The definitive rugby union forum. Talk to fans from around the world about your favourite team
https://forum.planetrugby.com/
It must be like that fijian democracy!obelixtim wrote:Democratically elected?
The Syrian one party democracy you mean?
When was this election, and who were the other candidates then?
The Russians obviously have a lot to hide here. They're complicit in crimes against humanity at this stage.Oceanbreeze wrote:It's abit late for them anyways given the bombing has already been carried out. They've already been found guilty by the Western non biased intelligent agencies.Bullettyme wrote:The Syrians and the Russians not allowing OPCW inspectors access to the site. Unsurprising really. They probably haven't finished their clean up.
Just a shame we can't read the reports because it's obviously too secret but hey we should take the US and UK governments word for it just like Iraq and Libya.
If we want to go that route I'd say the Syrian regime and its allies have killed more civilians than both combined.Bowens wrote:Well, Daesh and al-Nusra are worse, so....
Globally? No, absolutely not. We can only take the last 15 or so years into account since these groups didn't really exist before then. And they're responsible not only for large scale civilian deaths, but horrible atrocities like mass rapes, ethnic cleansing, and other things that don't need repeating.Bullettyme wrote:If we want to go that route I'd say the Syrian regime and its allies have killed more civilians than both combined.Bowens wrote:Well, Daesh and al-Nusra are worse, so....
You're dead right Bullet, but don't let your narrative get in the way of their stupidity.Bullettyme wrote:If we want to go that route I'd say the Syrian regime and its allies have killed more civilians than both combined.Bowens wrote:Well, Daesh and al-Nusra are worse, so....
Did Theresa say she wanted Assad gone?Bowens wrote:Globally? No, absolutely not. We can only take the last 15 or so years into account since these groups didn't really exist before then. And they're responsible not only for large scale civilian deaths, but horrible atrocities like mass rapes, ethnic cleansing, and other things that don't need repeating.Bullettyme wrote:If we want to go that route I'd say the Syrian regime and its allies have killed more civilians than both combined.Bowens wrote:Well, Daesh and al-Nusra are worse, so....
Anyway, we have seen the consequences of regime change in the Middle East. It's monumentally bad policy.
Share your stats on civilian deaths attributed specifically to Assad's government (not just civilian conflict deaths which can be caused by either side). ISIS killed 5000 in the Sinjar massacre alone ffs. The Syrian regime actually protects their minorities rather than cleanse them. The Christian Syrians I have known are regime supporters.Wendigo7 wrote:You're dead right Bullet, but don't let your narrative get in the way of their stupidity.Bullettyme wrote:If we want to go that route I'd say the Syrian regime and its allies have killed more civilians than both combined.Bowens wrote:Well, Daesh and al-Nusra are worse, so....
If you don't understand that this is an effort by the west-Israel-Saudi to draw Iran into a wider conflict and promote regime change there, I don't know what to tell you. But obviously they want Assad and his secular government gone as well.Wendigo7 wrote:Did Theresa say she wanted Assad gone?Bowens wrote:Globally? No, absolutely not. We can only take the last 15 or so years into account since these groups didn't really exist before then. And they're responsible not only for large scale civilian deaths, but horrible atrocities like mass rapes, ethnic cleansing, and other things that don't need repeating.Bullettyme wrote:If we want to go that route I'd say the Syrian regime and its allies have killed more civilians than both combined.Bowens wrote:Well, Daesh and al-Nusra are worse, so....
Anyway, we have seen the consequences of regime change in the Middle East. It's monumentally bad policy.
No, I don't think so.
No one in the bombing was killed.Bowens wrote:Ok, let's kill more Syrian kids, deny their refugees entry (in the case of the US) and embolden jihadists. Let's see where that gets us.
Bowens wrote:I'm aware no one was killed (Trump and Bolton wanted a much bigger strike BTW). Again, do you think this is a one-off? No, it's designed to provoke a response.
Are we talking globally or within Syria? I agree with you about regime change, however I don't agree that the choice for the Syrians is a binary one of Assad or Jihadists.Bowens wrote:Globally? No, absolutely not. We can only take the last 15 or so years into account since these groups didn't really exist before then. And they're responsible not only for large scale civilian deaths, but horrible atrocities like mass rapes, ethnic cleansing, and other things that don't need repeating.Bullettyme wrote:If we want to go that route I'd say the Syrian regime and its allies have killed more civilians than both combined.Bowens wrote:Well, Daesh and al-Nusra are worse, so....
Anyway, we have seen the consequences of regime change in the Middle East. It's monumentally bad policy.
