The Trump Presidency

First topic message reminder :

Well, since the last thread got terminated, I thought I'd open a new one as I think Trump's Presidency is potentially quite an important event (one way or the other), so we should talk about it.

Let's at least try to argue points raised rather than sling any personal insults (not that I mind).

To kick off, what on Earth is that Kellyanne Conway doing promoting Ivanka Trump's fashion line and does the Donald seriously think it's OK to weigh in as he's done??? With any luck, some legal eagles will tear Conway down somewhat and someone (anyone!) will convince Trump to stop tweeting. In fact, does anyone in the Administration know what they're doing? A less suitable press officer than Spicer is hard to imagine but to be fair to the guy, it must be difficult fielding media comments when he's having to make it up on the hoof.

[quote="Musclular-mouse"]

Munchkin wrote:Nice moving of the goalposts and, yes, you were wrong. Your own source,' FIS', allegedly claims 5% Syrians, while you contradict yourself by claiming, "it's not his own people fighting against him".

They are not all Islamic groups (again you're factually wrong), and so what if they were? They would still be Syrians, and so still his own people.

So are you suggesting that Assad should give power to Isis because at one point they were the largest group against him? or to al nusra front or al qaieda? Why would he give power to a foreign backed group who have foreign fighters who are a terrorist organisation? makes no sense what you are saying.

And from my understanding the SYrian army is the largest group by a mile in the Syrian war. It had at one point 400,000 soldiers if I remember correctly at its peak whilst ISIS only had about 35,000 which was the largest group against them. So going by your logic, the Syrian army is the largest group, they are Syrians and thus assad should remain in power that is your logic

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Nice moving of the goalposts and, yes, you were wrong. Your own source,' FIS', allegedly claims 5% Syrians, while you contradict yourself by claiming, "it's not his own people fighting against him".

They are not all Islamic groups (again you're factually wrong), and so what if they were? They would still be Syrians, and so still his own people.

So are you suggesting that Assad should give power to Isis because at one point they were the largest group against him? or to al nusra front or al qaieda? Why would he give power to a foreign backed group who have foreign fighters who are a terrorist organisation? makes no sense what you are saying.

And from my understanding the SYrian army is the largest group by a mile in the Syrian war. It had at one point 400,000 soldiers if I remember correctly at its peak whilst ISIS only had about 35,000 which was the largest group against them. So going by your logic, the Syrian army is the largest group, they are Syrians and thus assad should remain in power that is your logic

You need to study a bit of history with regards the recent Syrian conflict, although reading up on the 'Damascus Uprising' would also benefit.

Although ISIS has struck against the Assad regime, it wasn't the chief concern of ISIS. ISIS attacks against the Assad regime were never a main campaign, infrequent, and not all that damaging.

Assad pretty much did give power to ISIS by not focusing his military campaign on destroying them. Instead he allowed them a nearly free run in order for them to attack the rebels, however, I would not suggest that Assad give them, or any other group, power.

You ask why would he give power to a foreign backed group? This shows your lack of understanding in the Syrian conflict. All sides within Syria are foreign backed, including Assad himself. Assad is supported by the terrorist Hezbollah, who are supported by Iran.

As for your rather weak attempt at logic; you do understand that the Syrian conflict is largely a civil war, as well as ISIS attempt at creating a caliphate? You do understand that this means the Syrian people are fighting each other? You do know that Assad's party represents the minority of Syrians - the Alawites, and that the majority of Assad's opposition are Sunni?

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Nice moving of the goalposts and, yes, you were wrong. Your own source,' FIS', allegedly claims 5% Syrians, while you contradict yourself by claiming, "it's not his own people fighting against him".

They are not all Islamic groups (again you're factually wrong), and so what if they were? They would still be Syrians, and so still his own people.

So are you suggesting that Assad should give power to Isis because at one point they were the largest group against him? or to al nusra front or al qaieda? Why would he give power to a foreign backed group who have foreign fighters who are a terrorist organisation? makes no sense what you are saying.

And from my understanding the SYrian army is the largest group by a mile in the Syrian war. It had at one point 400,000 soldiers if I remember correctly at its peak whilst ISIS only had about 35,000 which was the largest group against them. So going by your logic, the Syrian army is the largest group, they are Syrians and thus assad should remain in power that is your logic

You need to study a bit of history with regards the recent Syrian conflict, although reading up on the 'Damascus Uprising' would also benefit.

Although ISIS has struck against the Assad regime, it wasn't the chief concern of ISIS. ISIS attacks against the Assad regime were never a main campaign, infrequent, and not all that damaging.

Assad pretty much did give power to ISIS by not focusing his military campaign on destroying them. Instead he allowed them a nearly free run in order for them to attack the rebels, however, I would not suggest that Assad give them, or any other group, power.

