Santiago Alba Rico — The role and bias of this geopolitical obsession becomes very clear as soon as one compares the different attitudes toward Palestine and Syria.
Perhaps. But the fact of the matter is Assad did get removed. He was never able to gain full control of the country or showed any desire to enter real negotiations.
The only way to gain full control in a war is through might, but I wouldn’t say might makes right. As for negotiations, all opposition demanded “Assad must go” as a base requirement, which is kind of hard to find a middle ground on.
When the officeholder is the one on the opposite side of the negotiation table, it tends to be a difficult point to reconcile. Do you think the ruler of a country should step down any time a group demands their resignation? Do you think Biden should’ve negotiated with the January 6th insurrectionists who wanted to forcibly install their own ruler?
No, but I know you are. In the future, avoid such an inflammatory posture if you’d like to continue having a polite conversation (assuming that is what you’d like). I’ve noticed that you love to immediately downvote my posts and then post your response, so maybe you aren’t interested in polite conversation but rather you’re just in it to win internet points. Speaking of which, enjoy a downvote from me.
Heads of state stepping down as a result of domestic failures, even in authoritarian regimes, is incredibly normal.
Depends on the domestic failure and whether that head of state thinks there is another path forward.
Maybe consider losing most of the country for over a decade with no end in sight as a sign?
With the power of hindsight, sure, but obviously that wasn’t the anticipated outcome. Even his opposition didn’t think the war would have lasted this long.
Jesus fucking Christ.
You’ll do anything to play apologist for dictators and atrocities, as per usual.
I see that you didn’t bother to answer my question and instead decided to accuse me of being an apologist for dictators and atrocities. This may blow your mind, but political discussions don’t have to consist of shallow absolutist statements over cartoon caricatures. Following your logic, I could just as easily accuse you of being a simp for terrorists (like the leader of HTS who still has a $10 million reward on his head for any information by the US), but I recognize how disingenuous that is, unlike you.
edit: Refreshed and saw your downvote. LMAO, another incoming PugJesus response, I guess!
Sorry, I’m not the one that tried to imply that heads of state stepping down was an impossible demand that could not have reasonably been expected to be fulfilled by the opposition, instead of one of the most common demands and one of the most commonly fulfilled demands upon national unrest even in authoritarian regimes.
Sorry that was too complex for you to parse. Would you like me to simplify it further?
Depends on the domestic failure and whether that head of state thinks there is another path forward.
Too much trouble, clearly what needs to be done is to slaughter civilians en masse. That’s what you’re onboard for, after all, since this isn’t your first time bootlicking Assad.
With the power of hindsight, sure, but obviously that wasn’t the anticipated outcome. Even his opposition didn’t think the war would have lasted this long.
“With the power of hindsight, sure”
With the power of every passing fucking year. But sure, Assad was just waiting for victory around the corner.
I see that you didn’t bother to answer my question and instead decided to accuse me of being an apologist for dictators and atrocities.
This may be over your head, but there’s a bit of a difference between rioters attempting to stop certification of a democratic election and people under a legitimately authoritarian regime taking up arms for a years-long struggle against the legitimacy of the government itself.
But you’re here to downplay Assad as much as you can, because “West Bad”, hence why you’ve slobbered all over Assad’s (and Gaddafi’s, and Saddam’s) boots in declaring them the superior regimes to their alternatives.
Sorry, I’m not the one that tried to imply that heads of state stepping down was an impossible demand
That’s literally your wording. Looking at the rest of your post, I’ve deemed it not worth my time to respond to you until you’ve finished your temper tantrum. Come back to me when you’ve settled down, gained some maturity, and learned reading comprehension instead of arguing with a strawman you’ve made up in your head. By the way, have another downvote.
“One officeholder must step down” is apparently an impossible demand.
You:
When the officeholder is the one on the opposite side of the negotiation table, it tends to be a difficult point to reconcile. Do you think the ruler of a country should step down any time a group demands their resignation?
If you don’t like your dictator bootlicking being called out for what it is, maybe you should consider not being a fascist apologist in the future?
Sorry, I know that’s a big request to ask of you.
