Posted on 09/17/2014 2:45:27 AM PDT by markomalley
There is no “was decades ago” to jihadists. Forgot about their revanchism of Andalusia, which is in Spain—as recently as last year? They always hold a grudge until they reconquer what they regard as Muslim land.
And if any jihadis get hold of nukes, whether in Iran or in Pakistan, the game truly is up.
If Assad was not a secular dictator....why did he not prosecute christians as all theocratic islamic dictators would...?
As for Turkey, they still are secular, but Erogan sure is moving to a theocratic state....
Hopefully, he gets the Morsi treatment soon...
Why won’t you bring Q-duffy into discussion. He was a really nasty person back to the 1980s but not ever since.
And why are you judging Bashar for his father’s deeds?
Assad is not claiming Andalusia, he is a Baathist socialist. He is about as much expansionist Islamist as Obama an American-born Christian.
Assad is no choir boy but the alternative is alot worse.
He’s dead and can no longer have an effect, what with no heir ruling in his stead as with the Assad dynasty. Yes, he was just as nasty, even after the 1980s.
Bashar’s actions in 2011 were not his father’s deeds, furthermore.
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
~He’s dead and can no longer have an effect, what with no heir ruling in his stead as with the Assad dynasty. Yes, he was just as nasty, even after the 1980s.~
Who burned US consulate in Benghazi? It wasn’t Duffy who did it. It was ‘moderates’ who took over after ‘humanitarian airstrikes’ crippled his forces who kept them down.
~Bashar’s actions in 2011 were not his father’s deeds, furthermore.~
You are still referring to a single incident which left a dozen (Syrians) dead. Now look at thousands of Christian casualties inflicted by Assad’s opponents in numerous daily incidents as a result of diminished control over ‘moderates’ by Assad forces.
The only people that call them “moderates” are the liberals in the US.
The Christians in Syria and other Islamic regimes always faced either dhimmitude or death. The only real solution is to put down Islam in all permutations to save the Christians. The Ba’ath Party is about both Arab nationalism and Arab socialism—now what is nationalism and socialism combined?
I can’t say you are wrong, but once again your position doesn’t consist any viable solution. What is your solution?
At least Christians could live under Assad.
Defeat Islam, obviously. Which is Islamofascism, embodied in their version of national socialism. But who has the backbone to do this among our leaders, never mind any up-and-comers who themselves do not possess a totalitarian mindset?
What nation doesn’t need strong leadership?
Politics is an art of possible. How exactly do you plan to ‘defeat Islam’?
And once again your definition of Baathism as islamofascism is incorrect. Baathism is a distant relative to fascism, true, but it is really far from Islamist values. That is a primary reason why Baathists are attacked.
Politics is the mess that exists between the too-infrequent bursts of statesmanship.
Funny that you rush to the defense of Ba’athism, which is self-admittedly national socialism, never mind an empty comparison to “Islamist values”. The vast majority of Islam in the “Muslim world” in North Africa and Asia Minor features combination of nationalism and socialism.
Where am I defending Baathism? I just point out that it is a single yet relatively stable condition of Arab society and you haven’t proved me wrong.
If you’re calling national socialists “stable”, then I do not understand where you are coming from.
Assad did use chemical weapons; now if that’s the act of a “stable” autocrat, then I wonder what your standards for an unstable autocrat are.
You mean false flag (foiled) chemical weapons used by FSA to trigger an intervention by Obama?
I’m not saying ‘stable’ in universal terms but they are clearly more responsible than alternatives which is ISIS and alikes.
It is clearly visible, isn’t it and growing Christian deaths is an indicator you can’t ignore.
And you are still unable to point at any alternative other than clearly hypothetical to ‘defeat Islam’ though you don’t have any idea how to really do it.
Do you want to nuke Mecca or kill a billion muzzies or what? What is ‘ to defeat Islam’?
“Baathism is a distant relative to fascism, true, but it is really far from Islamist values. That is a primary reason why Baathists are attacked.” — Yes. But even Saddam didn’t follow Assad’s ba’athism version (though both are arabs), there were differences between them too. The line Islamic State (IS), and company, are trying to overcome is to forcibly “unify” the entirety of that region with their version of islam or islam a la salafist/sunni. Otherwise, the ME & N. African region, is not only divided according to sects of islam, but also along ethnic/racial & ideological lines (islamic & not). The whole situation is more complicated than appears. Got to go for now..maybe a later discussion.
In Assad’s Syria there are cell-phones and Internet, you can spend time in a pub and have some beers, enjoy western music and even watch MSNBC on cable. You can date a lady who aren’t wearing a ninja outfit and you don’t need to convert of buy her from her parents if you want to marry her. And she can go to university and have a job. You can go to Church or Mosque or whatever.
There are some worthy peculiarities comparing to Islamist regimes, isn’t it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.