How much "free" the "free Syrian Army" is?

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/04/201242813737244536.html
Recently, the Lebanese Navy has ceased a ship full of weapons destined to be delivered to the "Free Syrian Army". It's now a open secret that Turkey already supplying arms and other assistance to this so-called "free Syrian Army". Now, the question is, how much free this so-called "free Syrian army". At least I am sure that if they take control of Syria, the condition there would be same or worse than Libya now.

The "Free Syria Army" is just another puppet rebellion of the international bourgeoisie, as shows by their strong ties to the USA, Israel, and Turkey. I read long ago that Blackwater was already on the ground in Syria helping these agitators. My guess is they are really trying to put a stranglehold on Iran in the middle east, Syria is just a stepping stone. A situation like what happened to Gaddaffi in Libya could happen to Asaad pretty soon. I think its important we stand in Solidarity with Syria against western agitation and imperialism, although Asaad is a man of slightly less caliber than Colonel Gaddaffi.

Gadhaffi was an un-funny joke, just like Assad. Repressive regimes must be brought down, it's only a shame that they are being replaced by likely neo-liberalist regimes with a sham of democracy.

Wonderful to see progressive supporters of western imperialism. Have you ever even read the Green Book?

Yes I have "ready[ed]" the Green Book. It was crap. I also do not appreciate you calling me an imperialist when I clearly said that both parties are bad choices; however, Western Neo-Liberal Imperialism is better than having a fascist leader. When you want to get rid of the personal attacks and have an actual conversation give me a response, otherwise, do not bother.

Red Aegis wrote:Yes I have "ready[ed]" the Green Book. It was crap. I also do not appreciate you calling me an imperialist when I clearly said that both parties are bad choices; however, Western Neo-Liberal Imperialism is better than having a fascist leader. When you want to get rid of the personal attacks and have an actual conversation give me a response, otherwise, do not bother.

No personal attack about it. How you can call Gaddaffi a "Fascist" while he clearly emphasized direct democracy in his book is beyond me. You are either for western imperialism, thousands of people getting slaughtered, financially and economically enslaved, people losing their culture, globalization, sweat shops being opened up, mickey d's on every corner, neo-liberal shit, or you are against it. There is no in between anymore.

Pantheon Rising wrote:No personal attack about it. How you can call Gaddaffi a "Fascist" while he clearly emphasized direct democracy in his book is beyond me.

I was clearly talking about Assad, a member of the Ba'ath Party. Addressing your statement on Ghaddafi advocating democracy, it was just talk. If you wish to prove otherwise go right on ahead.

You are either for western imperialism, thousands of people getting slaughtered, financially and economically enslaved, people losing their culture, globalization, sweat shops being opened up, mickey d's on every corner, neo-liberal shit, or you are against it. There is no in between anymore.

There is more than the two options of supporting repressive regimes and supporting economic, military, and cultural imperialism. You're setting up a false dichotomy and just claiming that there's, ". . . no in between anymore" doesn't prove otherwise. You're saying that it's an "us vs. them" scenario, but that's like saying that we have to side with the chinese against the american government just because we don't like bourgeois policies and systems.

Red Aegis wrote:I was clearly talking about Assad, a member of the Ba'ath Party. Addressing your statement on Ghaddafi advocating democracy, it was just talk. If you wish to prove otherwise go right on ahead.

Millions of people rallied in Tripoli in support of Gaddaffi and a Green Libya. First you say the book was crap, but now it is just all talk? How can such an oppressive figure maintain support from the majority of his people and still have people resisting as we speak?

That isn't even to say if you are going to believe all the lies about Gaddaffi, as if you can't take the Green Book at face value, which solves a lot of problems such as systems of democracy without a parliament.

There is more than the two options of supporting repressive regimes and supporting economic, military, and cultural imperialism. You're setting up a false dichotomy and just claiming that there's, ". . . no in between anymore" doesn't prove otherwise. You're saying that it's an "us vs. them" scenario, but that's like saying that we have to side with the chinese against the american government just because we don't like bourgeois policies and systems.

Well you certainly shouldn't be cheering on the rape of China by bourgeois democracy.

Pantheon Rising wrote:Millions of people rallied in Tripoli in support of Gaddaffi and a Green Libya. First you say the book was crap, but now it is just all talk? How can such an oppressive figure maintain support from the majority of his people and still have people resisting as we speak?

Did the Nazi's not resist until the last? Your logic is the same as those who would argue that due to the Germans defending Nazism, Nazism itself is good and correct. That logic has another name, argumentum ad populum.

That isn't even to say if you are going to believe all the lies about Gaddaffi, as if you can't take the Green Book at face value, which solves a lot of problems such as systems of democracy without a parliament.

Are you saying that every negative report on Ghaddafi was wrong?

Well you certainly shouldn't be cheering on the rape of China by bourgeois democracy.

Why is it not a black and white situation there?

