Every. Fücking. Time.

[Burney]

Do they draw straws over who gets to write this article every time there's a terrorist atrocity or is it just a question of whose turn it is?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/20/ankara-berlin-terror-islamist-farage-right

[IUFG]

if ever there was a journalistic office that actually deserves a Charlie Hebdo like attack . . .

[World's End Stella]

It's not articles like this in isolation that are the issue, the message from the sexually confused Jones boy is a good one, but one we've heard endless times.

The issue is that the continually unstated fact is that what the Islamic terrorists really fear is the Muslim world rising up against them and rejecting them completely and utterly. Thousands, nay millions, of Muslims around the world filling the streets and openly condemning these animals, imams around the world uniting to use the Koran to condemn these people and their actions as being contrary to Islam, Muslim communities in every country in the world proactively engaging with the authorities to root out the people who create an environment which leads to the radicalisation of Muslims etc etc etc

It's this message which is missing, and it's missing because the Joneses of the world are worried that these things aren't actually possible because Muslim communities around the world don't want them to be.

And then where would Owen and people of his ilk be?

[Sir C]

Do they draw straws over who gets to write this article every time there's a terrorist atrocity or is it just a question of whose turn it is?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/20/ankara-berlin-terror-islamist-farage-right

Jones really is a contemptible, spineless little weasel. Or, to put it another way, a lefty.

[Burney]

It's not articles like this in isolation that are the issue, the message from the sexually confused Jones boy is a good one, but one we've heard endless times.

The issue is that the continually unstated fact is that what the Islamic terrorists really fear is the Muslim world rising up against them and rejecting them completely and utterly. Thousands, nay millions, of Muslims around the world filling the streets and openly condemning these animals, imams around the world uniting to use the Koran to condemn these people and their actions as being contrary to Islam, Muslim communities in every country in the world proactively engaging with the authorities to root out the people who create an environment which leads to the radicalisation of Muslims etc etc etc

It's this message which is missing, and it's missing because the Joneses of the world are worried that these things aren't actually possible because Muslim communities around the world don't want them to be.

And then where would Owen and people of his ilk be?

The message is trite and - as you point out - wholly disingenuous. It also draws a wholly false equivalence between the actual physical threat of Islamic murderers and the perceived ideological threat of the rise of 'far right' (i.e. not centre left) political movements. It suggests in effect that anyone who dares not to adhere to the left-wing liberal consensus is effectively helping Islamic terrorists. That is arrant nonsense designed with one purpose and one purpose alone: to silence dissent.

Jones is and always has been a filthy little cünt.

[Ash]

The message is trite and - as you point out - wholly disingenuous. It also draws a wholly false equivalence between the actual physical threat of Islamic murderers and the perceived ideological threat of the rise of 'far right' (i.e. not centre left) political movements. It suggests in effect that anyone who dares not to adhere to the left-wing liberal consensus is effectively helping Islamic terrorists. That is arrant nonsense designed with one purpose and one purpose alone: to silence dissent.

Jones is and always has been a filthy little cünt.

And I would argue that, as an extension, anyone who dares not adhere to the anti-Russian consensus is similarly intimidated into silence. You wouldn't know, from most coverage of Aleppo here, that there were tens of thousands of armed Islamists in the conflict wishing to cut heads off infidels. Only civilians and Russian bombs, apparently, and anyone challenging that view is a 'Putinist'. :shrug:

[Burney]

And I would argue that, as an extension, anyone who dares not adhere to the anti-Russian consensus is similarly intimidated into silence. You wouldn't know, from most coverage of Aleppo here, that there were tens of thousands of armed Islamists in the conflict wishing to cut heads off infidels. Only civilians and Russian bombs, apparently, and anyone challenging that view is a 'Putinist'. :shrug:

I'm well aware that media bias is at work from both sides. And pointing that out doesn't make anyone a Putinist. What makes someone a Putinist is the pretence that Russia's actions in Syria are any less shabby, amoral and self-serving than anyone else's.

[Sir C]

Do they draw straws over who gets to write this article every time there's a terrorist atrocity or is it just a question of whose turn it is?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/20/ankara-berlin-terror-islamist-farage-right

The boy Jones was taking such a kicking, they've closed the comments :hehe:

[Burney]

The boy Jones was taking such a kicking, they've closed the comments :hehe:

I genuinely have no idea how these people can keep distracting, obfuscating and bloviating like this when the bodies are still warm and not realise why so many people hate them as much as they do.

[redgunamo]

And I would argue that, as an extension, anyone who dares not adhere to the anti-Russian consensus is similarly intimidated into silence. You wouldn't know, from most coverage of Aleppo here, that there were tens of thousands of armed Islamists in the conflict wishing to cut heads off infidels. Only civilians and Russian bombs, apparently, and anyone challenging that view is a 'Putinist'. :shrug:

Not our circus, not our monkeys, innit. Which gives everyone the right to talk even more nonsense on the topic than usual.

