The current refugee wave in Europe

[Bartimaeus]

well it survived till later (part of wiki quote):

 

Paganism was made illegal by an edict of the Emperor Theodosius I in AD 391. The temples of Alexandria were closed by Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria in AD 391.^%5B32%5D The historian Socrates of Constantinople describes that all pagan temples in Alexandria were destroyed, including the Serapeum.^%5B34%5D Since the Serapeum housed a part of the Great Library, some scholars believe that the remains of the Library of Alexandria were destroyed at this time.^{%5B32%5D%5B35%5D} However, it is not known how many, if any, books were contained in it at the time of destruction, and contemporary scholars do not mention the library directly.^{%5B36%5D%5B37%5D}

In AD 642, Alexandria was captured by the Muslim army of Amr ibn al `Aas. Several later Arabic sources describe the library's destruction by the order of Caliph Omar.^{%5B38%5D%5B39%5D}Bar-Hebraeus, writing in the 13th century, quotes Omar as saying to Yaḥyā al-Naḥwī: "If those books are in agreement with the Quran, we have no need of them; and if these are opposed to the Quran, destroy them."^%5B40%5D Later scholars are skeptical of these stories, given the range of time that had passed before they were written down and the political motivations of the various writers.^{%5B41%5D%5B42%5D%5B43%5D%5B44%5D%5B45%5D}

Not exactly the strongest condemnation of Christianity there, with all those uncertainities: I'd suggest using the Crusades as examples of acts of barbarism by Christianity if that's what you're looking for, particularly (in my opinion) the Fourth Crusade, which actually did lead to the destruction of the Imperial (Great) Library of Constantinople...among other atrocities, such as besieging and slaughtering their fellow Christians in the name of greed.

Edited September 11, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[Darkpriest]

 

BTW, leave them alone and they will be busy with themselves:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/al-qaeda-leader-al-zawahiri-declares-war-isis-151231254--abc-news-topstories.html

The issue is the West cant allow genocide of innocents, like why the USA went back into Iraq last year to save the Yazidis who were about to wiped out by ISIS. So even though it may seem reasonable and logical what you are saying there is this humanitarian precedent that in most cases the West wont ignore and I support this 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/09/yazidis-trapped-mountaintop_n_5664857.html

 

 

why? it is their domestic trouble... let them deal with it in their way... perhaps they need something like that in order to evolve their society... Look at what two big world wars did to Europe... suddenly the notion that perhaps working together is better than  constant warring for riches, land and influence...

 

It was less than 100 years ago and if yo would look at EU you would see a lot of nations being ready to go to war with each other over various little things...

[Darkpriest]

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-calls-other-nations-help-arm-syrian-government-104328976.html

 

meanwhile Russia starts to get involved more there in response to US/EU arming rebels...

 

That's why we should never get involved there in the first place, now we will start getting proxy wars and the only ones who will suffer will be the ones which were most interested in getting better, civilian regular populace.

Edited September 11, 2015 by Darkpriest

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

This makes me so sad: stood for 2000 years and it had to be leveled in the 21st century.

 

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/the-only-thing-left-of-the-2000-year-old-temple-at-palmyra-the-ancient-temple-of-bel/

 

****ing savages.

Honestly forget  the Arabs if they cant protect there own historical sites. I am happy with how Western countries manage these types of sites 

 

 

Well Khaled al-Asaad did try.

 

 

And that more or less illustrates the difference between the older generation of muslims, those that grew up during the cold war and unaligned movement that sought to be more or less secular and more or less European in their outlook and the newer generation that has no other ideology than derivatives of the radical Saudi Wahhabism, for whom Bin Laden is what Che Guevara was to leftists.

 

Speaking in the broadest terms, the US is the most to blame for this transformation, having bred fundamentalists as allies against the Soviets for decades now. The flip side is that the unaligned and socialism collapsed and fundies stepped in as the new religion (which can also be traced back to the US).

 

Nevertheless it can still be stopped at the source, aka Saudi Arabia, if the US is ever to climb out of the Saudi king's ass.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

That's the problem with Islam, even in the 21st century it doesn't even have the basest level of tolerance for anything other than itself.

