[tony20009]

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.

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.

[dar2008]

Originally Posted by tony20009

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?.

I've seen interviews with him on television and he comes across as a 'normal' guy (whatever 'normal' is) - but then I suppose he may be just the smiling front man of a evil dynasty.

From what I've read and seen, I don't know if he's benevolent or not, so any view I take can only be my opinion and so would have to be caveated as such - you made no such caveat, just stated as 'fact' that he is not benevolent, rather than adding an (in my view) appropriate IMO...

But really we're just splitting hairs and I don't think it's helpful to healthy respectful debate to say things like "you seemed incapable of answering the question the first time", umm.

Originally Posted by tony20009

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

Well even though I disguised my question very well (unintentionally it has to be said), you did answer it, thankyou, by saying that no perfect government exists in practise...

[mob17]

Jewish "groups" detain 50 muslim worshippers in mosque: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middle...212153293.html

If only it was the other way round, muslim groups (terrorists they would call them) stormed a jewish site, it would be ALL OVER the media saying Al Quaeda strikes again!

A UN rights group report on the torture and abuse of CHILDREN. Yes children held and tortured, sometimes sexually, in Israeli jails. Again if this was Assad or any other muslim leader this would be all over the media:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middle...613601306.html

Make your own conclusions people.

[phil200tdi]

Assad is indiscriminantly killing, detaining and forcing out Sunni muslims. It is all over the media - you cant go on any world news site without seeing this.

The link you posted about Muslims being detained appeared to be stating that the military cordoned off the mosque due to Far Right Jewish attacks on the building - i.e. they were there to protect the mosque and its inhabitants. Ultimately, I dont really see what Israel has to do with the conflict in Syria - I doubt they are backing either side to win and in all probability couldnt give a monkeys.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by dar2008

I've seen interviews with him on television and he comes across as a 'normal' guy (whatever 'normal' is) - but then I suppose he may be just the smiling front man of a evil dynasty.

From what I've read and seen, I don't know if he's benevolent or not, so any view I take can only be my opinion and so would have to be caveated as such - you made no such caveat, just stated as 'fact' that he is not benevolent, rather than adding an (in my view) appropriate IMO...

Well, obviously, what I'm stating is "fact" until someone can come up with a credible argument to refute it. That someone could be you; it could be me. I don't care who shows it to be wrong and I'm more that willing to believe a new "fact" if there's credible case to do so. What would it take for me to alter my conclusion? One or more new facts (relevant to Assad) that refute the premises supporting my argument so as to cast doubt on the matter.

I believe OJ Simpson murdered his ex wife, but the criminal case jury didn't think so. The fact is that the woman died due to stab wounds. The defense made the case that the facts don't incontrovertibly point to OJ Simpson as the person who stabbed her. The prosecution failed to make a solid enough case that he did. My assertion that Assad is not benevolent is supported by the same general sort logical reasoning. Of course I don't know the man, but based on what I've read about him that is factual, my conclusion is that he is not a benevolent dictator. Perhaps were there fewer, less clear cut facts, I might conclude differently.

So, you say you don't know. OK. Would you say you need more facts than the ones I've presented in order for you to feel confident in saying he's not benevolent? If so, what additional facts would you need? Just where does your burden of proof lie? Is ti possible for you to know/accept any conclusion that must be arrived by inductive reasoning?

Originally Posted by dar2008

But really we're just splitting hairs and I don't think it's helpful to healthy respectful debate to say things like "you seemed incapable of answering the question the first time", umm.

OK...so I wasn't trying to insult you. If you felt insulted, apologies. But clearly there was some reason you didn't answer it.

Well even though I disguised my question very well (unintentionally it has to be said), you did answer it, thankyou, by saying that no perfect government exists in practise...[/quote]

Of course I will say that. The facts show it to be true. Just as the facts show Assad to be non-benevolent.

[mob17]

Originally Posted by phil200tdi

Assad is indiscriminantly killing, detaining and forcing out Sunni muslims. It is all over the media - you cant go on any world news site without seeing this.