[Ash]

I'm well aware that media bias is at work from both sides. And pointing that out doesn't make anyone a Putinist. What makes someone a Putinist is the pretence that Russia's actions in Syria are any less shabby, amoral and self-serving than anyone else's.

Maybe they are, though there is a distinction, I think, in that the government of Syria invited it's ally Russia to help defend itself against foreign-backed insurgents. The US waits for no such invitation. It bombs where it wants.

Who would you rather ran Syria? A secular authoritarian in a suit with some limited local democracy? Or a bunch of fruit-knife wielding, head-chopping barbarians, enslaving women, throwing homosexuals off buildings, and sponsoring terror attacks in Europe? It looks like the US prefers the latter. Unless Donald gets his way, of course.

[World's End Stella]

Who would you rather ran Syria? A secular authoritarian in a suit with some limited local democracy? Or a bunch of fruit-knife wielding, head-chopping barbarians, enslaving women, throwing homosexuals off buildings, and sponsoring terror attacks in Europe? It looks like the US prefers the latter. Unless Donald gets his way, of course.

I thought that the criticism of Obama was that he didn't intervene in support of the Syrian rebels when he should have? The US does seem rather 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' when it comes to the Middle East.

[Ash]

I thought that the criticism of Obama was that he didn't intervene in support of the Syrian rebels when he should have? The US does seem rather 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' when it comes to the Middle East.

You mean after ISIS used the sarin weapons they got from Turkey and pinned on Assad? We did that one the other day. And the 'rebels' in Syria only exist as a fighting force because they are bankrolled and armed by the US and its Saudi and Turkish allies. The war in Syria only exists because of US intervention.

And yes, there is a whole political and media class of laptop bombadiers who seem to get their own sense of purpose in life from demanding military intervention, usually in response to a conflict stoked by their own security services.

[Burney]

Maybe they are, though there is a distinction, I think, in that the government of Syria invited it's ally Russia to help defend itself against foreign-backed insurgents. The US waits for no such invitation. It bombs where it wants.

Who would you rather ran Syria? A secular authoritarian in a suit with some limited local democracy? Or a bunch of fruit-knife wielding, head-chopping barbarians, enslaving women, throwing homosexuals off buildings, and sponsoring terror attacks in Europe? It looks like the US prefers the latter. Unless Donald gets his way, of course.

The Russians took Assad's part because he's a massive customer for their arms and because they wanted a power base to start playing silly buggers in the ME (in no small part to try and exert pressure on the Saudis et al into turning the taps off - Putin's mishandling of the Russian economy having been so absolute that the drop in oil price has been catastrophic for Russia's less than diverse economy). Assad invited them in because he needed their military presence to forestall western intervention and he has - with good reason - no other friends on the international stage.
The whole thing is a shabby, short-term marriage of convenience undertaken for entirely cynical reasons and if you want to believe there are any higher motives to it, then more fool you.
As to who I'd rather ran Syria, I would remind you that your suit-clad, secular authoritarian's brutality and incompetence are major reasons why there are Islamist insurrections against him. He created this mess.

[Monty92]

You mean after ISIS used the sarin weapons they got from Turkey and pinned on Assad? We did that one the other day. And the 'rebels' in Syria only exist as a fighting force because they are bankrolled and armed by the US and its Saudi and Turkish allies. The war in Syria only exists because of US intervention.

And yes, there is a whole political and media class of laptop bombadiers who seem to get their own sense of purpose in life from demanding military intervention, usually in response to a conflict stoked by their own security services.

Heard a speech by the former leader of Hezbollah saying that Assad has been covertly/indirectly arming Isis while targeting rebel groups for the purpose of eventually creating a straight choice for Syrians between being ruled by an Assad government or Isis - based on the fair assumption that they will choose the former.

[Burney]

You mean after ISIS used the sarin weapons they got from Turkey and pinned on Assad? We did that one the other day. And the 'rebels' in Syria only exist as a fighting force because they are bankrolled and armed by the US and its Saudi and Turkish allies. The war in Syria only exists because of US intervention.

And yes, there is a whole political and media class of laptop bombadiers who seem to get their own sense of purpose in life from demanding military intervention, usually in response to a conflict stoked by their own security services.

This Turkey who supplied the sarin? That would be the same Turkey your chum Putin is now cosying up to with a view to reaching a mutual stitch-up and drawing it away from NATO, yes?

The only thing certain in this ghastly, cynical and brutal little conflict is that anyone seeking a good guy to cheer for will be SORELY disappointed.

[Ash]

As to who I'd rather ran Syria, I would remind you that your suit-clad, secular authoritarian's brutality and incompetence are major reasons why there are Islamist insurrections against him. He created this mess.