 

That bit of Syria has been muslim ruled since... probably Khalid ibn Walid as iirc neither the Crusaders nor the Byzants ever got to it/ got it back in the intervening time. Excluding a decade or so of Froggy rule that's 1300+ years of muslim rule where it was fine. ISIS are just a bunch of religious dingbats who are jealous that the Vandals got a term named after them. Ironically, the current muslim sect closest to what ISIS claims as their philosophy is the Ibadi sect of Oman, one of the most tolerant muslim countries anywhere, if not the most tolerant.

 

Though there is some exquisite irony in Saudi Arabia- actual philosophical and religious antecedent sponsor of what became both Al Qaeda and ISIS- wanting to sponsor a bunch of loony toons extremist mosques in Germany to 'help' people running away from the consequences of their loony toons religious extremism in Syria. I doubt I'd be able to avoid laughing in their faces at that 'offer'. Plus of course, Saudi has vandalised Mecca pretty extensively themselves, with nary a squeak in the west.

 

 

Fine for whom? A basic lack of religious tolerance is endemic to most Islamic states. Prosecution of Christians and other minorities are a daily thing, even today - and reaches absurd levels, like that girl that go 0's on every exam in Egypt the other day just because she's a christian. The orthodox patriarchate in Istanbul in "tolerant" Turkey is built like a fortress, walls and fences galore. 

[BruceVC]

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-calls-other-nations-help-arm-syrian-government-104328976.html

 

meanwhile Russia starts to get involved more there in response to US/EU arming rebels...

 

That's why we should never get involved there in the first place, now we will start getting proxy wars and the only ones who will suffer will be the ones which were most interested in getting better, civilian regular populace.

Sure but thats why the USA doesn't want to get involved in the ME anymore ...its a pointless and utterly unappreciated experience 

 

Russia doesnt really have the revenue to waste on trying to " help in Syria " , I hope they realize the West is not going to agree to help but frankly if Russia in wants to intervene then they should ...its not like Syria could get worse?

[Chilloutman]

 

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-calls-other-nations-help-arm-syrian-government-104328976.html

 

meanwhile Russia starts to get involved more there in response to US/EU arming rebels...

 

That's why we should never get involved there in the first place, now we will start getting proxy wars and the only ones who will suffer will be the ones which were most interested in getting better, civilian regular populace.

Sure but thats why the USA doesn't want to get involved in the ME anymore ...its a pointless and utterly unappreciated experience 

 

Russia doesnt really have the revenue to waste on trying to " help in Syria " , I hope they realize the West is not going to agree to help but frankly if Russia in wants to intervene then they should ...its not like Syria could get worse?

 

 

point is, Russia doesn't care if there is dictator in lead or orthodox muslims as long as they agree to support Russia in whatever they are currently doing

[Varana]

Elerond: If you read closely, you'll see that I didn't deny *any* role of Western nations in the conflict. What ktchong wrote was that "aggressions and interventions" were "the cause" of the refugee crisis. And I stand by it that that's complete nonsense.

On the contrary - in Syria, we have the prime example of what may happen if we don't intervene. The support of the FSA and similar groups by the West was a drop in the ocean compared to what e.g. Iran pumped into Assad's regime. In the early months and year of the conflict, before the radical Islamist groups turned up, the rebel movement begged for any intervention, help, money, or weapons, in an increasingly desperate manner. Actual support was negligible, in the scale of what happened. The result is what we see today - the secular and democracy-oriented opposition to Assad has basically disappeared. What we got instead was an entrenched dictator who barrel bombs his own people; radical Islamic groups, partly funded by the Gulf monarchies eager to remove Assad to weaken Iran; Kurdish separatists who are probably the most reasonable bunch in this whole mess; and complete nutcases like ISIS. After Libya, the West tried to placate Russia and China by not doing anything of importance, and now we see the effects of that.

Sure, there's been some meddling here, some (mostly symbolic) support there, and the Iraq war wasn't exactly helpful. But that Western intervention was the reason for the current crisis, is simply BS - and quite patronising. The various regional groups, sects, states and so on are perfectly capable of f***ng up themselves. They don't need the West to do that.

