Government posts its propaganda, rebels post their. Isn't it true freedom of speech? Or freedom is not for everyone?
Government posts its propaganda, rebels post their. Isn't it true freedom of speech? Or freedom is not for everyone?
If the officer can't prevent the booze then he must lead it.(c)
Freedom - such an overused word in this day and age.
With the erosion of what in the west we call freedoms, I wonder what the East German Stasi would think, all communications monitored to ensure no one is a threat to the state, it's all for the greater good so were told. So we don't put a bullet in the back of peoples head mostly, but we'll imprision you without charge for years on end if we decide your a terrorist.
Welcome to the 21st century version of Freedom 2.0
We have decided in the West the best way to help Syria is to supply weapons and safe passage along the Syrian border for a few rebels so they can continue the slaughter, this could drag on for years, Libya is a great example of the disaster that will unfold, you will have ethnic killings all over again, hope Britain and US are ready to help home the 2m Christians.
Whatever counrty you live in right now just be thankful it's not Syria, the big boys are playing and the Syrian people are going to suffer.
Last edited by Eble; Jun 28 2012 at 11:37.
The Arm II and Arma III Airforce is being prepared, fuel have been checked, systems checked....
(Faint Roar of engines in the distance)
previews and movies of addons past/future and present on youtube:
@Eble nice list of very flimsy examples and rare or non existent events to justify your ridiculous claims. If you dig into each item on your list you will find that:
a) What you have said is incorrect, taken out of context or is only partially true.
b) Might be possible, rarely happens or has never actually occurred.
c) There are many good logical and legal reasons behind it.
d) Much is logical fallacy, you find 1 flimsy example of something in the US and use it to justify what occurs daily to many thousands of people in places like Zimbabwe, Syria, Iran and North Korea.
e) I agree with one of the comments "Rather than appealing to sound logic, Mr. Turley (and you) feeds into our fascination with conspiracy theories and our fear of Big Brother."
Not entirely true is it? The US attorney general outlined a three-part test for determining when a targeted killing against a U.S. citizen is legal. He said the government must determine after careful review that the citizen poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the U.S., capture is not feasible and the killing would be consistent with laws of war. Attorney General Eric Holder said that the decision to kill a U.S. citizen living abroad who poses a terrorist threat "is among the gravest that government leaders can face," but justified lethal action as legal and sometimes necessary in the war on terror. Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in a drone strike in Yemen where he spent many years involved with Al-Qaida, his other criminal and numerous terrorist activities are listed on his wiki page below. His contact details were found or his name linked to nearly every major terrorist attack or attempt in the past 15 years including 9/11. Not only did he provide active support and fund raising, he gave them the religious approval and reasoning to kill innocent people.Assassination of U.S. citizens
President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)
Now lets look at Mr. al-Awlaki and see what he has been up to to provoke such a response:
Quite a long list isn't it?
Anwar al-Awlaki was given numerous chances to stop his active engagement in crime and terrorism, arrested and released several times, repeated warnings etc. but he chose to continue. As he was in hiding in Yemen, protected by a tribal network, capture was not a feasible option. What do you do when someone is involved in 1000's of deaths world wide and intends to help commit more? The argument that nothing can be done until he presents himself for arrest in the USA is laughable. Around 4 US citizens have been killed by US forces and to the best of my knowledge only al-Awlaki was targeted deliberately. So for this incident the US is as bad as Syria where 10,000s have died just because they said the wrong thing, didn't support the right leader or lived in the wrong place or were a relative of the wrong person?
Apologists for a regime that executes people against the walls of their own houses on a daily basis disgust me, not sure how you missed it but the Syrian people have been suffering for decades:
Last edited by PELHAM; Jun 28 2012 at 17:12.
We'll see if some years from now there will be a "Nuremberg" for the aggressions already commited or the one currently being forged.THE COMMON PLAN OR CONSPIRACY AND AGGRESSIVE WAR.
The Tribunal now turns to the consideration of the Crimes against peace charged in the Indictment. Count One of the Indictment charges the defendants with conspiring or having a common plan to commit crimes against peace. Count Two of the Indictment charges the defendants with committing specific crimes against peace by planning, preparing, initiating, and waging wars of aggression against a number of other States. It will be convenient to consider the question of the existence of a common plan and the question of aggressive war together, and to deal later in this Judgment with the question of the individual responsibility of the defendants.
The charges in the Indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive wars are charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world.