You ask why would he give power to a foreign backed group? This shows your lack of understanding in the Syrian conflict. All sides within Syria are foreign backed, including Assad himself. Assad is supported by the terrorist Hezbollah, who are supported by Iran.

As for your rather weak attempt at logic; you do understand that the Syrian conflict is largely a civil war, as well as ISIS attempt at creating a caliphate? You do understand that this means the Syrian people are fighting each other? You do know that Assad's party represents the minority of Syrians - the Alawites, and that the majority of Assad's opposition are Sunni?

So lets go back to your original point which was Assad should leave power because that is what the Syrian people want. If that is the case how come the majority of groups fighting Assad are full of foreign fighters with the sole purpose of creating an Islamic state or Islamic government? If the Syrian people want assad out of power how come the majority of Syrians are fighting FOR him either in the Syrian army or other armed groups which support the Syrian government.

So please tell me how you come to the conclusion that the Syrian people want assad out when the majority of them are fighting FOR him...

We Shall Over Comb
We Shall Over Comb
We Shall Over Comb
We Shall Over Comb

War by monday thats my prediction.

Anyone want a bet?

FFS, can you all stop copying the entire thread in each post, it takes forever to scroll through. I'm going to have an index finger the size of a cyclist's thighs soon.

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Nice moving of the goalposts and, yes, you were wrong. Your own source,' FIS', allegedly claims 5% Syrians, while you contradict yourself by claiming, "it's not his own people fighting against him".

They are not all Islamic groups (again you're factually wrong), and so what if they were? They would still be Syrians, and so still his own people.

The Syrian protests were for democracy! The protesters demanded reform for what was a sham democracy. Democracy has never truly existed in Syria. The fact that some are Islamist, rather than secular, means nothing.

The Syrian conflict is complex, as I said. There are many sides who want different things. It isn't simply about the original protests any longer. Obviously there are foreign fighters. There always was, starting with Assad's Hezbollah fighters.

You claimed that his own people had rose up against him and if he was democratic he would leave office. But Syria is not as simple as that, as I have shown the vast majority of groups are foreign fighters backed by foreign countries.

I never said they are all Islamic, I said the majority are Islamic extremist groups.

" Look at all of the groups fighting against the Syrian Army, they are all Islamic extremist groups in the majority who are fighting for extremist purposes, not for democracy.

My bad, just your poor grammar.

Yes, his own people rebelled against him, including many from his own forces. Most of the FSA were Syrians. The FSA then split into many factions. Many of those factions are what you're looking at in the link I provided.

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Nice moving of the goalposts and, yes, you were wrong. Your own source,' FIS', allegedly claims 5% Syrians, while you contradict yourself by claiming, "it's not his own people fighting against him".

They are not all Islamic groups (again you're factually wrong), and so what if they were? They would still be Syrians, and so still his own people.

The Syrian protests were for democracy! The protesters demanded reform for what was a sham democracy. Democracy has never truly existed in Syria. The fact that some are Islamist, rather than secular, means nothing.

The Syrian conflict is complex, as I said. There are many sides who want different things. It isn't simply about the original protests any longer. Obviously there are foreign fighters. There always was, starting with Assad's Hezbollah fighters.

You claimed that his own people had rose up against him and if he was democratic he would leave office. But Syria is not as simple as that, as I have shown the vast majority of groups are foreign fighters backed by foreign countries.

I never said they are all Islamic, I said the majority are Islamic extremist groups.

" Look at all of the groups fighting against the Syrian Army, they are all Islamic extremist groups in the majority who are fighting for extremist purposes, not for democracy.

My bad, just your poor grammar.

Yes, his own people rebelled against him, including many from his own forces. Most of the FSA were Syrians. The FSA then split into many factions. Many of those factions are what you're looking at in the link I provided.

So you stated that the Syrian people don't want assad in power. Lets look at the evidence. A large majority of groups fighting assad are foreign groups created by foreign countries and armed with foreign fighters. That goes against the notion that assad is fighting a civil war against his own people. Yes there are Syrians in those groups but they are the minority and many are sunni muslims who are fighting due to sectarian reasons.

Lets look at some more evidence. In 2011 when the 'uprising' was at its strongest and demonstrations were taking place a poll was published by Qatar which showed that 55% of Syrians supported assad staying in power.

Then in 2012 another poll was published by a British organisation which showed that support for Assad had jumped to 70%

in 2014 a company working for the US conducted a poll and Assad came top of that poll for who the voters think is having the most positive influence on Syria.

Then there were elections in Syria in 2014 which had more than 30 foreign countries overseeing the elections to make sure that they were fair and Assad won with 88% of the vote cast.

