What's new

2,100 Iran fighters killed in Iraq, Syria: Official

...
First it has no source for his claim ( no need to check his website, it's already done) so here something with sources...
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/afp/2017/01/syria-conflict-players.html

13.5% in rebel held areas
65.5% for the Regime = 10Mil
12.5% for SDF
8.5% ISIS = 1.3Mil

I am speechless... rly.

5Mil syrians REFUGEES outside syria... it's almost 25% !!!!!! OF ALL SYRIAN TOTAL POPULATION. Running from who??? may I ask?
+ 2Mil in Rebels Area
= 7Mil = 33% Running from ASSAd!! not even speaking about those in SDF areas or ISIS, neither in ES ...

AS for those inside SDF areas, they don't want to go back to ASSad, they want to stay among themselfs, meaning it's was an opportunity to be far away from ASSad.
So if you add those 12.5%= 1.9Mil
You get yourself almost 10Mil!!! Syrians out of 20Mil who either runaway from assad, or stay in rebels area or SDF.

So in The End what about those almost 50% of Syrians? :)
This is what you said:

"Yet syrians still choose to move to those "rebels" area and not ASSad..."

It was bullshit. End of story.
 
you desert dwellers kiss and mate with your camels spreading viral diseases, that's the main issue, not people riding camels.

saudi_farmer_with_camel.jpg


3caf71a30e0fd2379fa8443d6a36cd11.jpg


stop-kissing-that-camel-cairo.jpg

The last two pics are not Saudis or GCC but egypt...
ANd last thing, we do not have CAMELS here (almost none)... deaf maybe?
Anyway... Have Fun

May it always remain that way.
if it's not anymore, then it will be ppl choice.
 
it's not, but it will be ppl choice. it's also a form of democracy.
That's not how electoral democracies function ROFL.

But according to you, that's okay, right? It's the people's choice, after all. So I guess it's okay for Assad to rule Syria since the majority voted for him.
 
That's not how electoral democracies function ROFL.

But according to you, that's okay, right? It's the people's choice, after all. So I guess it's okay for Assad to rule Syria since the majority voted for him.

Democracy is not a tool with "power" it's alive till the ppl play by the rule, otherwise it has no meaning. Who will enforce /protect it? if all of the pop of that country whoever they are want something else?

As for ASSad, since his father , the vote were faked... so it's null and useless.
But if Tomorrow A great Majority (everyone, whoever they are) voted with no pressure, neither restriction, and you get ASSad as winner, then it will be ppl choice.

In the End what can you do? nothing. and that's the problem with populism, only one can control it... and this one is the winner, whoever he is...

BUt ofc Demos is better.
 
Democracy is not a tool with "power" it's alive till the ppl play by the rule, otherwise it has no meaning. Who will enforce /protect it? if all of the pop of that country whoever they are want something else?

As for ASSad, since his father , the vote were faked... so it's null and useless.
But if Tomorrow A great Majority (everyone, whoever they are) voted with no pressure, neither restriction, and you get ASSad as winner, then it will be ppl choice.

In the End what can you do? nothing. and that's the problem with populism, only one can control it... and this one is the winner, whoever he is...

BUt ofc Demos is better.
In modern democracies, there's a system of checks and balances and separation of powers that prevents the tyranny of the majority from taking place. America's founding fathers were against direct democracy because they knew it'll eventually lead to tyranny, therefore they preferred representative democracy, which they referred to as a "republican" system. The whole point of representative democracy, i.e. modern democracy as we know it, is that it prevents what you described from ever happening. The whole purpose of a representative democracy is that it protects minority viewpoints and preserves itself from any possible attempt by the majority to enforce/impose mob rule.

No country with a proper system of checks and balances and separation of powers will ever slide into authoritarianism. Populism is not authoritarianism. America is currently ruled by a populist president, but America is still a democracy. Populism could lead to fascism/authoritarianism if a country's democratic system is weak, just like what occurred in Russia in the 2000s, but it cannot occur in a country with a strong democratic system in place.

It all depends on how strong and resilient a country's political system is. The democracies in the West are pretty resilient. By contrast, new democracies such as Russia quickly became authoritarian due to structural weaknesses.
 
In modern democracies, there's a system of checks and balances and separation of powers that prevents the tyranny of the majority from taking place. America's founding fathers were against direct democracy because they knew it'll eventually lead to tyranny, therefore they preferred representative democracy, which they referred to as a "republican" system. The whole point of representative democracy, i.e. modern democracy as we know it, is that it prevents what you described from ever happening. The whole purpose of a representative democracy is that it protects minority viewpoints and preserves itself from any possible attempt by the majority to enforce/impose mob rule.

No country with a proper system of checks and balances and separation of powers will ever slide into authoritarianism. Populism is not authoritarianism. America is currently ruled by a populist president, but America is still a democracy. Populism could lead to fascism/authoritarianism if a country's democratic system is weak, just like what occurred in Russia in the 2000s, but it cannot occur in a country with a strong democratic system in place.

It all depends on how strong and resilient a country's political system is. The democracies in the West are pretty resilient. By contrast, new democracies such as Russia quickly became authoritarian due to structural weaknesses.

Democracy is a Regime, and as any Regime, it can be overthrown. Whatever checks and balance you have in, even it's the best among the best, you can't stop an uprising of the Pop, it's called "Revo". So the last resort for a democracy to survive, will not be the use of the judiciary neither legislature branch but the executive, by using "FORCE" to keep it alive... Meaning resorting to killing/arrest/abuse etc... In the End it's using the same tools as any "Authoritarian regime".

See... Nothing exist forever, it only exist bc the Time of History permit it. nothing more Nothing less.

Manmade ideology/things have always a weakness and most of the Time, He is the weakness himself...
 
Democracy is a Regime, and as any Regime, it can be overthrown. Whatever checks and balance you have in, even it's the best among the best, you can't stop an uprising of the Pop, it's called "Revo". So the last resort for a democracy to survive, will not be the use of the judiciary neither legislature branch but the executive, by using "FORCE" to keep it alive... Meaning resorting to killing/arrest/abuse etc... In the End it's using the same tools as any "Authoritarian regime".

See... Nothing exist forever, it only exist bc the Time of History permit it. nothing more Nothing less.

Manmade ideology/things have always a weakness and most of the Time, He is the weakness himself...
I agree that nothing's permanent, but you're confusing revolutions with populism. They're not the same.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 2, Members: 0, Guests: 2)


Back
Top Bottom