Notice that I followed that up with a question about whether a ruler should step down any time a group demands their resignation.
Yes, that’s definitely a question asked in good faith (‘any time a group demands their resignation’) and not at all downplaying the fact that the resignation was demanded in the process of a nationwide uprising including mass defections from the nation’s military, directed towards a figure who had never allowed legitimate elections in his life. /s
Perhaps. But the fact of the matter is Assad did get removed. He was never able to gain full control of the country or showed any desire to enter real negotiations.
The only way to gain full control in a war is through might, but I wouldn’t say might makes right. As for negotiations, all opposition demanded “Assad must go” as a base requirement, which is kind of hard to find a middle ground on.
“One officeholder must step down” is apparently an impossible demand.
When the officeholder is the one on the opposite side of the negotiation table, it tends to be a difficult point to reconcile. Do you think the ruler of a country should step down any time a group demands their resignation? Do you think Biden should’ve negotiated with the January 6th insurrectionists who wanted to forcibly install their own ruler?
Are you dense?
Heads of state stepping down as a result of domestic failures, even in authoritarian regimes, is incredibly normal.
Maybe consider losing most of the country for over a decade with no end in sight as a sign?
Jesus fucking Christ.
You’ll do anything to play apologist for dictators and atrocities, as per usual.
No, but I know you are. In the future, avoid such an inflammatory posture if you’d like to continue having a polite conversation (assuming that is what you’d like). I’ve noticed that you love to immediately downvote my posts and then post your response, so maybe you aren’t interested in polite conversation but rather you’re just in it to win internet points. Speaking of which, enjoy a downvote from me.
Depends on the domestic failure and whether that head of state thinks there is another path forward.
With the power of hindsight, sure, but obviously that wasn’t the anticipated outcome. Even his opposition didn’t think the war would have lasted this long.
I see that you didn’t bother to answer my question and instead decided to accuse me of being an apologist for dictators and atrocities. This may blow your mind, but political discussions don’t have to consist of shallow absolutist statements over cartoon caricatures. Following your logic, I could just as easily accuse you of being a simp for terrorists (like the leader of HTS who still has a $10 million reward on his head for any information by the US), but I recognize how disingenuous that is, unlike you.
edit: Refreshed and saw your downvote. LMAO, another incoming PugJesus response, I guess!
Sorry, I’m not the one that tried to imply that heads of state stepping down was an impossible demand that could not have reasonably been expected to be fulfilled by the opposition, instead of one of the most common demands and one of the most commonly fulfilled demands upon national unrest even in authoritarian regimes.
Sorry that was too complex for you to parse. Would you like me to simplify it further?
Too much trouble, clearly what needs to be done is to slaughter civilians en masse. That’s what you’re onboard for, after all, since this isn’t your first time bootlicking Assad.
“With the power of hindsight, sure”
With the power of every passing fucking year. But sure, Assad was just waiting for victory around the corner.
This may be over your head, but there’s a bit of a difference between rioters attempting to stop certification of a democratic election and people under a legitimately authoritarian regime taking up arms for a years-long struggle against the legitimacy of the government itself.
But you’re here to downplay Assad as much as you can, because “West Bad”, hence why you’ve slobbered all over Assad’s (and Gaddafi’s, and Saddam’s) boots in declaring them the superior regimes to their alternatives.
That’s literally your wording. Looking at the rest of your post, I’ve deemed it not worth my time to respond to you until you’ve finished your temper tantrum. Come back to me when you’ve settled down, gained some maturity, and learned reading comprehension instead of arguing with a strawman you’ve made up in your head. By the way, have another downvote.
@[email protected] and @[email protected] please bring this conversation to a close.
Me:
You:
If you don’t like your dictator bootlicking being called out for what it is, maybe you should consider not being a fascist apologist in the future?
Sorry, I know that’s a big request to ask of you.
Yes, that’s definitely a question asked in good faith (‘any time a group demands their resignation’) and not at all downplaying the fact that the resignation was demanded in the process of a nationwide uprising including mass defections from the nation’s military, directed towards a figure who had never allowed legitimate elections in his life. /s