That's not my intention. Again, I have worked with lots of everyday Syrians and have been humbled by their work ethic and generosity. I don't want their country bombed to rubble. A week ago we were going to leave Assad alone then a chemical attack? Sorry, doesn't wash.bimboman wrote:Bowens wrote:I'm aware no one was killed (Trump and Bolton wanted a much bigger strike BTW). Again, do you think this is a one-off? No, it's designed to provoke a response.
It's absolutely designed to provoke the response of not using bloody chemical weapons. You're clearly ignoring any response that would change your views and come across as a bit of a zealot.
Bowens wrote:That's not my intention. Again, I have worked with lots of everyday Syrians and have been humbled by their work ethic and generosity. I don't want their country bombed to rubble. A week ago we were going to leave Assad alone then a chemical attack? Sorry, doesn't wash.bimboman wrote:Bowens wrote:I'm aware no one was killed (Trump and Bolton wanted a much bigger strike BTW). Again, do you think this is a one-off? No, it's designed to provoke a response.
It's absolutely designed to provoke the response of not using bloody chemical weapons. You're clearly ignoring any response that would change your views and come across as a bit of a zealot.
Exactly. The handful of bombs that the US, UK and France dropped on Syria have reduced their country to rubble. Whereas the thousands that Russia and Syria have dropped have mostl been performing landscape gardening.Bowens wrote:That's not my intention. Again, I have worked with lots of everyday Syrians and have been humbled by their work ethic and generosity. I don't want their country bombed to rubble. A week ago we were going to leave Assad alone then a chemical attack? Sorry, doesn't wash.bimboman wrote:Bowens wrote:I'm aware no one was killed (Trump and Bolton wanted a much bigger strike BTW). Again, do you think this is a one-off? No, it's designed to provoke a response.
It's absolutely designed to provoke the response of not using bloody chemical weapons. You're clearly ignoring any response that would change your views and come across as a bit of a zealot.
That's a pretty disingenuous take. This is the beginning in my view, I clarified that several times above. No war with Syria. No war with Iran. Assad killing head-choppers is fine by me.A5D5E5 wrote:Exactly. The handful of bombs that the US, UK and France dropped on Syria have reduced their country to rubble. Whereas the thousands that Russia and Syria have dropped have mostl been performing landscape gardening.Bowens wrote:That's not my intention. Again, I have worked with lots of everyday Syrians and have been humbled by their work ethic and generosity. I don't want their country bombed to rubble. A week ago we were going to leave Assad alone then a chemical attack? Sorry, doesn't wash.bimboman wrote:Bowens wrote:I'm aware no one was killed (Trump and Bolton wanted a much bigger strike BTW). Again, do you think this is a one-off? No, it's designed to provoke a response.
It's absolutely designed to provoke the response of not using bloody chemical weapons. You're clearly ignoring any response that would change your views and come across as a bit of a zealot.
Yeah they've demonstrated a big start by phoning through their intentions and sending missles to a few warehouses, nothing says war than that type of limited demonstration ...That's a pretty disingenuous take. This is the beginning in my view, I clarified that several times above. No war with Syria. No war with Iran. Assad killing head-choppers is fine by me.
Bowens wrote:Trump and Bolton wanted a bigger strike. Just repeating myself now.
Bowens wrote:First link I grabbed. There are more if you need further convincing.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-seek ... 1523651589
Bobless wrote:For those dismissive of the atrocities committed by the Assad regime as killing "head choppers" this https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016 ... es-exposed is a good read, by good I mean horrifying, about what has been going on and the efforts to document the regime's crimes.
It's a couple of years old but I doubt things have got much better.
Bowens wrote:Anything from the WH that they had internal disagreements? No, of course not.
His opinion is framed by his view of Trump.bimboman wrote:Bowens wrote:Anything from the WH that they had internal disagreements? No, of course not.
So your opinion is framed entirely by his critics ?
Wendigo7 wrote:His opinion is framed by his view of Trump.bimboman wrote:Bowens wrote:Anything from the WH that they had internal disagreements? No, of course not.
So your opinion is framed entirely by his critics ?
Trump's not great but I really hope his view of syria isn't because of him etc etc.
Seneca of the Night wrote:I think what will be dawning surely now on much of the American people is that they don't have a scintilla of control over the foreign policy of the country, and no matter what they do, it seems to go the same way.
It's extremely difficult to assess with any degree of accuracy what Trump's motives are, but I still hold out hope that this is a sharp triangulation manoevre to shake the Russia hawks from his tail for a moment. He appears to be in full deal mode now.
