This Friday in Syria: Day of Anger by pizmobeach

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

This Friday in Syria: Day of Anger

POSTED BY: PIZMOBEACH
UPDATED: Monday, April 4, 2011 07:46
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1221
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, March 31, 2011 5:12 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Syrian Dictator al-Assad's Big Speech this week wasn't what most Syrians had hoped for. In fact, just the opposite.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/03/20113301356154349
66.html

"Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, blamed "conspirators" for two weeks of anti-government protests that have rocked the nation but failed to lift emergency rule or offer other concessions.

In his first address to the nation since the start of a violent crackdown on protests demanding greater freedoms that erupted earlier this month, Assad said Syria was going through a "test of unity".

"I belong to the Syrian people, and whoever belongs to the Syrian people will always keep his head high," he said in the televised address before members of parliament in the capital, Damascus, on Wednesday.

"I know that the Syrian people have been awaiting this speech since last week, but I was waiting to get the full picture ... to avoid giving an emotional address that would put the people at ease but have no real effect, at a time when our enemies are targeting Syria," he said."

The Syrian Twitter-sphere is in a lather because of it, and anti-Hassad Syrians are going to stage a "Day of Anger" Friday, tomorrow (right after noon prayer) to show their dissatisfaction, which of course will likely only ramp up the violence.

Maybe that's why we have taken a step back in Libya, so we can be ready for Syria.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 31, 2011 7:07 AM

DREAMTROVE

A war with Syria is moronic. It's an ally of Russia. OTOH, in the 90s, the US went to war with Serbia, so, maybe we're morons. I think we're arrogant morons. We think of Russia as a non-player.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 31, 2011 8:13 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

It shows the perfect kind of quagmire that comes from these sorts of "noble" actions. They always start out small, with the belief that it'll be over soon.
If we act one way in Libya, doesn't that mean that we'll act that way in Syria, or at the least we'll be expected to by Syrians? Won't they be wondering why we don't?

I almost relish in seeing the hypocrisy and stupidity exposed.

Here's another "didn't think that would happen" complication that draws us in further:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/world/africa/01civilians.html?src=tw
rhp

"Meanwhile, fresh intelligence this week showed that Libyan government forces were supplying assault rifles to civilians in the town of Surt, which is populated largely by Qaddafi loyalists. These civilian Qaddafi sympathizers were seen chasing rebel forces in nonmilitary vehicles like sedans and trucks, accompanied by Libyan troops, according to American military officers."

"The increasing murkiness of the battlefield, as the freewheeling rebels advance and retreat and as fighters from both sides mingle among civilians, has prompted NATO members to issue new “rules of engagement” spelling out when the coalition may attack units on the ground in the name of protecting civilians."

So if you are a civilian with a gun and on Qaddafi's side, we'll spend billions to protect you from the rebels who we're siding with?

Rebels following “rules of engagement” - heheheheheh

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 31, 2011 12:15 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
I think we're arrogant morons

And have been for, how long now? Sometimes well-meaning morons, sometimes morons with self-interest, but we sure haven't figured out how to do this stuff intelligently yet!

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 31, 2011 12:36 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Enough w/ the anger already. Look where it's gotten you!

Go get drunk and laid, like you're suppose to on Friday. Sheesh.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 31, 2011 4:52 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Yeah, enough with the anger!

The teabaggers never got anywhere by being angry!

So, about Syria - Looks like they're having a party. I wonder if we'll bring the bombs.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 31, 2011 5:53 PM

DREAMTROVE

Pizmo,

That analysis is pretty spot on there. Yes, we don't think "where is this leading us?" It's like a guy who buys a handyman special house thinking "And then I'll live there" and it turns out to be a money pit. Like me. Recently.

But yet, then I learn, because I'm not a govt. A govt. if it learns will be replaced by new people to run it who will then make the same mistake again.

There are a thousand things we don't stop to think about, like "How will our actions affect the attitude of the rest of the muslim world towards us?" We don't even think "If we go to war with Syria, and Russia feels the need to arm and defend them, then we have dragged Russia into this mess. Once Russia is *in* this mess, if we go to war with Iran, it's much more likely that Russia will arm and defend Iran. Russia and Iran aren't allies, but they're not enemies. Once you are in a conflict, your opponent will start picking up everyone that's not your ally as their own. Likewise, of course, in Pakistan we can drag China in, etc. And, as has been commented before, the tactics we use affect the tactics used against us. They whole thing is a butterfly effect nightmare.