The link you posted about Muslims being detained appeared to be stating that the military cordoned off the mosque due to Far Right Jewish attacks on the building - i.e. they were there to protect the mosque and its inhabitants. Ultimately, I dont really see what Israel has to do with the conflict in Syria - I doubt they are backing either side to win and in all probability couldnt give a monkeys.

My point was phil that fucked up shit is happening in Israel and the whole world is sitting by. Then how can anyone say the US is going in for moral reasons into Syria, if they let the above happen, moreover fund them? Please explain how the US has suddenly found a high horse.

My other point was if it was muslims then this would be front page news. As its Jewish Groups, its not even reported.

Just a little amendment to your post to get people thinking:

Israel is indiscriminantly killing, detaining and forcing out Palestinians. It is not all over the media.

Plus detaining, sexually abusing and torturing Palestinian CHILDREN. If thats not a serious humanitarian issue then i don't know what is!

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by mob17

My point was phil that fucked up shit is happening in Israel and the whole world is sitting by. Then how can anyone say the US is going in for moral reasons into Syria, if they let the above happen, moreover fund them? Please explain how the US has suddenly found a high horse.

....

Well if it's not for a moral reason, what reason would there be in the case of Syria? Just what has the US to gain from aiding either side there?

It's not for Israel's sake. Israel has shown repeatedly that it can hold its own in the region. It's not, like it was in Iraq, for something having to do with oil and profits related to oil. It's not because the US wants the land. It's not revenge for some earlier transgression for were that so, Assad's father would have been dead much sooner than he died. Indeed, I can only think of one plausible reason why the US or anyone else would give two cents about Assad's having used chemical weapons, but it's a bit far fetched.

[Sportplus]

After reading this thread it's become apparent that everybody is reading a lot of stuff and copying and pasting extracts from different internet sources.

The problem now lies with the fact forum members are reading second hand possible third hand accounts of what actually happened from journalists who are well known for (I'll be kind) exaggerating the truth a little.

I would be as well finding an article from The Sunday Sport (Google it) and attaching it to this post.

My Dad worked as a journalist for over 30 years and I spent a couple of years working as a copy boy for a national newspaper. I sat next to the Lawyer who they employed to read the "dodgy articals" before they ever made it to print just to make sure they could get away with the BS.

I'm not for one second agreeing with what’s happened in Syria or the rest of the Middle East, if I'm honest the west is only interested in controlling the flow of oil. The only way to do this is to control the local governments. Is it best to keep them infighting with each other instead of them all focusing on the outside????

[phil200tdi]

Originally Posted by mob17

My point was phil that fucked up shit is happening in Israel and the whole world is sitting by. Then how can anyone say the US is going in for moral reasons into Syria, if they let the above happen, moreover fund them? Please explain how the US has suddenly found a high horse.

My other point was if it was muslims then this would be front page news. As its Jewish Groups, its not even reported.

Just a little amendment to your post to get people thinking:

Israel is indiscriminantly killing, detaining and forcing out Palestinians. It is not all over the media.

Plus detaining, sexually abusing and torturing Palestinian CHILDREN. If thats not a serious humanitarian issue then i don't know what is!

We agree that Israel is a fucked up country and doesnt have the best human rights record. But fucked up shit happens everywhere day in and day out.. China is a hundred times worse than Israel and Russia aint far behind on the human rights abuse front.

The situation in Israel is not as clear as you like to portray with Israel as the aggressor and the Muslim communities as punished and submissive. Lots of shit has been happening for too many years for Israel to take a lax attitude to security.. The kids you mention in the article were arrested for attacking and throwing stones at Jewish communities. They were beaten up, blindfolded and detained. Outside of the liberal western world, this type of abuse is rife within policing - Pakistan and India are no better (I've seen it) and even the USA aint got a great record here. There are no confirmed reports of sexual abuse - it says the police threatened detainees with death and sexual abuse.

Peace talks have been ongoing in Israel for years, most people want peace. It is the radicals who make the situation so difficult with regular terrorist attacks - leading to Israeli crackdowns and vengence attacks from Jewish groups. I.e. same shit to any other country with ethnic tensions - Iraq, much of Africa etc. Pretty small scale in Israel though - 6,000 deaths since 2000 on both sides. Syria is genocide by comparison.