 

Darkpriest and your parallel with the fall of communism: With the exception of Libya, that's exactly what happens in the Middle East, and what happened in the Arab Spring. Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Morocco, Jordan, even Syria and Libya in the early days - the West didn't intervene in any military way. On the contrary, the U.S. had funded e.g. the Egyptian regime for decades and continued to do so for quite a while. In Libya, NATO intervened during the siege of Misrata - yes, that didn't happen during the Cold War, but that's not the usual level of opposition, demonstrations, and so on, that's full Hungary '56 (or worse).

And what we're seeing now is exactly that cycle of revolution, failing, and maybe trying again. Tunisia struggles a lot, Egypt fell back into quasi-military rule, Bahrain was crushed, Morocco and Jordan deescalated the crisis, the Saudis threw money at the problem, and Libya (with intervention) and Syria (no intervention) disintegrated. As for democratisation, the Arab Spring has mostly failed. But hopefully, it will bounce back in the future. Maybe (probably) it will fail again. But not in the end.

I think that generally, we would agree on how movements like the fall of communism or Arab reform will play out. Where we don't agree, I guess, is the West's role in both of them.

[pmp10]

I'd suggest using the Crusades as examples of acts of barbarism by Christianity if that's what you're looking for, particularly (in my opinion) the Fourth Crusade, which actually did lead to the destruction of the Imperial (Great) Library of Constantinople...among other atrocities, such as besieging and slaughtering their fellow Christians in the name of greed.

That's one way to see things.

But you see - the crusaders would say that they were overthrowing a usurper and restoring a rightful ruler to the throne.

Also they hardly had monopoly on killing fellow Christians.

[BruceVC]

Elerond: If you read closely, you'll see that I didn't deny *any* role of Western nations in the conflict. What ktchong wrote was that "aggressions and interventions" were "the cause" of the refugee crisis. And I stand by it that that's complete nonsense.

On the contrary - in Syria, we have the prime example of what may happen if we don't intervene. The support of the FSA and similar groups by the West was a drop in the ocean compared to what e.g. Iran pumped into Assad's regime. In the early months and year of the conflict, before the radical Islamist groups turned up, the rebel movement begged for any intervention, help, money, or weapons, in an increasingly desperate manner. Actual support was negligible, in the scale of what happened. The result is what we see today - the secular and democracy-oriented opposition to Assad has basically disappeared. What we got instead was an entrenched dictator who barrel bombs his own people; radical Islamic groups, partly funded by the Gulf monarchies eager to remove Assad to weaken Iran; Kurdish separatists who are probably the most reasonable bunch in this whole mess; and complete nutcases like ISIS. After Libya, the West tried to placate Russia and China by not doing anything of importance, and now we see the effects of that.

Sure, there's been some meddling here, some (mostly symbolic) support there, and the Iraq war wasn't exactly helpful. But that Western intervention was the reason for the current crisis, is simply BS - and quite patronising. The various regional groups, sects, states and so on are perfectly capable of f***ng up themselves. They don't need the West to do that.

 

Darkpriest and your parallel with the fall of communism: With the exception of Libya, that's exactly what happens in the Middle East, and what happened in the Arab Spring. Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Morocco, Jordan, even Syria and Libya in the early days - the West didn't intervene in any military way. On the contrary, the U.S. had funded e.g. the Egyptian regime for decades and continued to do so for quite a while. In Libya, NATO intervened during the siege of Misrata - yes, that didn't happen during the Cold War, but that's not the usual level of opposition, demonstrations, and so on, that's full Hungary '56 (or worse).

And what we're seeing now is exactly that cycle of revolution, failing, and maybe trying again. Tunisia struggles a lot, Egypt fell back into quasi-military rule, Bahrain was crushed, Morocco and Jordan deescalated the crisis, the Saudis threw money at the problem, and Libya (with intervention) and Syria (no intervention) disintegrated. As for democratisation, the Arab Spring has mostly failed. But hopefully, it will bounce back in the future. Maybe (probably) it will fail again. But not in the end.

I think that generally, we would agree on how movements like the fall of communism or Arab reform will play out. Where we don't agree, I guess, is the West's role in both of them.