Niki,

The US Fed Govt. is never well meaning. American citizens are.

Mike,

Maybe it needs a rest, or you need a vacation. I think you're the last partisan on the board. Too much time caught in these little spats, not enough time reading Pirate News

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 31, 2011 7:09 PM

KWICKO

"The last partisan"?

Really?

I get that you don't like it when I bag on your beloved teabaggers, but if you think that makes me partisan, what does it say about you when you bag on "socialists"? Does that make you a teabagger? At the very least, it makes you as much a partisan as I. As long as you're here, I won't be the last. ;)

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 31, 2011 8:25 PM

DREAMTROVE

Mike,

You're missing it. Everyone has been giving up on the partisan thing. Niki is attack Obama and Rap is defending him, that says something.

I actually no longer think tea party will be the libertarian fragment of the GOP, I think the frag that will run Ron Paul as a candidate will be the remains of the original republican party, because the neocons have been so jumping on the tea party bandwagon that they'll lose their own primary ;) Hey, it's possible.

Socialist is below Nazi. If it is a political party, run. Not for office. I mean flee.

To justify Socialist is below Nazi, consider it this way:

Socialist is one of {Nazi,Soviet,Maoist} and all of the branch govts that have come off of that. We've been through the whole list a number of times on a number of threads. Both Mao and Stalin killed millions of their *own* people, and each about 3 times as many people total. Not that keeping score counts, or that Nazi is in anyway elevated above zero as a form of govt, just that Nazis are a subset of socialist. Socialist is a superset of Nazis, that also include two major groups which could be argued to be worse than Nazis, if such a thing exists.

Now since then we've had other types of socialist crop up, the panafrican socialists, who are the real ones suppressing HIV treatment in africa, and allies for the globalists in the african union; and we have the bolivarian socialists who are killing the indians, the rainforest and bringing potential nuclear war to south america; and we have "Neo-liberal" global socialists, who together with their "Neo-conservative" spin off group, are simply "globalists."

It's take your pick, really.

So, if a decent politician like George Galloway or Bernie Sanders decides to call themselves a socialist, they're just naive. If you were to ask them which type of socialist of the major form of socialist states which have existed, they'd probably say "European socialist" well, the only types there have actually been are the ones mentioned above. There have been socialists in places like Sweden, but if you look at those parties under a closer light, you'll find them running more of the old Nazi programs than the US.

The final bugbear that puts people in the socialist corner is this false duality, just like saying republican and democrat are the only political positions that one can have, people think that socialism is what you are if you're anti-capitalist.

You can like both coke and pepsi, or you can dislike both. In fact, those two positions make infinitely more sense than liking one and not the other, which is what we sheeple are trained to do.

There's no more difference between democrat and republican than there is between coke and pepsi.

There's a difference between capitalist and socialist, but they still both suck.

ETA: If I get into a debate on the subject of "worst govt. ever" and from my dad's side, and common american perspective, say "Nazis," people on the chinese side say "No, Mao." And then I have to say "Yes, maybe Mao," also, we agree "Stalin." Then we have to say "Okay, maybe Communism is worse than Fascism," but does that even make sense? Absolute evil doesn't really measure in a relativistic manner. Socialism can only be worse than Nazi by being Nazi+Commie+whatever...

So, we end up with "one of {communism,fascism}" which is clumsy, but like the majority of the worst govts. of the 20th c., they are all socialist. In fact, it's a very simple single words that catches almost all of the worst govts. and none of the best. It's pretty easy.

The only obstacles are these people who learned about a dream utopia called socialism in college, they see the failure of capitalism, and they think that socialism is its only alternative.

Also, it doesn't help that they read the ideas of Marx and Shaw writing before socialism was a reality out of the context of what is coming up on a century of socialism in action.

The last genocide of a state exterminating up to a million of its own people was last year in Ethiopia, an openly socialist govt. Go back to the previous one, and the one before that, and through the last hundred genocides, and you will find not all, but maybe 90% are openly stated socialist govts. which is more remarkable when you consider that a small minority of govts. have ever declared themselves as such.

It's not me, the record is pretty damning. Opponents of this idea that socialism kills people are thicker than people who think guns don't kill people.

So, socialism will turn 100 in six years. What should we get it for its birthday, a billion skulls? Oh, they already have that.

BTW, I take your point on Christians, but only a small minority of Christian churches have been evil. Popes do tend to suck though, like Presidents.

