Turkey shoots down russian jet

[Gorgon]

 

 

 

Russia probably needed to be taken down a notch and no one was killed so... They are probably going to be more realistic about their own capacity in the future.

 

If there is going to be an intervention in Syria everybody, and by that I mean every forgein military power in theater, has to get on the same page first.

 

Like everybody was on the same page in Iraq, Yugoslavia etc.? Careful your hypocrisy counter is going over 9000

 

Russia didn't intervene in Iraq as far as I remember, as for Yugoslavia at one point Nato and Russian forces were close to shooting at oneanother, definately not a good idea to pretend to inteverne together while backing different factions. Russia doesn't have the military muscle to be pressing its case in Syria, not any more really, she's doing it out of pride, some sense of lost empire, you know like Britain in the Falklands. 

 

 

But they were against those interventions, in the mechanisms (UN) instituted with the idea that conflicts should be resolved on the basis of consensus instead of unilateral action.

When NATO was doing as it pleased the world over, that's all well and good but when Russia is protecting its interests it needs to be "taken down a notch", even though its targeting an entity that is now more or less the enemy of the entire world and is attacked by country that is supporting said entity - a country that is also a member of the NATO alliance and is undermining the supposed goals of the alliance in the matter. 

 

Long story short - Turkish support for ISIS is okay, Russians protecting their interests isn't?

 

So by your logic, what entitles Russa to intervene in Syria. Shouldn't they be going through propper channels and attempt to woo over the UN. 

 

The UN was never able to account for the cold war dynamic so a 'consensus' for anthing, not just Iraq and Yugoslavia meant everyone except Russia and China, they were going to vote 'no' nomatter what. Is that hypocritical, sure, I'll go allong with that. Not a lot of the UN's lofty ideals of peace and cooperation survived contact with reality.   

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

Russia probably needed to be taken down a notch and no one was killed so... They are probably going to be more realistic about their own capacity in the future.

 

If there is going to be an intervention in Syria everybody, and by that I mean every forgein military power in theater, has to get on the same page first.

 

Like everybody was on the same page in Iraq, Yugoslavia etc.? Careful your hypocrisy counter is going over 9000

 

Russia didn't intervene in Iraq as far as I remember, as for Yugoslavia at one point Nato and Russian forces were close to shooting at oneanother, definately not a good idea to pretend to inteverne together while backing different factions. Russia doesn't have the military muscle to be pressing its case in Syria, not any more really, she's doing it out of pride, some sense of lost empire, you know like Britain in the Falklands. 

 

 

But they were against those interventions, in the mechanisms (UN) instituted with the idea that conflicts should be resolved on the basis of consensus instead of unilateral action.

When NATO was doing as it pleased the world over, that's all well and good but when Russia is protecting its interests it needs to be "taken down a notch", even though its targeting an entity that is now more or less the enemy of the entire world and is attacked by country that is supporting said entity - a country that is also a member of the NATO alliance and is undermining the supposed goals of the alliance in the matter. 

 

Long story short - Turkish support for ISIS is okay, Russians protecting their interests isn't?

 

What interests are you insisting Russia needs to protect...oh thats right., Assad the brutal dictator who refused to make any political concessions to his own citizens, I guess Syrians don't understand how great a dictatorship is, and then decided to use the full might of his army to annihilate his people ....and then he used chemical weapons. But none of this bothers you....because of NATO intervention 20 years ago in Bosnia and Kosovo, seriously drowsy its time to move on

 

And finally you still think Russia a better choice to support than the countries that have been fighting ISIS for years. And yes we like Turkey as they have been helping with Syrian refugees and military support ..

[BruceVC]

Expect major war soon...now Muslims are confused, Crusade propaganda have been played, as if Russians are Crusaders who want to kill Muslims of Syria...the "Syrian Rebels" (a.k.a ISIS) are heroes protecting Muslims from the invading Russian...Turkey respons to help Muslims...Assad is evil traitor who work with Infidels....so all Muslims must defend Islam from Crusader Russian.

Well that will be a massacre to think any group of Muslim countries has the military might to stop the USA or Russia

 

But don't worry, the West doesn't like massacring Muslims anymore ..but I cant speak for Russia  

[Qistina]

 

Expect major war soon...now Muslims are confused, Crusade propaganda have been played, as if Russians are Crusaders who want to kill Muslims of Syria...the "Syrian Rebels" (a.k.a ISIS) are heroes protecting Muslims from the invading Russian...Turkey respons to help Muslims...Assad is evil traitor who work with Infidels....so all Muslims must defend Islam from Crusader Russian.