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Nice moving of the goalposts and, yes, you were wrong. Your own source,' FIS', allegedly claims 5% Syrians, while you contradict yourself by claiming, "it's not his own people fighting against him".

They are not all Islamic groups (again you're factually wrong), and so what if they were? They would still be Syrians, and so still his own people.

So are you suggesting that Assad should give power to Isis because at one point they were the largest group against him? or to al nusra front or al qaieda? Why would he give power to a foreign backed group who have foreign fighters who are a terrorist organisation? makes no sense what you are saying.

And from my understanding the SYrian army is the largest group by a mile in the Syrian war. It had at one point 400,000 soldiers if I remember correctly at its peak whilst ISIS only had about 35,000 which was the largest group against them. So going by your logic, the Syrian army is the largest group, they are Syrians and thus assad should remain in power that is your logic

You need to study a bit of history with regards the recent Syrian conflict, although reading up on the 'Damascus Uprising' would also benefit.

Although ISIS has struck against the Assad regime, it wasn't the chief concern of ISIS. ISIS attacks against the Assad regime were never a main campaign, infrequent, and not all that damaging.

Assad pretty much did give power to ISIS by not focusing his military campaign on destroying them. Instead he allowed them a nearly free run in order for them to attack the rebels, however, I would not suggest that Assad give them, or any other group, power.

You ask why would he give power to a foreign backed group? This shows your lack of understanding in the Syrian conflict. All sides within Syria are foreign backed, including Assad himself. Assad is supported by the terrorist Hezbollah, who are supported by Iran.

As for your rather weak attempt at logic; you do understand that the Syrian conflict is largely a civil war, as well as ISIS attempt at creating a caliphate? You do understand that this means the Syrian people are fighting each other? You do know that Assad's party represents the minority of Syrians - the Alawites, and that the majority of Assad's opposition are Sunni?

So lets go back to your original point which was Assad should leave power because that is what the Syrian people want. If that is the case how come the majority of groups fighting Assad are full of foreign fighters with the sole purpose of creating an Islamic state or Islamic government? If the Syrian people want assad out of power how come the majority of Syrians are fighting FOR him either in the Syrian army or other armed groups which support the Syrian government.

So please tell me how you come to the conclusion that the Syrian people want assad out when the majority of them are fighting FOR him...

That wasn't the original point. The original point was mine, and that was that Trump was right to strike against Assad's military.

Yes, the majority of the groups leadership want an Islamic State. As stated previously; the Syrian conflict has become very complex, especially since  Jihadist groups (terrorists) from outside of Syria have entered with their own aims, or the aims of the foreign powers who fund them.

What started from a genuinely peaceful protest calling for democratic reform, and the ousting of Assad, has morphed into a civil war, due to Assad attempting to crush that protest, murdering a few hundred Syrian protesters in doing so, and a jihadist war. That call for democratic reform has been lost in the process, as Syrians fear their State turning into another Iraq or Libya. They want peace, and many prefer to have things as they were, rather than a future they fear could be much worse. Many believe they are between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand they have a corrupt and repressive Assad regime, but secular. On the other hand they have mostly jihadist groups, funded by the Saudi's, who want an Islamic State.

I don't know how many Syrians fighting for these groups actually want an Islamic State, nobody does. They have their own reasons for fighting. They may have been radicalised, or may simply be fighting for their own survival and remain secular at heart.

In an ideal world, democracy would be perfect for Syria, but it's not an ideal world. Not for the Syrians. A secular autocratic State, without Assad, may be the best solution in helping to avoid further conflicts. I fully believe the majority, if they were free to choose, and if they believe a democracy would be free from conflict, would choose democracy, but I doubt a democracy would be free from an Islamist, Jihadist, challenge. An autocratic  State isn't ideal either but, due to the West's failure to support Syrian moderates early in the conflict, it's probably the best they can hope for.

One possibility for a democratic State is if the SDF (Syrian Democratic Forces) can emerge as victors in their battles with ISIS and other Islamist groups. They are a strong militia of around 40k-60k, and apparently growing. The chances are slim, but if ISIS can be defeated, and if they can dominate the other Islamist factions, and if they can grow strong enough to face Assad, and if Putin will bow to pressure from the West/UN then there's a chance. A lot of if's, but a very slim chance.

The conflict will end at some point, and Syria will either be a puppet State to Russia, or a puppet State to the US/West.

That's just to give you a rough idea of where I'm coming from. My thoughts are not set in stone, as the Syrian conflict is fluid, and things can change quickly. Much depends on the Wests willingness to truly help the people of Syria.