This is very similar to how I see the various conflicts and uprisings in the ME, its very rare someone shares my view 

[Elerond]

Elerond: If you read closely, you'll see that I didn't deny *any* role of Western nations in the conflict. What ktchong wrote was that "aggressions and interventions" were "the cause" of the refugee crisis. And I stand by it that that's complete nonsense.

On the contrary - in Syria, we have the prime example of what may happen if we don't intervene. The support of the FSA and similar groups by the West was a drop in the ocean compared to what e.g. Iran pumped into Assad's regime. In the early months and year of the conflict, before the radical Islamist groups turned up, the rebel movement begged for any intervention, help, money, or weapons, in an increasingly desperate manner. Actual support was negligible, in the scale of what happened. The result is what we see today - the secular and democracy-oriented opposition to Assad has basically disappeared. What we got instead was an entrenched dictator who barrel bombs his own people; radical Islamic groups, partly funded by the Gulf monarchies eager to remove Assad to weaken Iran; Kurdish separatists who are probably the most reasonable bunch in this whole mess; and complete nutcases like ISIS. After Libya, the West tried to placate Russia and China by not doing anything of importance, and now we see the effects of that.

Sure, there's been some meddling here, some (mostly symbolic) support there, and the Iraq war wasn't exactly helpful. But that Western intervention was the reason for the current crisis, is simply BS - and quite patronising. The various regional groups, sects, states and so on are perfectly capable of f***ng up themselves. They don't need the West to do that.

 

As western "aggressions and interventions" were partial cause that lead in current situation, meaning that what ktchong wrote was not complete nonsense but too simply put as there is other factors like interventions from Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel, governance history of Syria, history of Saddam's regime in Iraq, divination of Muslim faith, history of minority groups in the region, and so on and so forth.

 

Syria works as example how even minor intervention can cause unstable situation to explode much worse crisis, meaning that US supporting Syrian rebel groups together from sanctions from quite lot of nations lead in situation where Syrian government could not prevent ISIL/ISIS to take over large parts of the Syria under their control and when those some of rebel groups that US supported sundered to Al-Qaida it meant that there are now two terrorist groups in Syria that control large areas.

[BruceVC]

 

Elerond: If you read closely, you'll see that I didn't deny *any* role of Western nations in the conflict. What ktchong wrote was that "aggressions and interventions" were "the cause" of the refugee crisis. And I stand by it that that's complete nonsense.

On the contrary - in Syria, we have the prime example of what may happen if we don't intervene. The support of the FSA and similar groups by the West was a drop in the ocean compared to what e.g. Iran pumped into Assad's regime. In the early months and year of the conflict, before the radical Islamist groups turned up, the rebel movement begged for any intervention, help, money, or weapons, in an increasingly desperate manner. Actual support was negligible, in the scale of what happened. The result is what we see today - the secular and democracy-oriented opposition to Assad has basically disappeared. What we got instead was an entrenched dictator who barrel bombs his own people; radical Islamic groups, partly funded by the Gulf monarchies eager to remove Assad to weaken Iran; Kurdish separatists who are probably the most reasonable bunch in this whole mess; and complete nutcases like ISIS. After Libya, the West tried to placate Russia and China by not doing anything of importance, and now we see the effects of that.

Sure, there's been some meddling here, some (mostly symbolic) support there, and the Iraq war wasn't exactly helpful. But that Western intervention was the reason for the current crisis, is simply BS - and quite patronising. The various regional groups, sects, states and so on are perfectly capable of f***ng up themselves. They don't need the West to do that.

 

As western "aggressions and interventions" were partial cause that lead in current situation, meaning that what ktchong wrote was not complete nonsense but too simply put as there is other factors like interventions from Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel, governance history of Syria, history of Saddam's regime in Iraq, divination of Muslim faith, history of minority groups in the region, and so on and so forth.

 

Syria works as example how even minor intervention can cause unstable situation to explode much worse crisis, meaning that US supporting Syrian rebel groups together from sanctions from quite lot of nations lead in situation where Syrian government could not prevent ISIL/ISIS to take over large parts of the Syria under their control and when those some of rebel groups that US supported sundered to Al-Qaida it meant that there are now two terrorist groups in Syria that control large areas.

