Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Sean Spicer, Omg.
80 Answers
Maybe some kind aber would post the latest news from the Trump's press officer, thanks.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anneasquith. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The idea that that refugees are not fleeing Assad but "other Muslims" (Assad in any case being a Muslim) is odd, to put it politely. They are fleeing war. In many cases (and this happened in Afghanistan too with locals and the Taliban) Syrian Sunnis were reasonably happy to be "defended" by IS. Assad's rule is just as tribal as any postulated future Sunni "theocracy".
I don't mean to be rude khandro, but sometimes you need to actually look at what is happening in the 21st century, rather than simply reading history books.
I don't mean to be rude khandro, but sometimes you need to actually look at what is happening in the 21st century, rather than simply reading history books.
And just to reiterate: you think Assad is "keeping a lid on the different factions"?
How many warring factions were there in Syria before, and how many are there now. And who was ruling then, ,and who was ruling now?
I rest my case :-
Even prominent Iranians have questioned Assad's staying in power, and the Russians themselves have occasionally said that they are not fixated on him personally remaning in charge.
How many warring factions were there in Syria before, and how many are there now. And who was ruling then, ,and who was ruling now?
I rest my case :-
Even prominent Iranians have questioned Assad's staying in power, and the Russians themselves have occasionally said that they are not fixated on him personally remaning in charge.
Jim at 12:03, stagger no longer. I have really thought about it, but it seems you – and Mikey – haven’t. Despite there being several factions, there are, in fact, only two – Assad and ‘the others’, all of whom have separate aspirations for the future of Syria. That being the case, firstly which faction of ‘the others’ do you think is capable of forming a government and of ensuring a stable future for the area, and secondly should one of them attempt to do that, what do you think the rest of ‘the others’ will do? Do you honestly imagine they’ll all lay down their arms, concede defeat, and live happily ever after under a regime that they are against? I doubt very much that the victors will be receiving a note of congratulations from IS or from any of ‘the others’ wishing them luck. Far from it.
ichi; //How many warring factions were there in Syria before, //
There were no warring factions, there were Sunnis (about 70%) Shias and the Alawites - to which Assad belongs, Christians , Druze, kurds, Turkmen, Assyrians and more, they all lived side by side with their own communities and places of worship under Assad's rather fearsome dictatorship in which you had to toe the line, but everyone was safe, protected and Damascus was a beautiful civilized city.
There were no warring factions, there were Sunnis (about 70%) Shias and the Alawites - to which Assad belongs, Christians , Druze, kurds, Turkmen, Assyrians and more, they all lived side by side with their own communities and places of worship under Assad's rather fearsome dictatorship in which you had to toe the line, but everyone was safe, protected and Damascus was a beautiful civilized city.
> Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect
> SEAN SPICER DENIES HITLER GASSED JEWS DURING THE HOLOCAUST.
> Did he deny it ... really?
Nope. He didn't deny it. He just forgot it or somehow, amazingly, didn't equate a "gas chamber" with a "gas attack". Why? Because he's an idiot who's completely unsuited to the job that he's in: White House press secretary i.e. someone who's supposed to understand the press far more than the average person.
Of course some will misconstrue what he said and make even worse of it than it was, but most don't. Most recognise it for what it was, which is the idiotic statements of somebody totally out of his depth.
> SEAN SPICER DENIES HITLER GASSED JEWS DURING THE HOLOCAUST.
> Did he deny it ... really?
Nope. He didn't deny it. He just forgot it or somehow, amazingly, didn't equate a "gas chamber" with a "gas attack". Why? Because he's an idiot who's completely unsuited to the job that he's in: White House press secretary i.e. someone who's supposed to understand the press far more than the average person.
Of course some will misconstrue what he said and make even worse of it than it was, but most don't. Most recognise it for what it was, which is the idiotic statements of somebody totally out of his depth.
How about Naomi that we both accept that (a) we have thought about it, but (b) it's possible to disagree even after that? What I was particularly stunned by all the same, and remain so, is this insistence that there are only two outcomes that you (and Khandro) seem fixated on, ie stable Assad-led or unstable ISIS-dominated. Even if a third option, and I confess I don't have a particularly detailed one, is also unstable it doesn't have to mean that ISIS should be the big winner in that picture.
In answer to your more direct questions, (a) no idea, probably none of them (other factions); and (b) probably protest in violence, as always is the case whenever these sorts of things break down. The lesson I prefer to draw from history though is that violence only ever comes to end when people *try*. Success isn't guaranteed even then, but it's more likely to come about than just standing to one side.
I suppose if we are doing the "bad comparisons to Hitler" thing, is there not an analogy to be drawn in that way too? Even Hitler, bad as he was, was still preferred by some as a strong leader capable of keeping the "even worse" Stalin at bay from pushing deep into Europe. I am not sure that people would accept that this view was correct in hindsight. At any rate, being so scared then of hypothetically "even worse" scenarios just allowed actually real horror scenarios to happen anyway -- which is the only analogy I'm tempting to draw, and I hope there's rather less quarrel in this case than with Spicer's comments.
In the same way, I have every sympathy with being afraid of the consequences of intervention, if not properly followed-through and planned, in Syria. But so far our inaction has allowed a war to develop anyway in which hundreds of thousands have died, and approximately a quarter of the population has been forced to flee from their homes. Will an alternative be worse? Yes, it could be -- but it doesn't have to be.