Gwlad wrote:Won't be a proxy war for much longer though i expect it will start in the Sea of Japan with  Pyong yang pre emptively striking the US carrier battle group followed by a massive retaliatory strike - if you're dumb enough to park the USS Vinson on his doorstep don't expect him to think it's because you want to give him a tour of the flight deck.
If we're lucky China won't do anything as there's a trade deal up for grabs and they just had a meet where i strongly suspect Trump gave China the option. So hopeful they'll park themselves on the Northern border to ensure that the N Koreans don't head into China, while Seoul will quite likely be wiped off the map.

Meanwhile you'll have to hope and pray that the Russians and Iranians don't do anything stupid but you can be sure the Turks will and to kick it off nicely someone is bound to drop something on Israel.

Is this what you wanted America? Because its what you're going to get. A militarist idiot leading a militant country and run by a staff of idiots.

If we aren't in an extended world conflict by 2018 I'll be surprised.

Seriously? I doubt that pillock in North Korea could hit a continent with his missiles, let alone a US carrier strike group.

US just dropped a MOAB on ISIS in Afghanistan. That's going to hurt.

Munchkin wrote:US just dropped a MOAB on ISIS in Afghanistan. That's going to hurt.

Here it comes!!!!!!!!!

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Nice moving of the goalposts and, yes, you were wrong. Your own source,' FIS', allegedly claims 5% Syrians, while you contradict yourself by claiming, "it's not his own people fighting against him".

They are not all Islamic groups (again you're factually wrong), and so what if they were? They would still be Syrians, and so still his own people.

So are you suggesting that Assad should give power to Isis because at one point they were the largest group against him? or to al nusra front or al qaieda? Why would he give power to a foreign backed group who have foreign fighters who are a terrorist organisation? makes no sense what you are saying.

And from my understanding the SYrian army is the largest group by a mile in the Syrian war. It had at one point 400,000 soldiers if I remember correctly at its peak whilst ISIS only had about 35,000 which was the largest group against them. So going by your logic, the Syrian army is the largest group, they are Syrians and thus assad should remain in power that is your logic

You need to study a bit of history with regards the recent Syrian conflict, although reading up on the 'Damascus Uprising' would also benefit.

Although ISIS has struck against the Assad regime, it wasn't the chief concern of ISIS. ISIS attacks against the Assad regime were never a main campaign, infrequent, and not all that damaging.

Assad pretty much did give power to ISIS by not focusing his military campaign on destroying them. Instead he allowed them a nearly free run in order for them to attack the rebels, however, I would not suggest that Assad give them, or any other group, power.

You ask why would he give power to a foreign backed group? This shows your lack of understanding in the Syrian conflict. All sides within Syria are foreign backed, including Assad himself. Assad is supported by the terrorist Hezbollah, who are supported by Iran.

As for your rather weak attempt at logic; you do understand that the Syrian conflict is largely a civil war, as well as ISIS attempt at creating a caliphate? You do understand that this means the Syrian people are fighting each other? You do know that Assad's party represents the minority of Syrians - the Alawites, and that the majority of Assad's opposition are Sunni?

So lets go back to your original point which was Assad should leave power because that is what the Syrian people want. If that is the case how come the majority of groups fighting Assad are full of foreign fighters with the sole purpose of creating an Islamic state or Islamic government? If the Syrian people want assad out of power how come the majority of Syrians are fighting FOR him either in the Syrian army or other armed groups which support the Syrian government.

So please tell me how you come to the conclusion that the Syrian people want assad out when the majority of them are fighting FOR him...

That wasn't the original point. The original point was mine, and that was that Trump was right to strike against Assad's military.

Yes, the majority of the groups leadership want an Islamic State. As stated previously; the Syrian conflict has become very complex, especially since  Jihadist groups (terrorists) from outside of Syria have entered with their own aims, or the aims of the foreign powers who fund them.

What started from a genuinely peaceful protest calling for democratic reform, and the ousting of Assad,.

Yes there were protests against assad that is undeniable and many people were protesting for democracy whilst others were protesting because they didn't want an alawaite muslim leading them (sectarian reasons) however as stated above a poll was taken by Qatar in 2011 and 55% of Syrians supported assad. 2011 was the year the protests took place and that poll clearly shows assad still had majority support. Numerous other polls have taken place by british and American organisations and they all show assad has the support of his people.

For those who protested for democracy in 2011, they got their wish as in 2014 there were elections in Syria. Assad won these elections with 88% of the vote. You can say they are rigged or were unfair etc but the elections were overseen by over 30 different countries who all sent representatives and they all said the elections were fair elections.

I don't think there is any doubt that Assad has the majority of support from his people.

If Assad is ousted from power then I can only see 1 thing happening and that is there will be a continuation of the war as all of the respective groups inside Syria battle for power just like in Libya. The best option is for Assad to remain in power (which is what the Syrian people want) and for the international community to stop funding terrorist groups such as al nusra and isis and al-qaeida.