 

I'm not sure why you are still disputing the reality of what caused the Civil War in Syria?

 

It was not caused by Russia or the West. There was only one factor that caused it....the Arab Spring

 

I can't explain this anymore as I'm going for dinner now

[Malcador]

Western involvement just stoked the fire, no ?

[Bartimaeus]

 

I'd suggest using the Crusades as examples of acts of barbarism by Christianity if that's what you're looking for, particularly (in my opinion) the Fourth Crusade, which actually did lead to the destruction of the Imperial (Great) Library of Constantinople...among other atrocities, such as besieging and slaughtering their fellow Christians in the name of greed.

That's one way to see things.

But you see - the crusaders would say that they were overthrowing a usurper and restoring a rightful ruler to the throne.

Also they hardly had monopoly on killing fellow Christians.

 

Oh, of course. By modern standards, we'd consider pretty much everything that happened in...well, I was going to say the middle ages, but really, you can pretty much go back as far as you want, and you can go forward a bit too...to be barbarism. Back then, going on at least one of the first three Crusades was the greatest service to God you could possibly do. Nowadays, the goal posts seem to change quite a bit more from decade to decade than they did back then.

Edited September 11, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[Elerond]

 

 

Elerond: If you read closely, you'll see that I didn't deny *any* role of Western nations in the conflict. What ktchong wrote was that "aggressions and interventions" were "the cause" of the refugee crisis. And I stand by it that that's complete nonsense.

On the contrary - in Syria, we have the prime example of what may happen if we don't intervene. The support of the FSA and similar groups by the West was a drop in the ocean compared to what e.g. Iran pumped into Assad's regime. In the early months and year of the conflict, before the radical Islamist groups turned up, the rebel movement begged for any intervention, help, money, or weapons, in an increasingly desperate manner. Actual support was negligible, in the scale of what happened. The result is what we see today - the secular and democracy-oriented opposition to Assad has basically disappeared. What we got instead was an entrenched dictator who barrel bombs his own people; radical Islamic groups, partly funded by the Gulf monarchies eager to remove Assad to weaken Iran; Kurdish separatists who are probably the most reasonable bunch in this whole mess; and complete nutcases like ISIS. After Libya, the West tried to placate Russia and China by not doing anything of importance, and now we see the effects of that.

Sure, there's been some meddling here, some (mostly symbolic) support there, and the Iraq war wasn't exactly helpful. But that Western intervention was the reason for the current crisis, is simply BS - and quite patronising. The various regional groups, sects, states and so on are perfectly capable of f***ng up themselves. They don't need the West to do that.

 

As western "aggressions and interventions" were partial cause that lead in current situation, meaning that what ktchong wrote was not complete nonsense but too simply put as there is other factors like interventions from Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel, governance history of Syria, history of Saddam's regime in Iraq, divination of Muslim faith, history of minority groups in the region, and so on and so forth.

 

Syria works as example how even minor intervention can cause unstable situation to explode much worse crisis, meaning that US supporting Syrian rebel groups together from sanctions from quite lot of nations lead in situation where Syrian government could not prevent ISIL/ISIS to take over large parts of the Syria under their control and when those some of rebel groups that US supported sundered to Al-Qaida it meant that there are now two terrorist groups in Syria that control large areas.

 

I'm not sure why you are still disputing the reality of what caused the Civil War in Syria?

 

It was not caused by Russia or the West. There was only one factor that caused it....the Arab Spring

 

I can't explain this anymore as I'm going for dinner now

 

 

I must say that I am quite loss how you can put Arab Spring as major/sole reason of anything that is happened in ME, because it just references series of uprisings that were caused by multiple different things.

 

But anyway you have convinced me that actually South Africa is the real reason behind of all these crises     

[Meshugger]

Is this news footage a joke? Front National being literal neo-nazis? I can't tell anymoe...

 

[Varana]

... too simply put as there is other factors...

Yep, that was the point.

Esp. in context, with his earlier posts, it was "simplified" to the point of being wrong.

"Our atmosphere consists of CO2" is also "simplified". It contains CO2 which even plays an important role, but... you get the idea.