But he now needs to zag back sharply to his base. At some stage down the line (post Trump) you wonder if a General isn't going to seize control of this situation and take the armed forces back for the American people, as there seems to be a very deep disconnect between what the people want (and who man the forces) and the wars they are deployed for.
goose81 wrote:Its pretty clear Putin's plan is to cause carnage in Syria to absolutely flood Europe with Refugees from the ME along with African opportunists to cause internal conflicts and destabilise Europe, hes doing a damn good job tbf
Syria must have had the highest concentration of women and children "head choppers" anywhere in the world. Perhaps he should be given a small award for his contribution to ridding the world from the tyranny of 3 year olds.Bowens wrote:That's a pretty disingenuous take. This is the beginning in my view, I clarified that several times above. No war with Syria. No war with Iran. Assad killing head-choppers is fine by me.A5D5E5 wrote:Exactly. The handful of bombs that the US, UK and France dropped on Syria have reduced their country to rubble. Whereas the thousands that Russia and Syria have dropped have mostl been performing landscape gardening.Bowens wrote:That's not my intention. Again, I have worked with lots of everyday Syrians and have been humbled by their work ethic and generosity. I don't want their country bombed to rubble. A week ago we were going to leave Assad alone then a chemical attack? Sorry, doesn't wash.bimboman wrote:Bowens wrote:I'm aware no one was killed (Trump and Bolton wanted a much bigger strike BTW). Again, do you think this is a one-off? No, it's designed to provoke a response.
It's absolutely designed to provoke the response of not using bloody chemical weapons. You're clearly ignoring any response that would change your views and come across as a bit of a zealot.
And there we have it. Another guy who thinks he's better than people. But by all means, go into a working man's bar in Chicago or St Louis and try that shtick.bimboman wrote:You think the complexity of US foreign policy should be controlled by stupid people living 1,000 km from even an ocean let alone a foreign country ?
bimboman wrote:Seneca of the Night wrote:I think what will be dawning surely now on much of the American people is that they don't have a scintilla of control over the foreign policy of the country, and no matter what they do, it seems to go the same way.
It's extremely difficult to assess with any degree of accuracy what Trump's motives are, but I still hold out hope that this is a sharp triangulation manoevre to shake the Russia hawks from his tail for a moment. He appears to be in full deal mode now.
But he now needs to zag back sharply to his base. At some stage down the line (post Trump) you wonder if a General isn't going to seize control of this situation and take the armed forces back for the American people, as there seems to be a very deep disconnect between what the people want (and who man the forces) and the wars they are deployed for.
You think the complexity of US foreign policy should be controlled by stupid people living 1,000 km from even an ocean let alone a foreign country ?
This is kind of a throwaway line. Did you have something more to say? Any stats to corroborate that he is a butcher of women and children worse than the scum who sold tens of thousands of Yazidi girls into slavery after butchering (literally) their brothers and fathers?A5D5E5 wrote:Syria must have had the highest concentration of women and children "head choppers" anywhere in the world. Perhaps he should be given a small award for his contribution to ridding the world from the tyranny of 3 year olds.Bowens wrote:That's a pretty disingenuous take. This is the beginning in my view, I clarified that several times above. No war with Syria. No war with Iran. Assad killing head-choppers is fine by me.A5D5E5 wrote:Exactly. The handful of bombs that the US, UK and France dropped on Syria have reduced their country to rubble. Whereas the thousands that Russia and Syria have dropped have mostl been performing landscape gardening.Bowens wrote:That's not my intention. Again, I have worked with lots of everyday Syrians and have been humbled by their work ethic and generosity. I don't want their country bombed to rubble. A week ago we were going to leave Assad alone then a chemical attack? Sorry, doesn't wash.bimboman wrote:It's absolutely designed to provoke the response of not using bloody chemical weapons. You're clearly ignoring any response that would change your views and come across as a bit of a zealot.
What other reason could he possibly have to keep propping up the regime, the only result has been condemnation and poor refugees fleeing the place causing huge rows between European governments..Wilson's Toffee wrote:goose81 wrote:Its pretty clear Putin's plan is to cause carnage in Syria to absolutely flood Europe with Refugees from the ME along with African opportunists to cause internal conflicts and destabilise Europe, hes doing a damn good job tbf
Jesus. A new madness ...
That's a pretty gross misunderstanding, or misrepresentation of what has been going on in Syria.Bowens wrote: That's a pretty disingenuous take. This is the beginning in my view, I clarified that several times above. No war with Syria. No war with Iran. Assad killing head-choppers is fine by me.