Oh, I don't know, Gwlad. I think it's US sabre rattling. They're asserting their dominance in the world once more, and pushed to do so because of Obama's weak foreign policy, and his 'red line' speech failure, in particular.

Difficult to know how the other actors in this play will respond, and that's the scary bit. Hopefully China can talk N.Korea out of developing nuclear weapons, although I'm not convinced they can. Hopefully Russia doesn't push things to the brink. They might.

Interesting times.

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Yes there were protests against assad that is undeniable and many people were protesting for democracy whilst others were protesting because they didn't want an alawaite muslim leading them (sectarian reasons) however as stated above a poll was taken by Qatar in 2011 and 55% of Syrians supported assad. 2011 was the year the protests took place and that poll clearly shows assad still had majority support. Numerous other polls have taken place by british and American organisations and they all show assad has the support of his people.

For those who protested for democracy in 2011, they got their wish as in 2014 there were elections in Syria. Assad won these elections with 88% of the vote. You can say they are rigged or were unfair etc but the elections were overseen by over 30 different countries who all sent representatives and they all said the elections were fair elections.  

I don't think there is any doubt that Assad has the majority of support from his people.

If Assad is ousted from power then I can only see 1 thing happening and that is there will be a continuation of the war as all of the respective groups inside Syria battle for power just like in Libya. The best option is for Assad to remain in power (which is what the Syrian people want) and for the international community to stop funding terrorist groups such as al nusra and isis and al-qaeida.  

Well, demonstrating against the Alawite hold on power is perfectly legitimate, considering Syria is an autocracy, and so the protest was not at all sectarian. Not generally. Assad's election certainly was sectarian though...

Yes, I know about the poll (think it was YouGov), and treat it with much scepticism. Qatar is a player in Syria, and would have opposed the Assad regime, however, Qatar isn't a friend of the Saudi's, and the bad blood between the two has weakened the rebel coalition pretty badly. That's not why I treat the poll with a pinch of salt though. I simply don't trust polls, and especially not a poll conducted in a civil war.

Stop with the election spiel. The election was rigged so that Assad would always win. Try to be objective and do a little research on it. It's fixed. That's a fact for you. Here's a link if you don't believe me > AssadFixedElections

I agree that Syria could go the way of Iraq/Libya, but Assad staying in power won't prevent that happening. Assad remaining in power will ensure that will happen. It's too late for him, and I will be very surprised if he isn't charged with war crimes. Slight chance of a democracy working, but think an autocracy will probably be more secure. That thinking may change as events unfold though. There's also the chance that Syria will become a federal State.

P.s post your links for the stats you provide. Thanks.

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Yes there were protests against assad that is undeniable and many people were protesting for democracy whilst others were protesting because they didn't want an alawaite muslim leading them (sectarian reasons) however as stated above a poll was taken by Qatar in 2011 and 55% of Syrians supported assad. 2011 was the year the protests took place and that poll clearly shows assad still had majority support. Numerous other polls have taken place by british and American organisations and they all show assad has the support of his people.

For those who protested for democracy in 2011, they got their wish as in 2014 there were elections in Syria. Assad won these elections with 88% of the vote. You can say they are rigged or were unfair etc but the elections were overseen by over 30 different countries who all sent representatives and they all said the elections were fair elections.  

I don't think there is any doubt that Assad has the majority of support from his people.

If Assad is ousted from power then I can only see 1 thing happening and that is there will be a continuation of the war as all of the respective groups inside Syria battle for power just like in Libya. The best option is for Assad to remain in power (which is what the Syrian people want) and for the international community to stop funding terrorist groups such as al nusra and isis and al-qaeida.  

Well, demonstrating against the Alawite hold on power is perfectly legitimate, considering Syria is an autocracy, and so the protest was not at all sectarian. Not generally. Assad's election certainly was sectarian though...

Yes, I know about the poll (think it was YouGov), and treat it with much scepticism. Qatar is a player in Syria, and would have opposed the Assad regime, however, Qatar isn't a friend of the Saudi's, and the bad blood between the two has weakened the rebel coalition pretty badly. That's not why I treat the poll with a pinch of salt though. I simply don't trust polls, and especially not a poll conducted in a civil war.

Stop with the election spiel. The election was rigged so that Assad would always win. Try to be objective and do a little research on it. It's fixed. That's a fact for you. Here's a link if you don't believe me > AssadFixedElections

I agree that Syria could go the way of Iraq/Libya, but Assad staying in power won't prevent that happening. Assad remaining in power will ensure that will happen. It's too late for him, and I will be very surprised if he isn't charged with war crimes. Slight chance of a democracy working, but think an autocracy will probably be more secure. That thinking may change as events unfold though. There's also the chance that Syria will become a federal State.