Again, despite endless accusations I do not create or apply words to people. IMHO, there is only one valid definition: Those who call themselves that word, or act in accordance with its definition. (you blow things up to create an atmosphere of fear, you're a terrorist, even if you call yourself a "freedom fighter.")

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 1, 2011 1:26 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
You're missing it. Everyone has been giving up on the partisan thing. Niki is attack Obama and Rap is defending him, that says something.

You must've missed it as well; I haven't exactly been cheering Obama. We had a thread about it and everything. Actually, more than one. More than several, even.

Sweden doesn't strike me as a particularly evil place. No more evil than America, at least, and they have quite a bit more socialism. So do lots of places, and those places remain (and do) less evil than we do.

If you look at most of the "socialist" atrocities in history, you'll find some common threads. Dictatorships, "ethnic cleansing" (usually based on one group's religion versus another), a dominance of fascism in the government regardless of it *calling* itself a socialist government, etc.

If these atrocities had been committed by a Muslim leadership, most would decry their religion. However, when they're done by, say, a Catholic (Hitler, Stalin), nobody seems to notice.

In the end, it probably won't even matter. After all, Newt Gingrich, The Great White Hype™, says we're being taken over by secular atheist radical Muslims. Whatever that means. I'm sure he meant to say "socialist" instead of Muslim, though. ;)

Quote:
Again, despite endless accusations I do not create or apply words to people. IMHO, there is only one valid definition: Those who call themselves that word, or act in accordance with its definition. (you blow things up to create an atmosphere of fear, you're a terrorist, even if you call yourself a "freedom fighter.")

Of course you do that. Pretty much everyone here assigns positions to people.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 1, 2011 2:57 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
So, if a decent politician like George Galloway or Bernie Sanders decides to call themselves a socialist, they're just naive. If you were to ask them which type of socialist of the major form of socialist states which have existed, they'd probably say "European socialist" well, the only types there have actually been are the ones mentioned above.

Once again showing the almost universal confusion between a "Socialist" government and a "Social Welfare" government, and the massive drift in the perception of what "Socialism" is since Marx.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 3, 2011 8:26 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I hope it went fine.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 3, 2011 8:51 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:

Sweden doesn't strike me as a particularly evil place.

no, but suicide is kind of a national passtime there, but that's probably down the weather, more than socialist policies.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 4, 2011 3:27 AM

DREAMTROVE

Geezer

Everything changes once you put it into practice.

"A society based on the collective rather than the individual, on cooperation rather than competition" was IIRC, how Robert Owen defined in in 1820

Marx's "To each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" fits into that model neatly. "The workers must control the means of production" doesn't, and so ususally mutates in practice. If you have a society based on the collective and cooperation, then the workers, collectively control the means of production, which turns into collective bargaining, or unions. If you had the individual workers controlling production, you would lose your structure of collective cooperation. Your worker is doing the work according to his abilities, so the system is requiring his work.

The practical application is always going to lend itself to one central control with everyone cooperating with that singular power in terms of what they think is in the needs of the people. Because there is no competition, there is no dissent, and no evolution of ideas. Not saying this is never a good idea, we could probably have saved a lot of economic effort if we were all still driving Volkswagen Beetles, just that it's a structure that opens itself up to widespread abuse, and just general mass insanity.

Consider for a second Soros' concept of "Open Society." The idea is that if everyone in the country had access to the control mechanisms of all of the power structures of the country, that the result would be a universal equality and self determination. The result in practice has been a sort of new form of corruption. The reason is that not everyone has the same drive and influence once you open those doors, and so the Cheneys and Rockefellers of the world, or indeed the George Soroses will have far more influence through those channels than the common man, and they will have more of an interest in controlling them, leading to a rapid misdirection of power structures to favor whomever has organization and influence, which in the case of many of his Eastern European nations was the Russian Mafia, not really what he had intended.

Nothing is ever what you intend, because what you intend is theory. Theory doesn't involve the mafia or anything like it, because you don't design that into your society. (Okay, I had a player in a D&D game who built their own city, and they created a thieves guild and assassins guild because, well, that's what D&D cities have

)

It's like how you can set up a free market system thinking that those who do work will be rewarded and those who innovate will control the destiny of that society with the power of their rewards for innovation, and then some bankers with massive amounts of inherent wealth join your society, dominate it, and gear its economic structures towards ripping off the people until 99% of the rewards are going for theft and abuse, and not for innovation and progress.

