihadists to rename themselves to western media loving names and we will openly support them. To try and save the investment and not to lose face.

It's true. All of it. Opinions like Mandelus is a danger to us all that love freedom. Merkel, Obama, and all the rest of the socialist globalist elite can go jump in a lake. Go Assad! Go Russia! ( on this issue only) and may God bless America and show us the error of our ways.

 

They are djihadists because being Muslims?

 

No, because of actions and methods of theirs. Maybe djihadist is not exactly correct word, but many of syrian rebels were either deliberately violent, or so desperate that they pretty much were taking actions that are not different from djihadists and terrorists.

 

I agree that he's the lesser of two evils which is why I said there's no good guys in Syria.

 

They are juhadists for being djihadists.

 

Is it? Then share your conclusion with the ordinary Iraqi or Syrian or Libyan on their respective 'omnibuses', then ask them if they'd prefer Saddam, Assad, and Ghadaffi be restored to power to what they've got right now, then come back and let me know what they told you. I might not get everything right, mate, but I don't talk bullshit.

 

No, because they're fundamental Islamists who just happen to be Muslims??? If you can spot the difference between an Islamist and a Muslim we'll easily be able to head off global Islam and Sharia, but until then Islamists are Muslims and Muslims are Islamists.

 

As much as I regret it, the Russians were on the right side of history on this one. Regime change has almost always failed, and the West did nothing more than continue to agitate a civil war crisis. With the rebellion suppressed, hopefully the aforementioned political changes you mentioned can happen and Syria can become a prosperous and healthy country.

 

I don't know how - just like Iraq the entire country is a bomb-site.

 

Ehm ...what?

 

When we can exchange the terms to Islam and Islamist instead "Muslim" ... I can deliver you:

"Islamic" means "related to Islam". For example, Islamic faith, Islamic acting, Islamic art, and so on. People are not considered Islamic, but to be Muslim.
It is wrong, however, to refer to members of Islam (Muslims) as "Islamists". It is true that "Islamist" has been a "Islamic scientist" for a long time (Islamology or Islamic Studies is a science taught at several Western universities, dealing with Islam) , And this is spread out daily by the mass media, whereby this often happens very undifferentiated.
"Islamists" are now Muslims, who represent a modernist political ideology - Islamism, according to which already from the Koran and Sunnah (the reports attributed to Muhammad and his companions) a perfect Islamic state in which everything could be derived According to the divine law, the Sharia law. Muslims who adhere to this political conviction call themselves Islamists. There are, however, very different currents in the Islamic world, most of which are rather peaceful methods of transforming the existing (mostly undemocratic) systems in Muslim countries into an Islamic system. In fact, there are also undignified Islamists who advocate a revolution by force, right up to the approval of terrorist methods.

Only, that is the minority of the Muslims, because the majority do not want that.

 

I would be concerned about anybody who thinks the US is the good guy, committing military aggression willy-nilly all over the region, invading countries as it pleases.

 

OK...
But first, we exchange the concept Muslim with Islamic .... What is the difference between Islamic and Islamist?

"Islamic" means "related to Islam". For example, Islamic faith, Islamic religion, Islamic art and so on.
It is wrong, however, to refer to members of Islam to be "Islamists", because people believing this religion are Muslims ... nomatter how hardcore they believe or not. It is true that "Islamist" has long been a "Islamologist" (Islamology or Islamic Studies is a science taught at several universities in the West dealing with Islam to study).
However, the term "Islamist" has been completely different for about 20 years for a negative form and this is spread out daily by the mass media, whereby this often happens very undifferentiated to the terms Islamic and Muslim.

"Islamists" now means Muslims who represent a special political ideology based on Islam - the Islamism, according to which a complete Islamic state can already be derived from the Koran and the Sunnah (the tradition handed down to Muhammad and his companions) In which everything is regulated according to the divine law, the Sharia law.
Muslims who adhere to this political conviction call themselves Islamists.
There are, however, very different currents in the Islamic world, most of which are rather peaceful methods of transforming the existing (mostly undemocratic) systems in Muslim countries into an Islamic system.

In fact, there are also undignified Islamists who advocate a revolution by force, right up to the approval of terrorist methods for what they take the Koran as reason, but often very strange interpretations, often twisted translation and parts taken out of the depending content... as well ignoring other parts of the Koran who oppose them and their acting!

 

Well I guess the big looser is us. Ever notice how all the predictions of what's supposed to take place and the stated goals never actually happen or work out???

 

Not only does Assad get to stay, he might have just finished committing genocide under the guise of civil war.

 

With respect, Mandelus, your posts are difficult enough to interpret textually, without having to interpret oblique and historical definitions too?