P.s post your links for the stats you provide. Thanks.

What stats do you want? the name of the polls?  

You say the election was rigged, maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. However when you add up all of the evidence it is safe to say that the Syrian people want assad in power. The numerous polls conducted by foreign countries and organisations. One in 2011, one in 2012 and others over the past couple of years all show Assad is the most popular figure in Syria. Assads popularity has been rising drastically from 2011 onwards. In 2011 he had 55% popularity and in 2012 this jumped to 70%. SO an election in 2014 where he has 88% of the vote doesn't seem out of ordinary considering polls conducted around that time had him on 70-80% popularity.

I don't know if the election was rigged, over 30 countries monitored it and said it was fair and legitimate. And along with the fact in multiple polls conducted by Qatar, Britain and the usa (organisations) Assad came out on top as the most popular with his support rising in every poll I think the election result mirrors the will of the Syrian people.

Sorry, I meant post links for any stats you provide in further posts.

No, it isn't " maybe it was, maybe it wasn't " There is absolutely no doubt that the election was rigged. That's a fact that you should acknowledge, otherwise I'm having a discussion with someone who simply refuses to accept the truth. Are you going to agree that the election was rigged?

As for the polls which you suggest prove Assad had/has the majority of Syrian support? The polls prove nothing of the sort. Before I get into it though, I would like your links to those polls.

Forgot about the 30 Countries. It was rigged and you know it.

Point is is that now that none of us know anything anymore. We used to be able to believe our own eyes and trust our press (ahem) now we just can't and the bad guys know it.

Munchkin wrote:Sorry, I meant post links for any stats you provide in further posts.

No, it isn't " maybe it was, maybe it wasn't " There is absolutely no doubt that the election was rigged. That's a fact that you should acknowledge, otherwise I'm having a discussion with someone who simply refuses to accept the truth. Are you going to agree that the election was rigged?

As for the polls which you suggest prove Assad had/has the majority of Syrian support? The polls prove nothing of the sort. Before I get into it though, I would like your links to those polls.

Forgot about the 30 Countries. It was rigged and you know it.

Where is your evidence it was rigged? or is this the same evidence that assad was the one who used the chemical attack last month?

Can you tell me how you come to the conclusion that assad having the most support in countless polls done by various international organisations doesn't prove he has the Syrian support?

So far the evidence I have posted has been numerous polls conducted over several years by international organisations, election results overseen by foreign observers and the fact the majority of Syrians are fighting FOR him in the war either in the army or in groups allied to him. Your response has been to claim that all that evidence is rigged and should be discarded.

My conclusion is you never knew about the polls, you thought Assad was fighting his own people and you thought that he lost support and when I kindly showed you that you were wrong and that Assad does have the support of his people and used polls and election results as evidence you have gone into defensive mode in an attempt to not accept you were proven wrong.

Gwlad wrote:Point is is that now that none of us know anything anymore. We used to be able to believe our own eyes and trust our press (ahem) now we just can't and the bad guys know it.

That's true, although I would say we were much more gullible then than now. As you say though, people can manipulate that lack of trust to their own advantage, especially with so many different media outlets to choose from.

Getting to the truth, if that's possible, requires a fair bit of effort more often than not. Most times I think people just pick which interpretation of the truth best fits their own worldview. It's what comes naturally.

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Sorry, I meant post links for any stats you provide in further posts.

No, it isn't " maybe it was, maybe it wasn't " There is absolutely no doubt that the election was rigged. That's a fact that you should acknowledge, otherwise I'm having a discussion with someone who simply refuses to accept the truth. Are you going to agree that the election was rigged?

As for the polls which you suggest prove Assad had/has the majority of Syrian support? The polls prove nothing of the sort. Before I get into it though, I would like your links to those polls.

Forgot about the 30 Countries. It was rigged and you know it.

Where is your evidence it was rigged? or is this the same evidence that assad was the one who used the chemical attack last month?

Can you tell me how you come to the conclusion that assad having the most support in countless polls done by various international organisations doesn't prove he has the Syrian support?

So far the evidence I have posted has been numerous polls conducted over several years by international organisations, election results overseen by foreign observers and the fact the majority of Syrians are fighting FOR him in the war either in the army or in groups allied to him. Your response has been to claim that all that evidence is rigged and should be discarded.

My conclusion is you never knew about the polls, you thought Assad was fighting his own people and you thought that he lost support and when I kindly showed you that you were wrong and that Assad does have the support of his people and used polls and election results as evidence you have gone into defensive mode in an attempt to not accept you were proven wrong.

Where's the links I asked for?

I gave you the evidence. Search through it again and you will find it.

