Paving the way for outside actors to mess with those elections. Look at how much democracy Lebanon has with all its parties and yet it’s a giant mess. Americans complain about Russian interference in US elections but somehow don’t understand how that problem is far worse in a country with a tiny fraction of the resources that the US has. In fact, the US would be one of those outside actors trying to influence the elections, which they’ve done for many decades now in many different countries.
The future is uncertain: this is what freedom looks like. My entire heart goes out to the Syrian people. Hopefully the maniacs leading the HTS and the SNA will not manage to smother them.
This is what freedom for the most brutal looks like. The most brutal tend to be religious fanatics because they think they have God on their side and they’re willing to die for their cause. You can guarantee that whoever comes out on top will be establishing an ultraconservative theocracy and things will be worse for the Syrian people (except for those who are into that shit, maybe).
Paving the way for outside actors to mess with those elections.
So? If potential future foreign interference is a legitimate reason to NOT have democracy at all, then ALL democracy becomes impossible. You’re basically making the argument that democracy is impossible so Syrians should never ask for democratic reforms because …if they do sometime in the future some external actor might try to influence their election?
And it’s actually worse than that. They asked for democracy and they got bullets, chemical warfare and over a decade of destruction and dispossession. Was the threat of some potential election meddling that horrible that all of that is preferable? Ask any Syrian refugee in Lebanon if they wouldn’t trade the destruction of their country with Lebanon’s broken sectarian system.
Ultimately you’re making an argument that either they should have 100% of a good thing or 0% of the thing AND brutality for asking for the thing in the first place. And that’s utterly nonsensical.
You can guarantee that whoever comes out on top will be establishing an ultraconservative theocracy and things will be worse for the Syrian people
You actually cannot “guarantee” it. It is a possibility, but there are no guarantees. You can be pessimistic of course. But history never guarantees anything. I mentioned elsewhere in the thread that by “freedom”, I was referring to this particular moment right here, where nothing is for sure and things could go to the better or the worse. RIGHT NOW, there is uncertainty. Even if tomorrow HTS tries to enforce a khalifate or whatever shit, right now, this is a moment of freedom for Syrians. Just look at what they are saying. You can’t deny what you see. They are saying that after decades they are able to finally breathe. The future IS open, but not guaranteed.
Your mistake is in thinking that people simply asked for democracy. The movement gained its moment from the “Arab Spring” and as regimes were being toppled, someone spray painted basically “you’re next” to Assad. Tell me, which country would tolerate such a threat? Try doing that in the US and you’ll have the feds up your ass in a hot minute, even though the US is a much more stable country with nowhere near the same threat of the government being forcefully changed.
Obviously war is horrible, but what Syria had before then was better than what Lebanon had and has now. The war was quickly hijacked (or, perhaps, even started with help) by outside forces and was stretched out to over a decade. You could say that Assad should’ve just stepped down, but you could just as easily say that these outside groups should’ve just stopped as well. A bunch of far-right religious troglodytes don’t necessarily represent the people any better.
I can understand the momentary feeling of relief as fighting hits something of a lull and a pivotal moment of change occurs, but very soon people will see that the change will not be for the better. I slap a guarantee on it based on what has happened in the past, including the very recent past, with Iraq and Libya. People were saying the same thing when they were liberated and look at them now. I wish things would turn out better, but it seems obvious to anyone paying attention that there is so small a chance of that happening that it may as well be zero.
Oh excuse me for listening to what actual Syrians have been saying. You obviously know better.
This is always a funny thing to say because you seem to think a handful of views repeated by media interviews represent the views of an entire country.
Yes, that’s called a revolutionary wave. Or are those allowed for white people of previous centuries?
That’s hilarious that you’d make this statement implying that I think only white people can have a “revolutionary wave” which, by the way, plays out much differently in reality than compared with a time-compressed account written after the fact.
The rest of your comment is apologia for (brutal) state repression. Not interested.
Cool, revel in your ignorance and then be shocked and amazed when the inevitable happens. Pointing out that Assad, Saddam, and Gaddafi were better than what came after is not apologia, it’s just the reality, just like how pointing out genocide-supporting Biden is better than Trump is not genocide apologia.
Media interviews? You know that for a decade now there are about 6 million refugees living outside Syria, right? It’s not exactly difficult to meet them and hear what they have to say.
Yeah, gee, I wonder why people who fled a war would say it’s bad where the war is. Keep in mind that the majority of voters in the US voted for Trump because they thought Biden was the reason for the price of eggs.
Tell me you don’t interact with political exiles without telling me you don’t interact with political exiles. And I’m not just talking about Syrians here.