 

Syria works as example how even minor intervention can cause unstable situation to explode much worse crisis, meaning that US supporting Syrian rebel groups together from sanctions from quite lot of nations lead in situation where Syrian government could not prevent ISIL/ISIS to take over large parts of the Syria under their control and when those some of rebel groups that US supported sundered to Al-Qaida it meant that there are now two terrorist groups in Syria that control large areas.

And I would still dispute that Western intervention in any meaningful sense caused the uprising against Assad. Popular unrest in the Arab states - usually against dictators supported by the West - is nothing new. Even in Syria, slaughtering the populace for rebelling is a good Assad family tradition. In 2011, after Ben Ali surprised everyone by chickening out of Tunisia, and the reform movement in Egypt gained ground, people in other Arab states followed suit. What the West did until that point, apart from supporting a few human rights organisations, was basically just existing, with the clear message "we're rich and democratic and you can, too!" The Arab peoples rose against their leaders *in spite* of Western meddling like the Iraq war, or the support of Israel.

Things like sanctions and a few attempts at supporting the opposition mostly came after Assad started shooting people and torturing children.

Sure, the situation now is a lot worse. But I'm not convinced that we should therefore just let dictators do their stuff because there might be even bigger idiots around (and I'm not even talking about military intervention, just sanctions and things like that). And I certainly disagree with the line of thought that because our feeble attempts at punishing Assad contributed to preventing him from crushing the rebellion, we're somehow "responsible" for the situation in Syria, and the refugees (yay, topic! )

[213374U]

I'm not sure why you are still disputing the reality of what caused the Civil War in Syria?

 

It was not caused by Russia or the West. There was only one factor that caused it....the Arab Spring

 

I can't explain this anymore as I'm going for dinner now

 

Er, but you haven't. You are simply repeating an axiomatic, fallacious statement for which you have offered no proof yourself ("the civil war in Syria was caused only by the Arab Spring"), and are demanding that Elerond proves a negative, which in this case is simply not possible as you can keep on raising the evidence threshold arbitrarily, as you have done already. That's not how proof works, bro. Try harder.

Edited September 11, 2015 by 213374U

[Malcador]

http://www.kormany.hu/en/the-prime-minister/news/the-eu-must-help-protect-greece-s-borders

 

Seems reasonable.

[Bartimaeus]

Er, but you haven't. You are simply repeating an axiomatic, fallacious statement for which you have offered no proof yourself ("the civil war in Syria was caused only by the Arab Spring"), and are demanding that Elerond proves a negative, which in this case is simply not possible as you can keep on raising the evidence threshold arbitrarily, as you have done already. That's not how proof works, bro. Try harder.

I like to keep Hitchen's razor in mind whenever I consider arguing with Bruce about something: perhaps you all should, too.

 

(P.S.: Refer to my signature. )

Edited September 11, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[ktchong]

Actually, Syrians are not Arabs. Neither are Iranians/Persians, Lebanese, and other Levantines. Arabs and Levantines do not even look the same.

 

IMO, Levantines (both men and women) are generally good looking people, (i.e., they look Mediterranean;) On the other hand, Arabs (both men and women) are generally very ugly people - they have very unappealing facial structures and features, so you are not missing much when their women completely cover up themselves.  (No offense, but seriously, Arabs are just NOT a good looking people.)   When people talk about how Arab women - or men - are "hot", they confuse Arabs with Levantines, and they are really talking about Levantine women and men - i.e., Lebanese, Syrian, etc.

 

And, my understanding is, other than a shared religion, Arabs and Levantines have different cultures and generally do not get along with each other.

Edited September 11, 2015 by ktchong

[Elerond]

 

... too simply put as there is other factors...

Yep, that was the point.

Esp. in context, with his earlier posts, it was "simplified" to the point of being wrong.

"Our atmosphere consists of CO2" is also "simplified". It contains CO2 which even plays an important role, but... you get the idea.