As for your conclusion ...... are you drunk?

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Sorry, I meant post links for any stats you provide in further posts.

No, it isn't " maybe it was, maybe it wasn't " There is absolutely no doubt that the election was rigged. That's a fact that you should acknowledge, otherwise I'm having a discussion with someone who simply refuses to accept the truth. Are you going to agree that the election was rigged?

As for the polls which you suggest prove Assad had/has the majority of Syrian support? The polls prove nothing of the sort. Before I get into it though, I would like your links to those polls.

Forgot about the 30 Countries. It was rigged and you know it.

Where is your evidence it was rigged? or is this the same evidence that assad was the one who used the chemical attack last month?

Can you tell me how you come to the conclusion that assad having the most support in countless polls done by various international organisations doesn't prove he has the Syrian support?

So far the evidence I have posted has been numerous polls conducted over several years by international organisations, election results overseen by foreign observers and the fact the majority of Syrians are fighting FOR him in the war either in the army or in groups allied to him. Your response has been to claim that all that evidence is rigged and should be discarded.

My conclusion is you never knew about the polls, you thought Assad was fighting his own people and you thought that he lost support and when I kindly showed you that you were wrong and that Assad does have the support of his people and used polls and election results as evidence you have gone into defensive mode in an attempt to not accept you were proven wrong.

Where's the links I asked for?

I gave you the evidence. Search through it again and you will find it.

As for your conclusion ...... are you drunk?

So in your view sending me a link to a Wikipedia page which discusses the election is proof that the election was rigged?

Basically you haven't posted any evidence whatsoever. Posting a link to a Wikipedia page which discusses the election is like me posting a link to the uk 2015 election and saying 'that's proof its rigged'.

Also evidence conducted by multiple countries and organisations including from the UK and USA have all established that Assad has the majorit support of the Syrian people. Can you explain why you go against that evidence?

And no I'm not drunk, its just so obvious that you didn't know assad had the majority support of his people otherwise you wouldn't make comments such as the Syrian people want him out. If you knew the evidence such as the polls etc you would know he is very popular in Syria. So basically after I informed you o the polls you just don't want to admit you are wrong on that point.

I am also waiting on your evidence that Assad used the chemical weapons last month, or is your evidence still ' I have no evidence but it must be him because he's a bad man....'

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Sorry, I meant post links for any stats you provide in further posts.

No, it isn't " maybe it was, maybe it wasn't " There is absolutely no doubt that the election was rigged. That's a fact that you should acknowledge, otherwise I'm having a discussion with someone who simply refuses to accept the truth. Are you going to agree that the election was rigged?

As for the polls which you suggest prove Assad had/has the majority of Syrian support? The polls prove nothing of the sort. Before I get into it though, I would like your links to those polls.

Forgot about the 30 Countries. It was rigged and you know it.

Where is your evidence it was rigged? or is this the same evidence that assad was the one who used the chemical attack last month?

Can you tell me how you come to the conclusion that assad having the most support in countless polls done by various international organisations doesn't prove he has the Syrian support?

So far the evidence I have posted has been numerous polls conducted over several years by international organisations, election results overseen by foreign observers and the fact the majority of Syrians are fighting FOR him in the war either in the army or in groups allied to him. Your response has been to claim that all that evidence is rigged and should be discarded.

My conclusion is you never knew about the polls, you thought Assad was fighting his own people and you thought that he lost support and when I kindly showed you that you were wrong and that Assad does have the support of his people and used polls and election results as evidence you have gone into defensive mode in an attempt to not accept you were proven wrong.

Where's the links I asked for?

I gave you the evidence. Search through it again and you will find it.

As for your conclusion ...... are you drunk?

So in your view sending me a link to a Wikipedia page which discusses the election is proof that the election was rigged?

Basically you haven't posted any evidence whatsoever. Posting a link to a Wikipedia page which discusses the election is like me posting a link to the uk 2015 election and saying 'that's proof its rigged'.

Also evidence conducted by multiple countries and organisations including from the UK and USA have all established that Assad has the majorit support of the Syrian people. Can you explain why you go against that evidence?

And no I'm not drunk, its just so obvious that you didn't know assad had the majority support of his people otherwise you wouldn't make comments such as the Syrian people want him out. If you knew the evidence such as the polls etc you would know he is very popular in Syria. So basically after I informed you o the polls you just don't want to admit you are wrong on that point.

I am also waiting on your evidence that Assad used the chemical weapons last month, or is your evidence still ' I have no evidence but it must be him because he's a bad man....'

Well, to be fair, it's much more than anything you've given me, other than all lot of your opinions.