>"ready[ed]"
Sorry, what does this mean?
If you are seriously going to comment like that on people's grammar, go to some other site. It just makes you look like an ass, it astonishes me that anyone +1 rep'd that comment.

Just because you don't like Authoritarian/Totalitarian forms of government doesn't mean they are necessarily bad and must be removed.

And the fact that you think that they should be removed, even when they are in opposition to the very same global opponent that we despise is counterproductive to say the least.

As for your comments on the book, once again pantheon phrases it perfectly.
Prove it is just talk, prove that it is crap, or maybe you can't because these are matters of opinion. All this seems to be is another personal attack on your part, this time against someone's taste in literature as well as against the author.

As for the comments on china, how exactly is china's system any better than the United States? Regardless, that problem will solve itself when the U.S eventually defaults like Greece, the only differences will be that new bourgeous regimes will arrive to take any fallen power's place.

And I do love how in so many threads people repeatedly reference to Nazism, honestly at this point it doesn't even surprise me that revleft and other sites thinks people here are nazis, nazism is mentioned so much it seems like there is a fetishism developing.

Balkan Beast wrote:Just because you don't like Authoritarian/Totalitarian forms of government doesn't mean they are necessarily bad and must be removed.

If you would like a critique on totalitarian governments, make a new thread about it. It's off topic considering the OP. As for your saying that just because I disagree with totalitarian governments, for whatever reason, I should not oppose them, this is rediculous. I will support the ousting of any system that I consider oppressive and/or undemocratic. What other possible criteria should I use? If you wish to state that this means that I support imperialism, I would point out that I support the ousting of neo-liberal governments as well. I can oppose both at the same time. I do not support "liberating" foreign populations and imposing a system upon them, I'm no fool.

Also, you tried to say that since my dislike of totalitarian systems is merely an opinion that they are not necessarily bad. What exactly are you saying is required to call something "bad" or "evil"? Morality is subjective and therefore, opinion on morality defines what is moral for that person. If you want to discuss this more, post in the Nihilism thread: http://www.socialistphalanx.com/t838-nihilism-or-what?highlight=nihilism. Again, this subject is tangential to the OP.

And the fact that you think that they should be removed, even when they are in opposition to the very same global opponent that we despise is counterproductive to say the least.

The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

As for your comments on the book, once again pantheon phrases it perfectly.
Prove it is just talk, prove that it is crap, or maybe you can't because these are matters of opinion. All this seems to be is another personal attack on your part, this time against someone's taste in literature as well as against the author.

He made the assertion that Ghaddaffi's regime was a just and good one, he then cited Ghaddaffi's Green Book as proof of Ghaddaffi's good intentions and plans. I said that I read the book and did not believe it. He is the one making the assertion and therefore he is the one with the burden of proof.

As to your claim that I am personally attacking PR because he believes a certain book, that just doesn't follow. As for Ghaddaffi, I am not required to take him at his word.

As for the comments on china, how exactly is china's system any better than the United States? Regardless, that problem will solve itself when the U.S eventually defaults like Greece, the only differences will be that new bourgeous regimes will arrive to take any fallen power's place.

I was comparing two illegitimate and oppressive governments in the same way as I was comparing Assad's regime to the opposition. Both are bad choices, and I do not think that you understood what I was getting at.

And I do love how in so many threads people repeatedly reference to Nazism, honestly at this point it doesn't even surprise me that revleft and other sites thinks people here are nazis, nazism is mentioned so much it seems like there is a fetishism developing.

I used Nazism as an example because it is unarguable that the Nazi government was a bad one, no matter how much popular support it had. It's a good example an I will use it whenever I feel it necessary. I also do not see how attacking fascistic and other such ideologies can harm the reputation of the forum.

Red Aegis wrote:Did the Nazi's not resist until the last? Your logic is the same as those who would argue that due to the Germans defending Nazism, Nazism itself is good and correct. That logic has another name, argumentum ad populum.

Ad populum is not an argumentative fallacy in itself, sometimes there is perfectly good reasons why someone/something is supported widely. Such as people favoring democratic institutions.

Are you saying that every negative report on Ghaddafi was wrong?

Are you saying everyone is true?

Why is it not a black and white situation there?

Because we can see that China is no longer socialist and is a shithole that lets American companies come in and exploit their workers. We can analyze Green Libya and see the opposite.

Pantheon Rising wrote:Ad populum is not an argumentative fallacy in itself, sometimes there is perfectly good reasons why someone/something is supported widely. Such as people favoring democratic institutions.

Yes, it is a logical fallacy in itself. If there are good reasons for believing something that those reasons should be stated. It doesn't matter who believes it or how many.

Are you saying everyone is true?

No.

Because we can see that China is no longer socialist and is a shithole that lets American companies come in and exploit their workers. We can analyze Green Libya and see the opposite.

Give me that analysis then. You're saying that something is true, back it up.