Lets keep this about Syria and not your personal concerns about the plight of the Palestinians - start a new thread if this interests you.

[mob17]

Oh sorry phil the poor kids were "threatened" with sexual abuse. My bad!

And its not the "radicals". Its real human beings who are being kicked out of their homes by illegal jewish settlements. You think people are just going to let that happen?

My whole point of introducing Israel is nothing personal. Its a neutral look. All i'm trying to say is that on one hand the US is going into Syria due to one chemical weapons attack. On the other, Israel are causing far worse humanitarian issues. Stealing land, kicking families out, detaining and abusing children, firing white phosphorous grenades into one of the most densely populated places on the planet. Isn't this far more important than Syria?

The point is they are much worse than the alleged crimes of Assad. You just have to have one look at the image below. Its clear what the goal is.

[quattrogmbh]

Originally Posted by mob17

My whole point of introducing Israel is nothing personal. Its a neutral look.

Of course it is LOL.. Your "neutral" look just happens to include "Palestinian loss of land"
not really neutral is it. Nor is it directly related to the issue in Syria, apart from being perhaps a useful illustration of what may happen in Syria if the rebels are equipped to overthrow the existing government.

[mob17]

Originally Posted by quattrogmbh

Of course it is LOL.. Your "neutral" look just happens to include "Palestinian loss of land"
not really neutral is it. Nor is it directly related to the issue in Syria, apart from being perhaps a useful illustration of what may happen in Syria if the rebels are equipped to overthrow the existing government.

Whats so biased about mentioning that the Palestinians are losing land? Sorry I didn't realise that was acceptable and the norm in this day and age.

[confused.com]

Originally Posted by quattrogmbh

Of course it is LOL.. Your "neutral" look just happens to include "Palestinian loss of land"
not really neutral is it. Nor is it directly related to the issue in Syria, apart from being perhaps a useful illustration of what may happen in Syria if the rebels are equipped to overthrow the existing government.

I Lol'd too!!!

[mob17]

Good for you.

Guantanomo closing i hear you say? Ever heard of this prison? http://www.aljazeera.com/focus/2009/...114632353.html

[confused.com]

Al Jazeera is an Arab owned broadcaster, are you seriously going to keep quoting them for 'facts' about atrocities against Muslims across the world? I don't think this forum is the place to air your views on the hardship Muslims face and the crimes the US and Israel commit against them. This thread was about Syria, you've completely de-railed it with your 'neutral' look at everything other than the topic at hand. Well done. The floor is all yours again.....

[mob17]

Originally Posted by confused.com

Al Jazeera is an Arab owned broadcaster, are you seriously going to keep quoting them for 'facts' about atrocities against Muslims across the world? I don't think this forum is the place to air your views on the hardship Muslims face and the crimes the US and Israel commit against them. This thread was about Syria, you've completely de-railed it with your 'neutral' look at everything other than the topic at hand. Well done. The floor is all yours again.....

So what if its arab? Are you saying that prison does not exist and Al Jazeera simply made it up? Its a news broadcaster. So whats better, the news broadcasters that hack into peoples phones? Its not about what hardships muslims face, its about whats happening and not being reported in our media. Do you not get it?

Try and disprove any of the Al Jazeera stories if you can. Where's the lies in them? I seriously thought we had some decent intelligent people on this forum. Maybe they are just staying out of this and letting people like you get involved.

And the situation is Israel/Guantanomo IS related to the proposed US action in Syria. Its to show how hypocritical and credible the US are. It shows us the nation that we have come to trust.

[mob17]

Specially for you confused.com since you insisted: http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2...he-making?lite

Thats NBC if you didn't realise.

Edit: Thought i'd add i've got nothing against the Israeli people. They are just as innocent as the palestinians. In fact there are Israelis protesting on what is going on. Jews and Arabs lived together fine before. Its the Israeli and US Government thats dividing citizens and conquering. I'm positive the average Jew and average Muslim want the same thing, justice for all and a stop to the Israeli military crusade.