Well that will be a massacre to think any group of Muslim countries has the military might to stop the USA or Russia

 

But don't worry, the West doesn't like massacring Muslims anymore ..but I cant speak for Russia  

 

 

This is war of deception...nobody know who they are shooting...but in the end the west who gain, when Assad toppled, mission accomplished.

 

So, the west used to like massacring Muslims.....

[FlintlockJazz]

Well, this is escalating quickly.  Ladies and gentlemen, in case I don't get the chance to say this before armagheddon hits, let me just saythat it was a jolly good pleasure knowing you all, and should any of us survive as radioactive mutants then you are all welcome for a cup of tea and natter about those filthy, rich elites who got us into this mess and got to ride it out in high-tech bunkers.  Tally ho and all that.

[Gorgon]

 

 

Expect major war soon...now Muslims are confused, Crusade propaganda have been played, as if Russians are Crusaders who want to kill Muslims of Syria...the "Syrian Rebels" (a.k.a ISIS) are heroes protecting Muslims from the invading Russian...Turkey respons to help Muslims...Assad is evil traitor who work with Infidels....so all Muslims must defend Islam from Crusader Russian.

Well that will be a massacre to think any group of Muslim countries has the military might to stop the USA or Russia

 

But don't worry, the West doesn't like massacring Muslims anymore ..but I cant speak for Russia  

 

 

This is war of deception...nobody know who they are shooting...but in the end the west who gain, when Assad toppled, mission accomplished.

 

So, the west used to like massacring Muslims.....

 

The Arab spring is what made Syria unstable, we can't really claim to have done that ourselves. Political instability and a desire for progress and a need to demolish existing conservative institutions and power structures. It is what happens when a system of government is nolonger compatible with the people it governs. Experience shows that in those cases it is perhaps unavoidable to go through a period of civil unrest/civil war. 

[213374U]

The Arab spring is what made Syria unstable, we can't really claim to have done that ourselves. Political instability and a desire for progress and a need to demolish existing conservative institutions and power structures. It is what happens when a system of government is nolonger compatible with the people it governs. Experience shows that in those cases it is perhaps unavoidable to go through a period of civil unrest/civil war.

I believe you've reached your buzzword quota for the day, with just one post. You can pat yourself in the back now, good job.

[Qistina]

Democracy is not for everyone, maybe western people is suitable for that system, but not all people are suitable with it. We know and proven historically, Middle Eastern people are hard headed people, they don't like to loose, sharing power, give and take...they just not build that way. They can only be controlled by a top dog who can make all dogs stop barking. It have been this way in that area for a very long time.

 

So western people should stop with wanting to be democracy hero, it won't work in that part of the world.

 

You see Greeks are father of democracy, but they never bother making other nations following their system. So why USA and Europe are busy want to make the whole world using democracy?

Edited November 24, 2015 by Qistina

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

Russia probably needed to be taken down a notch and no one was killed so... They are probably going to be more realistic about their own capacity in the future.

 

If there is going to be an intervention in Syria everybody, and by that I mean every forgein military power in theater, has to get on the same page first.

 

Like everybody was on the same page in Iraq, Yugoslavia etc.? Careful your hypocrisy counter is going over 9000

 

Russia didn't intervene in Iraq as far as I remember, as for Yugoslavia at one point Nato and Russian forces were close to shooting at oneanother, definately not a good idea to pretend to inteverne together while backing different factions. Russia doesn't have the military muscle to be pressing its case in Syria, not any more really, she's doing it out of pride, some sense of lost empire, you know like Britain in the Falklands. 

 

 

But they were against those interventions, in the mechanisms (UN) instituted with the idea that conflicts should be resolved on the basis of consensus instead of unilateral action.

When NATO was doing as it pleased the world over, that's all well and good but when Russia is protecting its interests it needs to be "taken down a notch", even though its targeting an entity that is now more or less the enemy of the entire world and is attacked by country that is supporting said entity - a country that is also a member of the NATO alliance and is undermining the supposed goals of the alliance in the matter. 