Rank the value of contributions to society:

Stem Cell Research
Angry Birds
The bombing of Fallujah
A cure for AIDS
"Friday"
Invention of Home computers
Sedation of school children

Our system has ranked these in importance of what should be done:

The bombing of Fallujah
Sedation of school children
Home computers ***
Rozio's "Angry Birds" *
Stem Cell Research **
Rebecca Black's "Friday" *
The invention of Home computers ***
A cure for AIDS **

* increases dramatically when you include like ideas.
** include negative economic value because of conflicts
*** the invention itself, like many inventions went basically unrewarded, but innovation was rewarded.

Socialism would be designed from the top, and centrally planned, and would reward that which "appeared to me a good idea" or that which favors those with absolute power.

Socialism would favor:
The bombing of Fallujah

And possibly:
Sedation of school children

But generally not:
Home computers ***
Stem Cell Research **
The invention of Home computers ***
A cure for AIDS **

...because they're new ideas that post-date the plan, and wouldn't have:

Rozio's "Angry Birds" *
Rebecca Black's "Friday" *

Socialism tends to favor things that already existed or would have been initially conceived of. Once it is created, it is assigned a workforce, who then becomes a dominant interest in preserving itself. The public school system is a very socialist idea, so is public transportation.

If society is going to take "to each according to his needs" then it is going to accept the social welfare state as its end goal. It's accepting that each citizen is a liability, as well as an asset.

If you have a population that has a lot of needs and very few abilities, according to how the central planners view needs and abilities, then mass extermination becomes a logical conclusion.

If you went to some site like Stormfront.org, and searched, I'm sure someone has done an economic analysis of the cost to society of blacks, by welfare, govt. services, crime, etc. and then analyzed the net economic benefit of the black population to the country, and being good little national socialists that they are, has come up with the logical solution of killing them, or more likely sterilizing them, because they are, after all, americans, and killing other americans tends to appall even the worst of us.

This is why I opt for "Let them eat cake." It's a pretty good starting point for a society. The key issue is not what someone needs, but whether or not that need translates into an economic liability. If everyone is responsible for their own support, then they are not a drain on anyone else.

The problem I have with capitalism is that our system is run basically like a game of monopoly where one player gets to take from the bank whenever they want. This creates several problems, but among them, that one player has undo influence; the reward mechanisms can be reverse (stem cell research, etc. counters other economic interests; increasing welfare spending benefits the bankers because it increases debt...) that the work done gravitates back towards socialism in that it tends to favor central planning; and some activities are not adequately rewarded because someone has hijacked the means of production (as in a writer might get a normal salary on a book that is making the publisher millions, and the movie maker perhaps tens to hundreds of millions.)

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 4, 2011 7:46 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
Yes, we don't think "where is this leading us?" It's like a guy who buys a handyman special house thinking "And then I'll live there" and it turns out to be a money pit. Like me. Recently.

But yet, then I learn, because I'm not a govt. A govt. if it learns will be replaced by new people to run it who will then make the same mistake again.

Right on. And a perfect example is the Republicans putting in people who STILL want to follow the disasterous policies of the last Republican administration.

The government may not be well meaning in all cases, but in some cases it has followed (or led) the American people's desires to intervene. Good intentions don't necessarily have good results--in fact when it comes to intervening in other countries, it USUALLY doesn't. But "the government" is made up of human beings; it's so easy for us to condemn "the government" without looking at that fact, and that those individuals have to make decisions, based on policy, politics OR good intentions (remember Charlie's War? Ever seen "The Quiet American"?).

As to "partisans", I have NOT at all "switched sides" or given up on partisanship, whatever I had of it. I'm a liberal; I continue to be a liberal. I've said over and over and OVER that I did't vote for Obama in the primary and that I always had serious doubts about him, that I voted for him because the idea of McCain/Palin was horrific to me. I have argued against right-wing policies and thinking, and have defended some of the worst anti-Obama, anti-Democrat remarks, but that is because there is always more to it than partisan ideology CHOOSES to believe and espouse.

I'm not "partisan", only seen that way because I believe in liberal values, but I have always spoken up against what I think is wrong, be it left or right. Please don't attribute things to me that aren't true.

Much of the rest I also disagree with, but I'll leave it at that. I don't choose to spend the time or energy reading through all of what you wrote, so I may agree with other things as well.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE