Comments by "Emanon" (@Emanon...) on "Debate: Is Trump-Putin Summit a “Danger to America” or Crucial Diplomacy Between Nuclear Powers?" video.

Kool-aid: Congratulations. You just traded the lives of 500.000 Syrian civilians and the dispossessment of 15 million people for "whatever it it takes to restore order and stability" - whatever the fuck that means... And no, the US would not do the same, you ignorant moron. Have you heard of the civil rights movement? Was there a civil war because of that or did the US government give in to legitimate claims from the population? How can anyone in their right mind agree with "long live Assad"? The level of ignorance in this thread is mind boggling. I better prepare for the republic of Gilead, I guess...
6
In what way were the demonstrations in Syria in 2010 violent? Please educate me. Was it when the first 100's had been killed by army snipers? Or when the shellings began? To answer your question: If they are cunts, they would. If they are an illegitimate government, but with a shred of decency and humanity, then no. Case in point: Tunisia, South Africa, Poland, Turkey, Czech Rep., Zimbabew etc... Please tell me you're a russian troll. Or just an average American. Because no one else can be writing comments that intensely deprived of historical context and factual events.
5
Yeah, long live genocide.... Of course you guys have been the fans of that the last few decades.
3
I watch and read Arab news sources. Al Jazeera is the most trusted source of news in the world. Hands down. And I'm sorry dude, but the protests were real, the demands were real, the initial revolution was real. I've worked with Syrian refugees and I know a lot of Syrians that were there. Some are still there. So yes. I know my sources, thank you very much. I'm not denying that the second phase of the war is a proxy war. But do you honestly think that Israel wants a free Syria? Are you kidding me? No one protected their border from extremists better than Assad. Just like in Egypt, it is not in the interest of the US and Israel that the peoples voices are heard. The status quo was just fine for them. Iran and Israel too. They get to keep playing against each other to great political benefit internally. The second phase was a "Iran/Syria vs ISIS" and my own opinion is that the US let it happen hoping that the two enemies would exhaust each other. If the US wanted to enter the war, they would have. And won the initial phase too. After that, I guess they would have fucked every thing up as usual...
2
No worries :) Qatar are no angels either. They have their own agenda. My point is to never stop questioning the facts provided. I always have the assumption: Qui Bono? Who Benefits? And I think the answer probably lies somewhere in between with regards to Syria. I'm just fearful that we will have another failed state on our hands the next 50 years because we all failed to act and then the whole goddamn thing starts over with instability in the region and another "war on terror"... Fuck it. I'm having a drink...
2
Kool-aid Before that, what was the trigger to the war? Legitimate demands for civil, constitutional and economic reforms through peaceful protests. The protests were met with utter butchery. The civil war started. So yes, It's a perfect comparison to the civil rights movement. And has certain similarities to the Spanish civil war. Then, a few years on we can start talking about a proxywar by the West, Israel, Iran and Russia. You guys shit your pants every single time someone is called a terrorist. Well guess what, my occidental buddy. You're supporting Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel who are by every definition commiting acts of terrorism in Yemen, Sinai and Palestine. By proxy, you're the terrorists too . Saying that the war is lost and we should seek a solution, even with Assad, is one thing. Saying "long live Assad" and that everyone that fought against him "are all terrorists" is an abject surrender of any common sense or moral values you might hold. In terms of drinkning the Kool-Aid, who watches the watchers, eh "Kool-Aid Watchdog"?
1
You're absolutely right about Clark. The same thing goes for Iraq and Libya. And I'm pretty sure Bolton, and Cheney before him, have contingencies for an overthrow in Iran. The context were civil protests after failed harvests, lack of water due to drought and increasing gas prices, during the recession. This came in the aftermath of the Arab Spring in Tunisia and Egypt. The original protests didn't even want Assad gone, they just wanted their (legitimate) rights and more representation. That's basically how the US revolution started too... And like the British, when Assads forces responded violently, the call for Assads resignation came and the conflict started proper. To call this purely a proxy war is distasteful to all the people who bravely protested, fought and died against a tyrant and a butcher. Let's bring this up again in a few years when they dig up the mass graves and you find out that the civilian deaths actually were in the millions... And then we can all sit in the West and discuss how we could possibly let it happen and how we can prevent this from ever happening again. Again and again.
1
Another world: While you are absolutely right about the inherent bias, you are simply wrong about everything else. Al Jazeera is in Qatar. While it's not the whole reason, it IS a major part of the reason for the blockade on Qatar BY Saudi Arabia and the UAE, who have called for them to shut it down. So get your facts straight before insulting people. Even the US and Israel ("lovers" of free speech) have sought to shut it down for reporting from Syria, Gaza, Iraq and Afghanistan. *Let me put it this way: If you're a news organisation and your journalists are imprisoned and beaten and Egypt, Iran, Russia, USA, UAE, Saudis AND Israel want you shut down - you're absolutely doing something right.* During the uprising I followed news from Arabian, Russian and Western sources. I don't give a shit what you think. I don't care about chemical weapons either. Killing civilians is wrong no matter the method. What is the first and foremost purpose of a government? Protecting its citizens. Assad's forces started the shellings into civilian areas - that's fact. Snipers were targeting peaceful demonstrators - fact. Hundreds of corroborated refugee accounts of rape and killings - fact. Are ISIS a bunch of fucks? Absolutely But Assad is in no way, shape or form any better. And if the "insurgents" were puppets of the West and Saudis, wouldn't it be relevant to ask if Assad is also a puppet of Iran and Russia? One thing is clear: There is no legitimate government that protects and respresents the will of the Syrian people.
1