Plenty of them have expressed concern over who has taken over, so you’re not even correct on this point you’re trying to focus on. You’re painting a much more optimistic picture than what the reality warrants. Recent history backs me up, but we’ll see what happens within the next year or so. Until then, we’re just squabbling over what some random Syrians have said.
Paving the way for outside actors to mess with those elections. Look at how much democracy Lebanon has with all its parties and yet it’s a giant mess. Americans complain about Russian interference in US elections but somehow don’t understand how that problem is far worse in a country with a tiny fraction of the resources that the US has. In fact, the US would be one of those outside actors trying to influence the elections, which they’ve done for many decades now in many different countries.
This is what freedom for the most brutal looks like. The most brutal tend to be religious fanatics because they think they have God on their side and they’re willing to die for their cause. You can guarantee that whoever comes out on top will be establishing an ultraconservative theocracy and things will be worse for the Syrian people (except for those who are into that shit, maybe).
Respectfully, that’s a load of nonsense:
So? If potential future foreign interference is a legitimate reason to NOT have democracy at all, then ALL democracy becomes impossible. You’re basically making the argument that democracy is impossible so Syrians should never ask for democratic reforms because …if they do sometime in the future some external actor might try to influence their election?
And it’s actually worse than that. They asked for democracy and they got bullets, chemical warfare and over a decade of destruction and dispossession. Was the threat of some potential election meddling that horrible that all of that is preferable? Ask any Syrian refugee in Lebanon if they wouldn’t trade the destruction of their country with Lebanon’s broken sectarian system.
Ultimately you’re making an argument that either they should have 100% of a good thing or 0% of the thing AND brutality for asking for the thing in the first place. And that’s utterly nonsensical.
You actually cannot “guarantee” it. It is a possibility, but there are no guarantees. You can be pessimistic of course. But history never guarantees anything. I mentioned elsewhere in the thread that by “freedom”, I was referring to this particular moment right here, where nothing is for sure and things could go to the better or the worse. RIGHT NOW, there is uncertainty. Even if tomorrow HTS tries to enforce a khalifate or whatever shit, right now, this is a moment of freedom for Syrians. Just look at what they are saying. You can’t deny what you see. They are saying that after decades they are able to finally breathe. The future IS open, but not guaranteed.
Your mistake is in thinking that people simply asked for democracy. The movement gained its moment from the “Arab Spring” and as regimes were being toppled, someone spray painted basically “you’re next” to Assad. Tell me, which country would tolerate such a threat? Try doing that in the US and you’ll have the feds up your ass in a hot minute, even though the US is a much more stable country with nowhere near the same threat of the government being forcefully changed.
Obviously war is horrible, but what Syria had before then was better than what Lebanon had and has now. The war was quickly hijacked (or, perhaps, even started with help) by outside forces and was stretched out to over a decade. You could say that Assad should’ve just stepped down, but you could just as easily say that these outside groups should’ve just stopped as well. A bunch of far-right religious troglodytes don’t necessarily represent the people any better.
I can understand the momentary feeling of relief as fighting hits something of a lull and a pivotal moment of change occurs, but very soon people will see that the change will not be for the better. I slap a guarantee on it based on what has happened in the past, including the very recent past, with Iraq and Libya. People were saying the same thing when they were liberated and look at them now. I wish things would turn out better, but it seems obvious to anyone paying attention that there is so small a chance of that happening that it may as well be zero.
Oh excuse me for listening to what actual Syrians have been saying. You obviously know better.
Yes, that’s called a revolutionary wave. Or are those allowed for white people of previous centuries?
The rest of your comment is apologia for (brutal) state repression. Not interested.
This is always a funny thing to say because you seem to think a handful of views repeated by media interviews represent the views of an entire country.
That’s hilarious that you’d make this statement implying that I think only white people can have a “revolutionary wave” which, by the way, plays out much differently in reality than compared with a time-compressed account written after the fact.
Cool, revel in your ignorance and then be shocked and amazed when the inevitable happens. Pointing out that Assad, Saddam, and Gaddafi were better than what came after is not apologia, it’s just the reality, just like how pointing out genocide-supporting Biden is better than Trump is not genocide apologia.
Media interviews? You know that for a decade now there are about 6 million refugees living outside Syria, right? It’s not exactly difficult to meet them and hear what they have to say.
Yeah, gee, I wonder why people who fled a war would say it’s bad where the war is. Keep in mind that the majority of voters in the US voted for Trump because they thought Biden was the reason for the price of eggs.
Tell me you don’t interact with political exiles without telling me you don’t interact with political exiles. And I’m not just talking about Syrians here.
Plenty of them have expressed concern over who has taken over, so you’re not even correct on this point you’re trying to focus on. You’re painting a much more optimistic picture than what the reality warrants. Recent history backs me up, but we’ll see what happens within the next year or so. Until then, we’re just squabbling over what some random Syrians have said.