 

Syria works as example how even minor intervention can cause unstable situation to explode much worse crisis, meaning that US supporting Syrian rebel groups together from sanctions from quite lot of nations lead in situation where Syrian government could not prevent ISIL/ISIS to take over large parts of the Syria under their control and when those some of rebel groups that US supported sundered to Al-Qaida it meant that there are now two terrorist groups in Syria that control large areas.

And I would still dispute that Western intervention in any meaningful sense caused the uprising against Assad. Popular unrest in the Arab states - usually against dictators supported by the West - is nothing new. Even in Syria, slaughtering the populace for rebelling is a good Assad family tradition. In 2011, after Ben Ali surprised everyone by chickening out of Tunisia, and the reform movement in Egypt gained ground, people in other Arab states followed suit. What the West did until that point, apart from supporting a few human rights organisations, was basically just existing, with the clear message "we're rich and democratic and you can, too!" The Arab peoples rose against their leaders *in spite* of Western meddling like the Iraq war, or the support of Israel.

Things like sanctions and a few attempts at supporting the opposition mostly came after Assad started shooting people and torturing children.

Sure, the situation now is a lot worse. But I'm not convinced that we should therefore just let dictators do their stuff because there might be even bigger idiots around (and I'm not even talking about military intervention, just sanctions and things like that). And I certainly disagree with the line of thought that because our feeble attempts at punishing Assad contributed to preventing him from crushing the rebellion, we're somehow "responsible" for the situation in Syria, and the refugees (yay, topic! )

 

 

My point was that you said that claim was completely which is as wrong statement itself

 

Western interventions didn't cause uprising against al-Assad, but they caused that first time to over three decades Syrian rebels had actually power to challenge tyrannic regime of al-Assad's  family, and that ISIL/ISIS could gather enough support in Iraq to become force that need to be recognized. This are factors that have heavily influenced things that have driven things to become current refugee crises.

 

By feeble attempts to punish Assad's regime you mean cutting tens of billions from Syria's GDP and nearly cutting all their support lines from neighboring countries. Economical sanctions from "West"  are quite devastating even such self depend countries like Russia, Iran and North Korea, for Syria that actually needs to trade to work they were much more devastating, not because they cut their supply lines completely, but because they made everything so much more expensive. There is reason why Assad was so ready to give up their chemical weapons even though there actually was quite small risk that anybody would invade them. Because such losses in their economy al-Assad's regime has not had been able to equip their soldiers or buy ammunition to their heavy weaponry to such point that ISIL/ISIS have start to become better equipped than their soldiers.

 

And I have not argued that West actions in ME weren't justified I have only pointed out that they have now consequences in form of several crises, which most dominant (factored by how much they have direct effect towards West) are current refugee crises. I have also argued that we can't just claim that those crises are caused by ME and we have some sort high horse position  where we are just benevolent helpers who selflessly give their riches for poor people who have caused all that misery by themselves.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Is this news footage a joke? Front National being literal neo-nazis? I can't tell anymoe...

 

 

You should know by now that any rightist party that isn't thrilled with multiculturalism and immigration is automatically branded neo-nazi. Even so that's some loaded coverage right there, being so brazen to outright call them neo-nazi.

 

That some of the membership consists of far right skinhead types is certain, but that the entire party is neo-nazi is bull**** of the greatest magnitude. Slander of the worst sort. I'll have to look into whose tv station that is*, I don't think even Al Jazeera would call FN nazis.

 

*Lol, its Iranian. 'nuff said. Instead of talking **** about Europe they could take in a million or so of their sunni "brothers". Islam is a religion of peace and brotherhood after all.

Edited September 11, 2015 by Drowsy Emperor

[Varana]

Actually, Syrians are not Arabs.

Ooh, someone should tell them that. After all, they call their state the Syrian Arab Republic.

 

IMO, Levantines (both men and women) are generally good looking people, (i.e., they look Mediterranean;) On the other hand, Arabs (both men and women) are generally very ugly people - they have very unappealing facial structures and features, so you are not missing much when their women completely cover up themselves.

*speechless*

I mean, whatever floats your boat, but... WTF?

 

 

Elerond: Put this way, I would agree, in general terms (although I'd highlight some aspects differently). Usually, though, the statement "the West/the U.S./NATO is responsible for the refugee crisis" means that they bear the main or even sole responsibility, and I'd still say that ktchong meant it that way. And that argument is the expression of a world view which I find deeply troubling - both in its view of Western democracy, and in its desire for simplicity and easy black-and-white solutions.

 

One remark on details, though: A main factor in ISIS' successes in Iraq, IMHO, *was* home-made: The utter inability of al-Maliki's government in Iraq to achieve some kind of reconciliation between Sunnis and Shi'ites. As the U.S. slowly left, Iran's influence grew stronger, and both this and the long-standing animosity between those groups meant that al-Maliki basically reversed the process and alienated even those Sunnis who were kind of willing to cooperate with the central government. Sure, the American policy in post-war Iraq has been a huge catastrophe plagued with stupidity, but the various Iraqi factions had their part in the whole mess. The success of ISIS in northern Iraq also has its reasons in internal Iraqi politics, not only in the Syrian civil war. As usual, in combination with lots of other factors.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

... too simply put as there is other factors...

Yep, that was the point.

Esp. in context, with his earlier posts, it was "simplified" to the point of being wrong.

"Our atmosphere consists of CO2" is also "simplified". It contains CO2 which even plays an important role, but... you get the idea.

 

Syria works as example how even minor intervention can cause unstable situation to explode much worse crisis, meaning that US supporting Syrian rebel groups together from sanctions from quite lot of nations lead in situation where Syrian government could not prevent ISIL/ISIS to take over large parts of the Syria under their control and when those some of rebel groups that US supported sundered to Al-Qaida it meant that there are now two terrorist groups in Syria that control large areas.

And I would still dispute that Western intervention in any meaningful sense caused the uprising against Assad. Popular unrest in the Arab states - usually against dictators supported by the West - is nothing new. Even in Syria, slaughtering the populace for rebelling is a good Assad family tradition. In 2011, after Ben Ali surprised everyone by chickening out of Tunisia, and the reform movement in Egypt gained ground, people in other Arab states followed suit. What the West did until that point, apart from supporting a few human rights organisations, was basically just existing, with the clear message "we're rich and democratic and you can, too!" The Arab peoples rose against their leaders *in spite* of Western meddling like the Iraq war, or the support of Israel.

Things like sanctions and a few attempts at supporting the opposition mostly came after Assad started shooting people and torturing children.

Sure, the situation now is a lot worse. But I'm not convinced that we should therefore just let dictators do their stuff because there might be even bigger idiots around (and I'm not even talking about military intervention, just sanctions and things like that). And I certainly disagree with the line of thought that because our feeble attempts at punishing Assad contributed to preventing him from crushing the rebellion, we're somehow "responsible" for the situation in Syria, and the refugees (yay, topic! )

 

 

No. Just, no. Organizations for the destabilization of the Syrian regime were set up in Europe and the US (Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel too), key figures were bought off and selected to be the new leadership and Al Quaeda elements were funded and equipped to start an armed rebellion. No one knew where Syria was or who Assad was until CNN proclaimed him the new butcher of the Balkans, or the middle east, in this case. 

 

There was no real intervention, but the entire "uprising" was manufactured by the US and its vassal states.

 

Anyway, no rebellion can survive, or has ever been achieved without outside support - logistics and supplies have to be managed, funding has to be sought out. What do you think, that bullets, kevlar and medical supplies grow on trees? Have you any idea how much ammunition armies can burn through in a day? Do you think they're making them there in the dunes of Raqqa? How do you think they gained so much ground on the well equipped and reasonably well trained Syrian Army so quickly? (I'll tell you, US gave them satellite imagery and more or less grounded the Syrian air force in a deal with the Israelis and Turks).

 

Every aspect of this crisis was created and sustained from the outside, with the help of the other regional powers. The syrian army can't decisively win against the rebels, or ISIS simply because they can always retreat to Turkey and Iraq to arm up and regroup, where SA can't follow under threat of war. If it were not for the unconditional support of many powerful states, the "rebels" would have been wiped off the face of the earth in a month, or more likely - never existed in the first place.

 

At this point only a madman or someone very uninformed would believe that the West had no role in the rebellion.

Edited September 11, 2015 by Drowsy Emperor