If you would like a critique on totalitarian governments, make a new thread about it. It's off topic considering the OP. As for your saying that just because I disagree with totalitarian governments, for whatever reason, I should not oppose them, this is rediculous. I will support the ousting of any system that I consider oppressive and/or undemocratic. What other possible criteria should I use? If you wish to state that this means that I support imperialism, I would point out that I support the ousting of neo-liberal governments as well. I can oppose both at the same time. I do not support "liberating" foreign populations and imposing a system upon them, I'm no fool.

Opposing regimes that are in opposition to Neo-liberal governments is supporting imperialism whether you like it or not, it benefits the plight of the imperialists since I am more than sure that they have a much farther reach than these fledgling totalitarian regimes that are facing being toppled because of foreign attempts to control their resources.

Also, you tried to say that since my dislike of totalitarian systems is merely an opinion that they are not necessarily bad. What exactly are you saying is required to call something "bad" or "evil"? Morality is subjective and therefore, opinion on morality defines what is moral for that person. If you want to discuss this more, post in the Nihilism thread: http://www.socialistphalanx.com/t838-nihilism-or-what?highlight=nihilism. Again, this subject is tangential to the OP.

Every system has its good and bad is what I am implying, there is no reason to attack totalitarian/Authoritarian systems when Democracy(in its varying forms) is nowhere near perfect. This is related by the way, it is in reference to your attacks on these types of ideologies. I cannot bother reading the thread now unfortunately, so I'll just drop this for now.

The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

No one said anything about friends.
Not opposing something, and actively supporting it are two different things.

He made the assertion that Ghaddaffi's regime was a just and good one, he then cited Ghaddaffi's Green Book as proof of Ghaddaffi's good intentions and plans. I said that I read the book and did not believe it. He is the one making the assertion and therefore he is the one with the burden of proof.

Funny how you do the same exact acts in other threads as well, you attack a person's viewpoint, then you decide to not back up your argument with proof. You might as well not comment at all.

I was comparing two illegitimate and oppressive governments in the same way as I was comparing Assad's regime to the opposition. Both are bad choices, and I do not think that you understood what I was getting at.

I'll Concede this.

I also do not see how attacking fascistic and other such ideologies can harm the reputation of the forum.

So now authoritarian and Totalitarian regimes are fascistic only?
Or would this only be held against nazism, by the looks of it you attack any view that supports either of the previously stated systems.

Balkan Beast wrote:Opposing regimes that are in opposition to Neo-liberal governments is supporting imperialism whether you like it or not, it benefits the plight of the imperialists since I am more than sure that they have a much farther reach than these fledgling totalitarian regimes that are facing being toppled because of foreign attempts to control their resources.

It's not an us vs. them situation. I already explained this by stating the phrase, "the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend." I will spell it out for you plainly. I can hate both, support the demise of both, and not support either at the same time. If you cannot understand that I don't know what to tell you.

Every system has its good and bad is what I am implying, there is no reason to attack totalitarian/Authoritarian systems when Democracy(in its varying forms) is nowhere near perfect. This is related by the way, it is in reference to your attacks on these types of ideologies. I cannot bother reading the thread now unfortunately, so I'll just drop this for now.

There is a reason to attack them because they do not offer a maximized amount of liberty and equality. Have I been at all unclear on this?

The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

No one said anything about friends.
Not opposing something, and actively supporting it are two different things.

You were implying that I support Imperialism because I do not support Assad or Ghaddaffi. If you seriously believe that just because I support the downfall of Assad, who massacres his own people, makes me an Imperialist, you are a moron. Where did I ever say that there should be a neo-liberal regime put in place over a true people's democracy?

He made the assertion that Ghaddaffi's regime was a just and good one, he then cited Ghaddaffi's Green Book as proof of Ghaddaffi's good intentions and plans. I said that I read the book and did not believe it. He is the one making the assertion and therefore he is the one with the burden of proof.

Funny how you do the same exact acts in other threads as well, you attack a person's viewpoint, then you decide to not back up your argument with proof. You might as well not comment at all.

I didn't realize that you were the authority on stupid comments, though by how many you make I shouldn't be surprised. What you're talking about is cherry picking and extrapolating from those cherries. If some one says something that I don't think is correct, I will ask for proof. There is nothing unfair or pointless about it. I have made cases for my views in the past and supported them heavily, I don't need your approval.

I also do not see how attacking fascistic and other such ideologies can harm the reputation of the forum.

So now authoritarian and Totalitarian regimes are fascistic only?
Or would this only be held against nazism, by the looks of it you attack any view that supports either of the previously stated systems.

The example that I used was Nazism so the answer is obvious. I don't need a lecture on the definition of fascism from you and I already addressed the fact that I will attack any ideology that I view as wrong or unjust. It's also hypocritical of you to mention that once again after saying that you dropped the subject merely sentences before.