To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.
What should we do if anything?
Help the "German" people NOT be "schooled to obey without question any policy decreed by the State."
Help the "German" people nurture critical thought, specially against information enabling the agenda of war.
0015758: Extend area where Detail Map+Surface Textures Blend together (at a specific level of best effect - 50%?)
0015297: Ability to dynamicaly set searchPath parameter values (via scripting or command menu)
0013229: Ability to individualize setBehaviour type commands to group members
0012669: BIS_fnc_spawnGroup creates AI with skill 1 by default
0012695: createUnit (array) creates AI with skill 1 by default
I might have missed it because like the rest of the Western world we didn't give a shit about Syria, who cared less what they were doing and who they were killing.
Now that we might have a chance to change the people in power, suddenly I supposed to care, the west is getting invloved in yet another internal conflict we have no business being in.
I counter your shot against the wall in Syria with US drone attacks, pretty much the same end result, in a lot of cases people unrelated to the target are killed, no one cares, that poor child was worth it for the target etc.
I'm not apologising for what is happening in Syria right now, but what the west is doing by arming these militants will make matters much worse.
You can come back and tell me all about it when the Western forces have withdrawn from Afghanistan and the Taliban take over again and seek revenge, lets see where our Western morals are then, we got Osama, job done now lets leave etc.
Some interesting parts of the History
Hope you read some parts of it, took me some time to write and select it from the sources...
Iam sure some of you did read a bit more already about the history in the near east/middle east in the last years and it is for sure interesting to talk about the historical background of this area and Syria itself to understand the conflict better.
The whole near east is actually an inferno in the last decades and a bigger part of the reason is found in the historical segmentation and economical interests in this regions. In 1915/16 with the Hussein-McMahon correspondence the arabs were promised their independency and huge areas awarded. This was only short time later canceled with an secret agreement and the purpose to segment the near and middle east between certain Great World Powers i.e. GB, France for geopolitical interests and the split for colonial territories in general. It is called the Sikes-Picot Agreement from 1916.
The Ottoman empire did rule a big part of the whole area for around 400 years and former provinces of the Ottoman Empire were actually later transformed into man-made countries, the different groups of people were disregarded. Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Oman aswell Palestine which plays a special role are the examples which are actually nations who were man-made formed by Greater Powers later in these times. Many of these regions/countries were finally formed with the Red Line Agreement in 1928, they were segmented due to geopolitical interestes, potential areas with supposed Oil ressources or already accessed sprouts. This is one of the reason why we see a lot of problems in this area until nowadays.
From 1920-1946 the French did get the Mandate for Syria and Lebanon which was the dissolution of the Arab Kingdom of Syria. The Arab Kingdom of Syria was the first modern Arab state after the end of the Ottoman Empire and did end already after only 4 months, King Feisal got another chance to rule in Iraq but was again dropped by the Brits after they discovered Oil in Kirkuk.
From 1920-24 "Syria" got devided by the French into 5 states ! State of Aleppo, State of Damascus, State of Alawites, State of Jabal Druze.
The reason for the total partition of Syria by France was the greater ease to control the Mandate. Syria was in general in this time rather anti-French with a pan-Arab nationalist bent.
"In early September, 1920, the French divided the territories of their mandate based on heterogeneous population, in an effort to grant 'local autonomy' to demographic regions. However, some argue that the French acted on their own interests, to intentionally divide the population, and so limit the spread of "the urban contagion of nationalist agitation. When the French finally occupied Syria in 1920, they recognized the term "Alawi", gave autonomy to them and other minority groups, and accepted them into their colonial troops. The French considered the Alawites, along with the Druze, as the only "warlike races" in the mandate territories, as excellent soldiers, and the communities from where they could recruit their best troops "
In 1925 the State of Syria was born, not included was Lebanon and the Alawi State.
From 1925-27 a great revolt with the State of Syria with anti imperialist and anti french sentiments did happening.
The Alawite territory, greatly rural, was largely uninvolved in the Great Revolt. The French had favored religious minorities, such as Druze and Alawi, and attempted to isolate them from mainstream nationalist culture. Many young men of rural Alawi communities joined French troops, enlisted in the 'troupes speciales,' a subset of the French forces in Syria at the time, looking for further social advancement from French connections.These troops were regional forces, recruited from minority populations, and often used to put down civil disorders.
From 1930-1958 the Syrian Republic was decleared.
