Quote:
Originally Posted by dar2008
Tony, that's a good detailed list, but I ask you, there is no 'perfect' government or state in the world - one doesn't exist. For much of your list above, I could substitute the name Assad for a lot of western leaders and the name Syria for a lot of western countries,...
- Assad promised human rights reform, not much has changed he took office.
Guantanamo Bay still holds prisoners despite Obama promising to close it down.
It will hold prisoners until it is closed. Obama is still trying to get it closed. I discussed that earlier in this thread, so at a minimum, it's premature to say that Obama's promise to close it has been ignored. Can you cite any significant instances where Assad's promises of human rights reform have been upheld?
I would offer too that the central point of my argument is that Assad is not a benevolent dictator. Accordingly, minimally, to be a benevolent dictator, one would have to be at least kind to the bulk of one's fellow citizens. Regardless of how many American citizens have been held at G. Bay, one can hardly call the President a dictator.
- He successfully suppressed internal dissension.
Surely all governments do that to a lesser or greater extent.
If you believe that, please provide some evidence that it's occurred in a modern Western democracy.
- In 2006, he expanded the use of travel bans against dissidents, preventing many from entering or leaving the country.
Travel bans are quite normal in western society.
In what Western democracy is travel banned expressly for domestic or foreign dissidents? It's one thing to prevent foreign nationals from freely entering a country. It's altogether another to prevent one's own citizens from leaving.
- In 2007, the Syrian Parliament passed a law requiring all comments on chat forums to be posted publicly.
- In 2008, and again in 2011, social media sites such as YouTube and Facebook were blocked.
Ok, so the US lets its citizens believe they are posting anonymously but secretly spies them anyway.
I don't see what your point has to do with the events I cited for 2008.
- Human rights groups have reported that political opponents of Bashar al-Assad are routinely tortured, imprisoned and killed.
Bradley (Chelsea) Manning?
And you cite one case out of 300+ million citizens. That hardly compares, regardless how heinous the action. Moreover, it doesn't refute my assertion that Assad is not a benevolent dictator.
- In the Fall of 2011, many countries called for President Bashar al-Assad's resignation and the Arab League suspended Syria.
I suspect the Arab League is thought of in Syria the same way the US thinks of the United Nations
I don't know what Syria thinks of the Arab League. I know that the UN hasn't tossed the US out. The US and its President have not been pressured by the UN to do anything on behalf of it's own citizens. Again, regardless of what Syria thinks of the Arab League, it has nothing to do with my central point. That Assad's actions forced an organization of which Syria was a member to cast that country out says the man could not have been just a nice man, leading a kind regime that was in any way fair to its people.
- In January 2012, the Reuters News Agency reported that more than 5,000 civilians had been killed by the Syrian militia
On searching, I found this quote, "The UN estimates more than 5,000 Syrians have been killed in the past 10 months."
Not welcome at all, but as I stated previously, they are in a civil war and in wars people usually get killed. Of the 5,000 people killed, some of these will have been at the hands of the opposition - it's not all one-way. |
Yes, it's a civil war. Why is there a civil war at all? Common people don't rise up and take arms as a first option.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dar2008
Tony, that's a good detailed list, but I ask you, there is no 'perfect' government or state in the world - one doesn't exist. For much of your list above, I could substitute the name Assad for a lot of western leaders and the name Syria for a lot of western countries,...
|
No, there is no such thing as a perfect government. Well, actually, there is such a thing; it just doesn't and hasn't ever existed, nor will it so long as competition for resources exists.
You could conceivably replace Assad's name with some modern democratic western leader's name. I suspect for every instance in which you might do so, however, the scope of the transgression would come nowhere near what Assad has done. However, even if you did (and found comparably scaled examples), as a refutation of my claim that Assad is not a benevolent dictator, it would be worthless. That someone else may have done the same things has zero bearing on Assad's character traits.
The comments you made above suffer the same logical fallacy: they have nothing to do with whether Assad is not a benevolent dictator. I have not once said that other leaders have not at one time or another said that the leaders of Western democracies have not committed some despicable acts of their own, yet that seems to be the case you are making. Remember, you are the one who chose to question my claim that Assad is not benevolent. I've defended my claim and seen no relevant points that weaken it.
Lastly, I'll ask you again, since you seemed incapable of answering the question the first time: Based on what you've read about Assad, do you think he's benevolent?
Note: what is the question you wanted to ask me? You said "let me ask you" and then asked no question. I don't mind if you really had no question, but I want to be fair and respond to one you had in mind and perhaps forgot to type it or perhaps lost it during a revision of your post.