Much of that brutality was against Islamists and Sectarians, yet he still had (and does) have a lot of popularity. A 2009 poll had him as the most popular leader in the Middle East. The initially peaceful protesters of the domestic opposition did not support armed attacks against the state or the involvement of foreign powers, and many of them (eg SSNP) supported the army (if not the government). There was no external debt and minority rights were guaranteed. Democratic reform was probably on the way after the peaceful protests.

[World's End Stella]

You mean after ISIS used the sarin weapons they got from Turkey and pinned on Assad? We did that one the other day. And the 'rebels' in Syria only exist as a fighting force because they are bankrolled and armed by the US and its Saudi and Turkish allies. The war in Syria only exists because of US intervention.

And yes, there is a whole political and media class of laptop bombadiers who seem to get their own sense of purpose in life from demanding military intervention, usually in response to a conflict stoked by their own security services.

I'm dubious, to say the least. The idea that someone in the US State or Defence departments thought it would be a good idea to destabilise one of the few secular, vaguely democratic countries in the middle east and that Obama than approved that destabilisation and then refused to act when it started going wrong strikes me as rather unlikely, I must say.

[Ash]

This Turkey who supplied the sarin? That would be the same Turkey your chum Putin is now cosying up to with a view to reaching a mutual stitch-up and drawing it away from NATO, yes?

The only thing certain in this ghastly, cynical and brutal little conflict is that anyone seeking a good guy to cheer for will be SORELY disappointed.

This is the same Turkey who is supporting the Islamists including ISIS and Al-Qaeda who Russia is fighting, who shot down a Russian warplane and whose policeman just murdered the Russian ambassador. What mutual stitch-up are you referring to?

[Burney]

Much of that brutality was against Islamists and Sectarians, yet he still had (and does) have a lot of popularity. A 2009 poll had him as the most popular leader in the Middle East. The initially peaceful protesters of the domestic opposition did not support armed attacks against the state or the involvement of foreign powers, and many of them (eg SSNP) supported the army (if not the government). There was no external debt and minority rights were guaranteed. Democratic reform was probably on the way after the peaceful protests.

You're quoting a poll in a dictatorship as evidence? :hehe:

Sorry, a, but it's clear that you've swallowed so much Kool-Aid as to be verging on the irrational.
Listen to yourself, man! You're defending murderous dictators - people who routinely slaughter, imprison and torture their political opponents. In Putin you repeatedly defend an aggressive, authoritarian and expansionist nationalist with a chip on his shoulder whose record of having opponents in politics and the media killed or unjustly imprisoned is shocking.
By all means criticise the West, but when you do so in order to laud people like that, you lose any conceivable credibility. No amount of whataboutery alters these repugnant facts.

[Ash]

I'm dubious, to say the least. The idea that someone in the US State or Defence departments thought it would be a good idea to destabilise one of the few secular, vaguely democratic countries in the middle east and that Obama than approved that destabilisation and then refused to act when it started going wrong strikes me as rather unlikely, I must say.

“We’re going to take out seven countries in 5 years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran” –

General Wesley Clark. Retired 4-star U.S. Army general, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO during the 1999 War on Yugoslavia .

So the timeline slipped a bit but Syria is just one of a shopping list of regime change intentions.

[World's End Stella]

“We’re going to take out seven countries in 5 years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran” –

General Wesley Clark. Retired 4-star U.S. Army general, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO during the 1999 War on Yugoslavia .

So the timeline slipped a bit but Syria is just one of a shopping list of regime change intentions.

That's the evidence you have which leads you to this conclusion?

'The war in Syria only exists because of US intervention'

Seriously?

[Ash]

That's the evidence you have which leads you to this conclusion?

'The war in Syria only exists because of US intervention'

Seriously?

It's just a quote, WES. There's plenty, plenty more if you're interested.

[Ash]

You're quoting a poll in a dictatorship as evidence? :hehe:

No, the source is the University of Maryland.

You jump to false conclusions while mocking me, while the calm facts I laid out to give some perspective about the background to the conflict get ignored and blasted with the usual rhetoric about 'murderous' dictators - as if you give a damn about who is murdered and who isn't (and we both know you don't). Those facts are not to endorse the man's rule, they are to show that the initial peaceful protesters are not the people who took up arms, and that Assad has popular support of about 2/3 of his people.

Here are further sources, including from Assad enemies NATO and Qatar:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Screenshot-504.png

The insurgents/rebels/terrorists are not the initial democracy capaigners. They are mainly Muslim Brotherhood / Salafist / Al Quaeda / ISIS and include many foreign fighters and are backed by foreign countries. And you, perhaps? I can so easily throw that and the Kool-Aid stuff back at you if we are to play that game, though I'd prefer it if we didn't and kept things respectful.