In 1936 The Franco-Syrian treaty guaranteed incorporation of previously autonomous Druze and Alawite regions into Greater Syria.
In 1936, Palestine rebelled in a large uprising, the Arab Revolt of 1936-1939. While much trade with Jewish merchants went on uninterrupted, pan-Arab sentiment in Syria and the ties "of kinship, culture, and politics" resulted in the extension of support to Palestine. Aside from strikes and demonstrations in favor of the Palestinians, Syrians smuggled arms into Palestine and led several successful guerrilla groups.
By the end of 1938, however, the French government "no longer found it advantageous to allow Syria to continue as a base for radical pan-Arab activities, in particular those associated with the revolt in Palestine." There was a French crack-down on Syrian nationalism.
On 3 December 1936 (effective in 1937), the Alawite state was re-incorporated into Syria as a concession by the French to the Nationalist Bloc, the party in power of the semi-autonomous Syrian government.
In September 1938, France again separated the Syrian Sanjak of Alexandretta and transformed it into the State of Hatay. The State of Hatay joined Turkey in the following year, in June 1939. Syria did not recognize the incorporation of Hatay into Turkey and the issue is still disputed until the present time.
On May 29, 1945, France bombed Damascus and tried to arrest its democratically elected leaders. While French planes were bombing Damascus, Prime Minister Faris al-Khoury was at the founding conference of the United Nations in San Francisco, presenting Syria's claim for independence from the French Mandate. Continuing pressure from Syrian nationalist groups and British pressure forced the French to evacuate their last troops on April 17, 1946.
The Syrian coup d'état of March 1949 was a bloodless coup d'état that took place on March 29 and was the first military coup in the history of Syria. It was led by the Army chief of staff at the time, Husni al-Zaim (Kurdish family background). According to Joseph Massad, a professor of Modern Arab Politics and Intellectual History at Columbia University, the coup was sponsored by the United States CIA  a conclusion in agreement with other historians such as Professor Douglas Little, and declassified records. He approved the Trans-Arabian Pipeline (TAPLINE), an American project designed to transport Saudi Arabian oil to Mediterranean ports.
The 1970 Syrian Corrective Revolution, referred to as the Syrian Corrective Movement, was a military-pragmatist faction's takeover within the Ba'ath Party regime of Syria on 13 November 1970, bringing Hafez al-Assad to power. The 1970 Revolution was directed against a dominant left-wing faction of the party and, to some extent, provoked by what Assad and his supporters saw as adventurous and irresponsible foreign policies. This revolution turned Syria's social and political structures upside down. The Alawites, Assad's tribe, although no more than 12% of the population, came to occupy plum positions in every sector of life in Syria.
The 'Alawis' ascent took place over the course of half a century. In 1920 they were still the lowly minority just described; by 1970, they firmly ruled Syria. This stunning transformation took place in three stages: the French mandate (1920-46), the period of Sunni dominance (1946-63), and the era of 'Alawi consolidation (1963-70). Indeed, the establishment of French rule after World War I benefited the 'Alawis more than any other community. French efforts to cooperate with the minorities meant the 'Alawis gained political autonomy and escaped Sunni control;
This is a an interesting article from the NYT, it writes about the relationship between the Alewites sect and regular Muslims:
"There was considerable tension within the Alawi community over the notion of unity with Syria in 1936, which was mandated by the Franco-Syrian treaty of that year. Part of this tension was the fear that Sunnis would discriminate against Alawis in their courts, as had happened in the past. Under Ottoman law, Alawis were refused the right to give testimony in court because they were not considered to be Muslims or People of the Book."
Although the Alawites are recognized as Muslims in Syria today, and rule the country, sectarian considerations still linger just below the surface.
The French built a local army and they recruited minorities, largely. And the Alawites were heavily recruited into this army.
And within 10 years - by 1955 it's estimated that Alawites made up almost 60 percent of the noncommissioned officers. By the mid-60s, Alawites took over the military and with the military they took over the country. So by 1970, Hafez Assad takes over, consolidates Alawite power in his own family, ..(Prof. Joshua Landis) ....
Source: most of it wikipedia, New York Times
It is quiete interesting to read the Syrian history, it is complicated and the influence of the French Mandate, the upraising of the Alawi and all these coupes...of course only a part of the history was posted.
Last edited by oxmox; Jun 29 2012 at 08:04.
So basically French, British and American imperialism are to blame for what happens today? I agree with that.