In answer to your more direct questions, (a) no idea, probably none of them (other factions); and (b) probably protest in violence, as always is the case whenever these sorts of things break down. The lesson I prefer to draw from history though is that violence only ever comes to end when people *try*. Success isn't guaranteed even then, but it's more likely to come about than just standing to one side.
I suppose if we are doing the "bad comparisons to Hitler" thing, is there not an analogy to be drawn in that way too? Even Hitler, bad as he was, was still preferred by some as a strong leader capable of keeping the "even worse" Stalin at bay from pushing deep into Europe. I am not sure that people would accept that this view was correct in hindsight. At any rate, being so scared then of hypothetically "even worse" scenarios just allowed actually real horror scenarios to happen anyway -- which is the only analogy I'm tempting to draw, and I hope there's rather less quarrel in this case than with Spicer's comments.
In the same way, I have every sympathy with being afraid of the consequences of intervention, if not properly followed-through and planned, in Syria. But so far our inaction has allowed a war to develop anyway in which hundreds of thousands have died, and approximately a quarter of the population has been forced to flee from their homes. Will an alternative be worse? Yes, it could be -- but it doesn't have to be.
// Do you honestly imagine they’ll all lay down their arms, concede defeat, and live happily ever after under a regime that they are against? //
so its OK to gas people and women and children then ?
Oh. I do love a good non-sequitur and AB furnishes some of the very best - carry on - gassing ! ( I suppose)
erm gassing as in "conversing to no great benefit"
I wouldnt like people to be staggered that I had used a phrase inappropriately or in a way that ignored recent history
softlee softlee = = =actually for Sean
Loudlee loudlee - make complete ass of oneself
thanks to the fella who put the video on earlier
definitely worth wading thro the 70 or so "answers"
so its OK to gas people and women and children then ?
Oh. I do love a good non-sequitur and AB furnishes some of the very best - carry on - gassing ! ( I suppose)
erm gassing as in "conversing to no great benefit"
I wouldnt like people to be staggered that I had used a phrase inappropriately or in a way that ignored recent history
softlee softlee = = =actually for Sean
Loudlee loudlee - make complete ass of oneself
thanks to the fella who put the video on earlier
definitely worth wading thro the 70 or so "answers"
"There were no warring factions, there were Sunnis (about 70%) Shias and the Alawites - to which Assad belongs, Christians , Druze, kurds, Turkmen, Assyrians and more, they all lived side by side with their own communities and places of worship under Assad's rather fearsome dictatorship in which you had to toe the line, but everyone was safe, protected and Damascus was a beautiful civilized city. "
But that is exactly my point: there were none. And now there are many. So, as I said before, although he ruled with a rod of iron before, he was actually utterly hopeless when people lost their fear of him. His state - in many ways like that of Gaddafi's although not as bad, did not have the mechanisms to deal with people's grievances - it only knew one way: bloody repression (something worth considering for all those who make the otherwise reasonable point that bringing "democracy" to the Middle East is problematic.
But the repression hasn't worked.
But that is exactly my point: there were none. And now there are many. So, as I said before, although he ruled with a rod of iron before, he was actually utterly hopeless when people lost their fear of him. His state - in many ways like that of Gaddafi's although not as bad, did not have the mechanisms to deal with people's grievances - it only knew one way: bloody repression (something worth considering for all those who make the otherwise reasonable point that bringing "democracy" to the Middle East is problematic.
But the repression hasn't worked.
Jim, // The lesson I prefer to draw from history though is that violence only ever comes to end when people *try*.//
You forget that most of the ‘factions’ are Islamists and as such are not seeking peace on anyone else’s terms – only on their own. They’re not going to ‘protest’; they’re going to continue fighting. Whilst those factions exist the area will never know peace. That’s the reality.
ichkeria, // His [Assad’s] state - in many ways like that of Gaddafi's although not as bad, did not have the mechanisms to deal with people's grievances - it only knew one way: bloody repression//
Do you really think there won’t be bloody repression under Islamist rule? That’s the alternative – and Islamists don’t embrace democracy either.
You forget that most of the ‘factions’ are Islamists and as such are not seeking peace on anyone else’s terms – only on their own. They’re not going to ‘protest’; they’re going to continue fighting. Whilst those factions exist the area will never know peace. That’s the reality.
ichkeria, // His [Assad’s] state - in many ways like that of Gaddafi's although not as bad, did not have the mechanisms to deal with people's grievances - it only knew one way: bloody repression//
Do you really think there won’t be bloody repression under Islamist rule? That’s the alternative – and Islamists don’t embrace democracy either.
I hadn't realised Mr Spicer had followed up one gaffe with another: 'The president's efforts to destabilise the Middle East' Oh dear!
Even emergency surgery to remove his foot from his mouth may not save him. Surely Trump must sack his sorry ass, or whatever it is that Americans say in such situations :-)
Even emergency surgery to remove his foot from his mouth may not save him. Surely Trump must sack his sorry ass, or whatever it is that Americans say in such situations :-)
Spokespersons and their Presidents haven't changed - they're just as thick (or normal) as they ever were, like say the Reagan, Ford, or Bush administration (Either one) what has changed are the critics - instead of half a dozen in each country there are now countless millions, all experts in everything.......
Latest Posts
Mps Have Voted In Favour Of Assisted...
News24 mins ago
ChatterBank25 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles26 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.