 

Long story short - Turkish support for ISIS is okay, Russians protecting their interests isn't?

 

So by your logic, what entitles Russa to intervene in Syria. Shouldn't they be going through propper channels and attempt to woo over the UN. 

 

The UN was never able to account for the cold war dynamic so a 'consensus' for anthing, not just Iraq and Yugoslavia meant everyone except Russia and China, they were going to vote 'no' nomatter what. Is that hypocritical, sure, I'll go allong with that. Not a lot of the UN's lofty ideals of peace and cooperation survived contact with reality.   

 

Yes I agree....but you see the real problem here is Drowsy refuses to accept proper Serbian responsibility in Bosnia and Kosovo.

 

Now some people may think I'm being rude to Drowsy but I'm not, I'm actually trying to liberate him. As a white South African I have accepted my parents role in Apartheid and my own white privilege. It doesn't make you weak it actually gives you clarity on how you should help with the racial transformation in South Africa 

 

So I am happily part of the solution but at times its tough and depressing..I won't lie and its difficult to explain. I get confronted by black South Africans who have had everything taken from them by Apartheid...no job, no family ...no future. Yet they not bitter or angry with you, they just want to be acknowledged 

 

So you feel shame ...how can you not. But of course most of the time we discuss politics and issues of racism for example. And everyday I am reminded how forgiving and reasonable black South Africans can be....they should hate me but for most its just a form of resentment 

 

So I understand how important accepting responsibility is ....I have an issue with people who for some reason just refuse to?

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

Expect major war soon...now Muslims are confused, Crusade propaganda have been played, as if Russians are Crusaders who want to kill Muslims of Syria...the "Syrian Rebels" (a.k.a ISIS) are heroes protecting Muslims from the invading Russian...Turkey respons to help Muslims...Assad is evil traitor who work with Infidels....so all Muslims must defend Islam from Crusader Russian.

Well that will be a massacre to think any group of Muslim countries has the military might to stop the USA or Russia

 

But don't worry, the West doesn't like massacring Muslims anymore ..but I cant speak for Russia  

 

 

This is war of deception...nobody know who they are shooting...but in the end the west who gain, when Assad toppled, mission accomplished.

 

So, the west used to like massacring Muslims.....

 

The Arab spring is what made Syria unstable, we can't really claim to have done that ourselves. Political instability and a desire for progress and a need to demolish existing conservative institutions and power structures. It is what happens when a system of government is nolonger compatible with the people it governs. Experience shows that in those cases it is perhaps unavoidable to go through a period of civil unrest/civil war. 

 

Yes Qistina, Gorgon is right about this

 

I'm sorry I just don't have the energy to correct your view of the West ....I just need a little break

[Qistina]

 

 

 

 

Expect major war soon...now Muslims are confused, Crusade propaganda have been played, as if Russians are Crusaders who want to kill Muslims of Syria...the "Syrian Rebels" (a.k.a ISIS) are heroes protecting Muslims from the invading Russian...Turkey respons to help Muslims...Assad is evil traitor who work with Infidels....so all Muslims must defend Islam from Crusader Russian.

Well that will be a massacre to think any group of Muslim countries has the military might to stop the USA or Russia

 

But don't worry, the West doesn't like massacring Muslims anymore ..but I cant speak for Russia  

 

 

This is war of deception...nobody know who they are shooting...but in the end the west who gain, when Assad toppled, mission accomplished.

 

So, the west used to like massacring Muslims.....

 

The Arab spring is what made Syria unstable, we can't really claim to have done that ourselves. Political instability and a desire for progress and a need to demolish existing conservative institutions and power structures. It is what happens when a system of government is nolonger compatible with the people it governs. Experience shows that in those cases it is perhaps unavoidable to go through a period of civil unrest/civil war. 

 

Yes Qistina, Gorgon is right about this

 

I'm sorry I just don't have the energy to correct your view of the West ....I just need a little break

 

 

 

Read...

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/05/cia-arab-spring-al-qaeda-150517075517498.html

[Qistina]

Watch...

 

[Darkpriest]

Democracy is not for everyone, maybe western people is suitable for that system, but not all people are suitable with it. We know and proven historically, Middle Eastern people are hard headed people, they don't like to loose, sharing power, give and take...they just not build that way. They can only be controlled by a top dog who can make all dogs stop barking. It have been this way in that area for a very long time.

 

So western people should stop with wanting to be democracy hero, it won't work in that part of the world.

 

You see Greeks are father of democracy, but they never bother making other nations following their system. So why USA and Europe are busy want to make the whole world using democracy?

I think that it is the first time i can agree on something.

 

I've been pointing it out since forever. The concept of democracy is alien to that area. Western civilization was raised on the greeko-latin culture... middle east, aside of the short rule of Alexander and later Seleucids was never under its influence.

 

Thats the main reason we should just let them do whatever they want and only trade with whoever is ruling without meddling in their affairs.

[Qistina]

What i mean by showing that video is, democracy just don't work in that part of the world, and the west know this. those stock of people NEVER want to give and take, sharing power, sit together and talk, "okay today you win, tomorrow maybe i win", no that system don't work there. Middle East become **** hole because of democracy.

 

When someone become president, they automatically become a dictator there...no one can say anything about them, anyone even make jokes will face jail or execution...

 

Through democracy, there are so many groups, these groups competing each other to win, and these groups never want to loose...when they loose, they going amok, the winning party will use agressions to supress the loosing party...this is the part where the west play your strings...you play favor...

 

That's the reality of Middle East

Edited November 24, 2015 by Qistina

[FlintlockJazz]

 

Thats the main reason we should just let them do whatever they want and only trade with whoever is ruling without meddling in their affairs.

 

We shouldn't even trade.  It's because of business interests that we have gotten so involved in the situation in the first place.  And trade interferes with the area, propping up rulers and supplying them. 

[Darkpriest]

 

 

Thats the main reason we should just let them do whatever they want and only trade with whoever is ruling without meddling in their affairs.

 

We shouldn't even trade. It's because of business interests that we have gotten so involved in the situation in the first place. And trade interferes with the area, propping up rulers and supplying them.

Hard not to trade given the oil in that region.

[BruceVC]

 

Democracy is not for everyone, maybe western people is suitable for that system, but not all people are suitable with it. We know and proven historically, Middle Eastern people are hard headed people, they don't like to loose, sharing power, give and take...they just not build that way. They can only be controlled by a top dog who can make all dogs stop barking. It have been this way in that area for a very long time.

 

So western people should stop with wanting to be democracy hero, it won't work in that part of the world.

 

You see Greeks are father of democracy, but they never bother making other nations following their system. So why USA and Europe are busy want to make the whole world using democracy?

I think that it is the first time i can agree on something.

 

I've been pointing it out since forever. The concept of democracy is alien to that area. Western civilization was raised on the greeko-latin culture... middle east, aside of the short rule of Alexander and later Seleucids was never under its influence.

 

Thats the main reason we should just let them do whatever they want and only trade with whoever is ruling without meddling in their affairs.

 

 

 

What i mean by showing that video is, democracy just don't work in that part of the world, and the west know this. those stock of people NEVER want to give and take, sharing power, sit together and talk, "okay today you win, tomorrow maybe i win", no that system don't work there. Middle East become **** hole because of democracy.

 

When someone become president, they automatically become a dictator there...no one can say anything about them, anyone even make jokes will face jail or execution...

 

Through democracy, there are so many groups, these groups competing each other to win, and these groups never want to loose...when they loose, they going amok, the winning party will use agressions to supress the loosing party...this is the part where the west play your strings...you play favor...

 

That's the reality of Middle East

Guys I don't have the energy to go into detail because I'm focusing on my Apartheid comments 

 

But yes you right, most of the ME doesn't understand or really even wants Democracy...and yes sometimes in life you cannot force people to want to uplift themselves so we must leave them alone 

[Nonek]

A worrying development, Russia have been reverting to typical Cold War posturing and military gamesmanship in recent years, and they really need to knock this on the head. Hopefully the Turkish response will drive the inherent danger of this into them, because if it does not then I fear an escalation of sudden and terrifying proportions.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Nonek

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

 

 

Russia probably needed to be taken down a notch and no one was killed so... They are probably going to be more realistic about their own capacity in the future.

 

If there is going to be an intervention in Syria everybody, and by that I mean every forgein military power in theater, has to get on the same page first.

 

Like everybody was on the same page in Iraq, Yugoslavia etc.? Careful your hypocrisy counter is going over 9000

 

Russia didn't intervene in Iraq as far as I remember, as for Yugoslavia at one point Nato and Russian forces were close to shooting at oneanother, definately not a good idea to pretend to inteverne together while backing different factions. Russia doesn't have the military muscle to be pressing its case in Syria, not any more really, she's doing it out of pride, some sense of lost empire, you know like Britain in the Falklands. 

 

 

But they were against those interventions, in the mechanisms (UN) instituted with the idea that conflicts should be resolved on the basis of consensus instead of unilateral action.

When NATO was doing as it pleased the world over, that's all well and good but when Russia is protecting its interests it needs to be "taken down a notch", even though its targeting an entity that is now more or less the enemy of the entire world and is attacked by country that is supporting said entity - a country that is also a member of the NATO alliance and is undermining the supposed goals of the alliance in the matter. 

 

Long story short - Turkish support for ISIS is okay, Russians protecting their interests isn't?

 

So by your logic, what entitles Russa to intervene in Syria. Shouldn't they be going through propper channels and attempt to woo over the UN. 

 

The UN was never able to account for the cold war dynamic so a 'consensus' for anthing, not just Iraq and Yugoslavia meant everyone except Russia and China, they were going to vote 'no' nomatter what. Is that hypocritical, sure, I'll go allong with that. Not a lot of the UN's lofty ideals of peace and cooperation survived contact with reality.   

 

 

Russia was invited to intervene by the legitimate, elected government of Syria. That is the major difference between the Russian and US interventions in Iraq, Yugo etc. 

 

If the international framework can be ignored at will then there is nothing wrong with Russia intervening anywhere it pleases.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

Russia probably needed to be taken down a notch and no one was killed so... They are probably going to be more realistic about their own capacity in the future.

 

If there is going to be an intervention in Syria everybody, and by that I mean every forgein military power in theater, has to get on the same page first.

 

Like everybody was on the same page in Iraq, Yugoslavia etc.? Careful your hypocrisy counter is going over 9000

 

Russia didn't intervene in Iraq as far as I remember, as for Yugoslavia at one point Nato and Russian forces were close to shooting at oneanother, definately not a good idea to pretend to inteverne together while backing different factions. Russia doesn't have the military muscle to be pressing its case in Syria, not any more really, she's doing it out of pride, some sense of lost empire, you know like Britain in the Falklands. 

 

 

But they were against those interventions, in the mechanisms (UN) instituted with the idea that conflicts should be resolved on the basis of consensus instead of unilateral action.

When NATO was doing as it pleased the world over, that's all well and good but when Russia is protecting its interests it needs to be "taken down a notch", even though its targeting an entity that is now more or less the enemy of the entire world and is attacked by country that is supporting said entity - a country that is also a member of the NATO alliance and is undermining the supposed goals of the alliance in the matter. 

 

Long story short - Turkish support for ISIS is okay, Russians protecting their interests isn't?

 

So by your logic, what entitles Russa to intervene in Syria. Shouldn't they be going through propper channels and attempt to woo over the UN. 

 

The UN was never able to account for the cold war dynamic so a 'consensus' for anthing, not just Iraq and Yugoslavia meant everyone except Russia and China, they were going to vote 'no' nomatter what. Is that hypocritical, sure, I'll go allong with that. Not a lot of the UN's lofty ideals of peace and cooperation survived contact with reality.   

 

 

Russia was invited to intervene by the legitimate, elected government of Syria. That is the major difference between the Russian and US interventions in Iraq, Yugo etc. 

 

If the international framework can be ignored at will then there is nothing wrong with Russia intervening anywhere it pleases.

 

OMG....you actually think Assad was the legitimate leader of Syria, he never had  a democratic election but he somehow is legitimate? 

[FlintlockJazz]

 

 

Thats the main reason we should just let them do whatever they want and only trade with whoever is ruling without meddling in their affairs.

We shouldn't even trade. It's because of business interests that we have gotten so involved in the situation in the first place. And trade interferes with the area, propping up rulers and supplying them.

Hard not to trade given the oil in that region.

 

And that's why we are all fighting over that place. 

 

On the point that some people are making that the Middle-East has never known democracy and that it is alien to them: Iran used to be a secular democracy, that was very progressive and was quite enlightened.  Then they made a heinous mistake, they tried to nationalise their oil.  Us (my British government I'm sad to say) went "Nu uh!" and sponsored a coup to replace this government with the current nutjob one, the one we now all hate.  The Iranians naturally now hate us for that, as one of their wistful thoughts is "What could have been..."  All  because "The Oil Must Flow!"

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

Thats the main reason we should just let them do whatever they want and only trade with whoever is ruling without meddling in their affairs.

We shouldn't even trade. It's because of business interests that we have gotten so involved in the situation in the first place. And trade interferes with the area, propping up rulers and supplying them.

Hard not to trade given the oil in that region.

 

And that's why we are all fighting over that place. 

 

On the point that some people are making that the Middle-East has never known democracy and that it is alien to them: Iran used to be a secular democracy, that was very progressive and was quite enlightened.  Then they made a heinous mistake, they tried to nationalise their oil.  Us (my British government I'm sad to say) went "Nu uh!" and sponsored a coup to replace this government with the current nutjob one, the one we now all hate.  The Iranians naturally now hate us for that, as one of their wistful thoughts is "What could have been..."  All  because "The Oil Must Flow!"

 

Sure you right. But I have to be honest I don't think one country that was a Democracy 30 years is much to recognize or celebrate 

[Malcador]

Didn't think Turkey would be that stupid. Maybe people look into Putin pointing out what an ally Turkey is against ISIS - but doubt it.

 

Guess the PKK may have a new benefactor, soon ?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Didn't think Turkey would be that stupid. Maybe people look into Putin pointing out what an ally Turkey is against ISIS - but doubt it.

I doubt it, Turkey has been supporting ISIS for quite a while now and it will take more than Putin to pull the heads of those unaware of this out of the sand.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Russia probably needed to be taken down a notch and no one was killed so... They are probably going to be more realistic about their own capacity in the future.

 

If there is going to be an intervention in Syria everybody, and by that I mean every forgein military power in theater, has to get on the same page first.

 

Like everybody was on the same page in Iraq, Yugoslavia etc.? Careful your hypocrisy counter is going over 9000

 

Russia didn't intervene in Iraq as far as I remember, as for Yugoslavia at one point Nato and Russian forces were close to shooting at oneanother, definately not a good idea to pretend to inteverne together while backing different factions. Russia doesn't have the military muscle to be pressing its case in Syria, not any more really, she's doing it out of pride, some sense of lost empire, you know like Britain in the Falklands. 

 

 

But they were against those interventions, in the mechanisms (UN) instituted with the idea that conflicts should be resolved on the basis of consensus instead of unilateral action.

When NATO was doing as it pleased the world over, that's all well and good but when Russia is protecting its interests it needs to be "taken down a notch", even though its targeting an entity that is now more or less the enemy of the entire world and is attacked by country that is supporting said entity - a country that is also a member of the NATO alliance and is undermining the supposed goals of the alliance in the matter. 

 

Long story short - Turkish support for ISIS is okay, Russians protecting their interests isn't?

 

So by your logic, what entitles Russa to intervene in Syria. Shouldn't they be going through propper channels and attempt to woo over the UN. 

 

The UN was never able to account for the cold war dynamic so a 'consensus' for anthing, not just Iraq and Yugoslavia meant everyone except Russia and China, they were going to vote 'no' nomatter what. Is that hypocritical, sure, I'll go allong with that. Not a lot of the UN's lofty ideals of peace and cooperation survived contact with reality.   

 

 

Russia was invited to intervene by the legitimate, elected government of Syria. That is the major difference between the Russian and US interventions in Iraq, Yugo etc. 

 

If the international framework can be ignored at will then there is nothing wrong with Russia intervening anywhere it pleases.

 

OMG....you actually think Assad was the legitimate leader of Syria, he never had  a democratic election but he somehow is legitimate? 

 

 

Its not a matter of what I think, the Syrian government had years of relations with more or less the entire world. It was de facto and de iure accepted as a legitimate representative of the Syrian people. Up until the point that the west decided to remove Assad. And even then post the 2014. presidential election the number of countries reaffirming their stance that Assad is legitimate (by way of congratulating him on his victory, which is one of the ways a government can be accepted under international law) far outnumbers the few western countries that called the elections a farce.

 

Incidentally, your own government is among those that congratulated Assad on his victory.

 

How does anyone let you discuss politics on air when you know so little of international relations?

Edited November 24, 2015 by Drowsy Emperor