[simmo1985]

[dar2008]

6000 deaths in the battle between Israel and Palestine since 2000? Not far off, here's the actual figures - At least 1,104 Israelis and 6,829 Palestinians have been killed since September 29, 2000, that's a ratio of nearly 7 to 1 in this war. Of the 6,829 Palestinians, 1,519 were children and approximately 3,800 were civilians.

The taking of land by Israeli's is an illegal act in international law, yet the US continues to 'allow' their friend to do it.

Al Jazeera TV has as much right to exist and be referenced as the BBC or NBC or whatever your news service of choice happens to be! If you've never watched a bit of Al Jazeera news channel on Sky, I suggest you give it 5minutes of your time - it doesn't follow the news agenda of western news channels and therefore provides a sometimes interesting balance.

Trusting what the media (any media) reports to us as 'facts' should always be open to question. US media watchdog FAIR - Fairness and Accurary in Reporting - make the comment that when a foreign government is in favour with the US, with the White House, it's human rights record is basically off the mainstream media agenda, and when they do something that puts them out of favour with the US government, the foreign government's human rights abuses are, all of a sudden, major news.

[Cyprio]

Originally Posted by mob17

(They touch prisoners' cocks in Guantanomo Bay)

And you call ME stupid and imature!
Yuo seem to have an unhealthy obsession with male genitalia my friend.

Originally Posted by dar2008

6000 deaths in the battle between Israel and Palestine since 2000? Not far off, here's the actual figures - At least 1,104 Israelis and 6,829 Palestinians have been killed since September 29, 2000, that's a ratio of nearly 7 to 1 in this war. Of the 6,829 Palestinians, 1,519 were children and approximately 3,800 were civilians.

The taking of land by Israeli's is an illegal act in international law, yet the US continues to 'allow' their friend to do it.

Al Jazeera TV has as much right to exist and be referenced as the BBC or NBC or whatever your news service of choice happens to be! If you've never watched a bit of Al Jazeera news channel on Sky, I suggest you give it 5minutes of your time - it doesn't follow the news agenda of western news channels and therefore provides a sometimes interesting balance.

Trusting what the media (any media) reports to us as 'facts' should always be open to question. US media watchdog FAIR - Fairness and Accurary in Reporting - make the comment that when a foreign government is in favour with the US, with the White House, it's human rights record is basically off the mainstream media agenda, and when they do something that puts them out of favour with the US government, the foreign government's human rights abuses are, all of a sudden, major news.

OH PLEASE!
For those who don't know, Al jazeera is a Qatar owned anti American; anti Semetic network. It is a propaganda outfit for the middle eastern autocrats; it is funded by petro-dollars that come from Qatar and the UAE, and most concerningly it props-up the fundamentalists of the middle east.

The 'traitor' Al Gore sold his failed network to Al jazeera and it looks like he's also passed on his legacy.

http://dev.arabianbusiness.com/al-ja...re-515823.html

[dar2008]

Originally Posted by Cyprio

OH PLEASE!
For those who don't know, Al jazeera is a Qatar owned anti American; anti Semetic network. It is a propaganda outfit for the middle eastern autocrats; it is funded by petro-dollars that come from Qatar and the UAE, and most concerningly it props-up the fundamentalists of the middle east.

The 'traitor' Al Gore sold his failed network to Al jazeera and it looks like he's also passed on his legacy.

http://dev.arabianbusiness.com/al-ja...re-515823.html

Well that's certainly a considered point of view - do you genuinely believe that western news agencies and the media in general are not a 'propaganda outfit for western autocrats'?

If so, I suggest a read of this book,...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/NEWSPEAK-21s.../dp/0745328938

...I'm half-way through and been quite disturbed by what I've been reading.

Wrongly Al Jazeera = Al Quaeda in many western eyes,... if only they could have come up with a better name!

[quattrogmbh]

As we're quoting a diverse range of news sources, how about this one?

http://www.timesofisrael.com/obama-s...s-truly-alone/