Putin bogging down in Syria...like Obama said he would.

[StLucieBengal]

(12-15-2015, 02:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Uh, wasn't Assad in power when all this killing in Syria started?

It makes no sense to claim if we keep him in power the killing will end.  His being in power is what started the killing there.

Or are you suggesting that the US actually help Assad kill the rebels who oppose him.  .  .  .  .  in order to end the killing?

No I think the US should get out and let the chips fall where they fall.

The reason Assad is a better option now is that he at least runs a secular government. Yes he is a bad person. But at least he will not start slaughtering people because they are not his religion.

The region doesn't need anymore countries on fire.

[Benton]

(12-15-2015, 09:31 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: .  But at least he will not start slaughtering people because they are not his religion.  

The region doesn't need anymore countries on fire.

you might want to read up on it more. It's just another shia vs Sunni conflict. He is slaughtering people because they aren't his Muslim.

[StLucieBengal]

(12-15-2015, 10:45 PM)Benton Wrote: you might want to read up on it more. It's just another shia vs Sunni conflict. He is slaughtering people because they aren't his Muslim.

Never said he was ideal. Just better than what they will elect. Just as Mubarek was Better than the Muslim brotherhood on Egypt.

I know Assad is a killer. But so will be the democratically elected Islamic leader they choose.

[Benton]

(12-16-2015, 12:02 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Never said he was ideal.   Just better than what they will elect.   Just as Mubarek was Better than the Muslim brotherhood on Egypt.  

I know Assad is a killer.  But so will be the democratically elected Islamic leader they choose.

No, you said he isn't slaughtering people because they aren't his religion... which is exactly what he's doing.

You can go on about Secretariat all you like, but it's the wrong horse race if you're saying Assad wasn't killing people because they weren't his kind of Muslim. 

[StLucieBengal]

(12-16-2015, 12:56 AM)Benton Wrote: No, you said he isn't slaughtering people because they aren't his religion... which is exactly what he's doing.

You can go on about Secretariat all you like, but it's the wrong horse race if you're saying Assad wasn't killing people because they weren't his kind of Muslim. 

Dictators kill people. But was Egypt better off with Mubarek or with the democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood?

No matter how bad these dictators are they still run a secular government.

And was Assad killing them for opposing him or just because of their religion? Because the MB was killing, raping their way through anyone not Islamic. Killing an opposition is par for the course for an authoritarian dictator. Now when he starts rounding up any Muslim who isn't his brand then come on back to me and I will be reconsidering my position.

[BmorePat87]

(12-15-2015, 01:58 AM)StLucieBengal (I swear I am a Libertarian) Wrote: Guys we need more authoritarian governments to keep the peace.

lulz

[Benton]

(12-16-2015, 01:02 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote:  
No matter how bad these dictators are they still run a secular government.  

And was Assad killing them for opposing him or just because of their religion?  Because the MB was killing, raping their way through anyone not Islamic.   Killing an opposition is par for the course for an authoritarian dictator.   Now when he starts rounding up any Muslim who isn't his brand then come on back to me and I will be reconsidering my position.

To the bold, it's not if they're only killing someone of a different religion.

As far as the rest, it's he said she said. Assad said it has nothing to do with religion... but he's not killing his own. Or ISIS's Wahabbists. So, since he is rounding up any Muslim who isn't his brand, are you reconsidering?

Quote:What started as a democratic uprising has now become an overtly sectarian conflict in which civilians are targeted for atrocities based upon their religious and ethnic identity. Members of Syria’s Sunni Muslim majority are bearing the brunt of the Syrian government’s massive campaign of crimes against humanity and war crimes, while some of the forces opposing the regime have committed abuses and atrocities against members of Syria’s religious and ethnic minorities.

http://www.ushmm.org/confront-genocide/cases/syria

Quote:The war in Syria did not begin as a sectarian conflict, Hof writes, but it has rapidly devolved into one. President Assad bears principal responsibility by enlisting soldiers and thugs drawn from his minority Alawite sect to terrorize mostly Sunni towns and cities. In recent months, armed opponents of the regime have embraced a stronger Sunni identity, with growing ranks of Islamist fighters, including some who claim association with Al Qaeda.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/does-syria-face-a-genocidal-future/

[Rotobeast]

(12-15-2015, 01:58 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I know I am.... Wish it didn't have to be this way...  Last time we let them have a go.... We got all the killing in Egypt.   For now.... Assad is needed because the region is already on fire.   No need to throw more gasoline on it ...  

Just don't think they are ready to live that way peacefully.

Assad crossed the red line !

He must be removed..........

eventually.........

by someone not named Barry.

[fredtoast]

(12-16-2015, 01:02 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Dictators kill people.   But was Egypt better off with Mubarek or with the democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood?  

Why do you act like the MB still runs Egypt?  They are better off now with neither.  

Do you honestly think Egypt would be better off with Mubarek still running it?