Yes, the Wiki link is more than ample proof. If you knew how to use Wiki you would know to check the many sources they provide in support of the assertions.... What I would really, really, like you to do is prove the evidence wrong. You won't be able to, of course, because the evidence is rock solid.

No, being a long suffering sort of man, I will wait for you to refute the evidence laid out on that page, well at least until I have time to post the findings on here. Maybe I'm not the suffering kind at all.

As for your little rant about evidence for the chemical weapon attack by Assad ..... you're a wee bit past your bedtime, I think, so will wait until you get your much needed sleep, and provide your rebuttal to the evidence I provided you. Sure, it should be really easy, according to you .......

Goodnight

P.s Where's the links I asked for?

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Sorry, I meant post links for any stats you provide in further posts.

No, it isn't " maybe it was, maybe it wasn't " There is absolutely no doubt that the election was rigged. That's a fact that you should acknowledge, otherwise I'm having a discussion with someone who simply refuses to accept the truth. Are you going to agree that the election was rigged?

As for the polls which you suggest prove Assad had/has the majority of Syrian support? The polls prove nothing of the sort. Before I get into it though, I would like your links to those polls.

Forgot about the 30 Countries. It was rigged and you know it.

Where is your evidence it was rigged? or is this the same evidence that assad was the one who used the chemical attack last month?

Can you tell me how you come to the conclusion that assad having the most support in countless polls done by various international organisations doesn't prove he has the Syrian support?

So far the evidence I have posted has been numerous polls conducted over several years by international organisations, election results overseen by foreign observers and the fact the majority of Syrians are fighting FOR him in the war either in the army or in groups allied to him. Your response has been to claim that all that evidence is rigged and should be discarded.

My conclusion is you never knew about the polls, you thought Assad was fighting his own people and you thought that he lost support and when I kindly showed you that you were wrong and that Assad does have the support of his people and used polls and election results as evidence you have gone into defensive mode in an attempt to not accept you were proven wrong.

Where's the links I asked for?

I gave you the evidence. Search through it again and you will find it.

As for your conclusion ...... are you drunk?

So in your view sending me a link to a Wikipedia page which discusses the election is proof that the election was rigged?

Basically you haven't posted any evidence whatsoever. Posting a link to a Wikipedia page which discusses the election is like me posting a link to the uk 2015 election and saying 'that's proof its rigged'.

Also evidence conducted by multiple countries and organisations including from the UK and USA have all established that Assad has the majorit support of the Syrian people. Can you explain why you go against that evidence?

And no I'm not drunk, its just so obvious that you didn't know assad had the majority support of his people otherwise you wouldn't make comments such as the Syrian people want him out. If you knew the evidence such as the polls etc you would know he is very popular in Syria. So basically after I informed you o the polls you just don't want to admit you are wrong on that point.

I am also waiting on your evidence that Assad used the chemical weapons last month, or is your evidence still ' I have no evidence but it must be him because he's a bad man....'

Well, to be fair, it's much more than anything you've given me, other than all lot of your opinions.

Yes, the Wiki link is more than ample proof. If you knew how to use Wiki you would know to check the many sources they provide in support of the assertions.... What I would really, really, like you to do is proof the evidence wrong. You won't be able to, of course, because the evidence is rock solid.

No, being a long suffering sort of man, I will wait for you to refute the evidence laid out on that page, well at last until I have time to post the findings on here. Maybe I'm not the suffering kind at all.

As for your little rant about evidence for the chemical weapon attack by Assad ..... you're a wee bit past your bedtime, I think, so will wait until you get your much needed sleep, and provide your rebuttal to the evidence I provided you. Sure, it should be really easy, according to you .......

Goodnight

P.s Where's the links I asked for?

Nothing on that wiki page says anything about it being rigged apart from the ramblings of western politicians who like you don't give any evidence.  So basically you got no evidence.

just admit you were wrong, you said that assad is not wanted by the Syrian people. You made that comment and you have failed to back it up apart from post a Wikipedia link which discusses the 2014 election.

I have posted polls which are from british and American organisations and other countries which show that Assad has the majority of Syrian support, over 70% in the British poll.

So lets break this discussion down. You said assad lost support. Your only evidence is a Wikipedia page discussing the 2014 election. On that page it doesn't give any evidence it was rigged apart from the ramblings of some western politicians who coincidentally don't give any evidence in their ramblings.

My evidence that he has the public support is;

The biggest group fighting in Syria is the Syrian army and they are fighting on the side of assad. So boots on the ground assad has the most support.

2011 poll conducted by Qatar showed that even at the height of the protests assad was still the most popular choice with 55% of Syrians saying they support him.

2012 research by the Guardian newspaper showed that Assad had 70% of the Syrian public supporting him.

2013- a Poll by NATO found that 70% of Syrians supported Assad with 20% neutral and 10% supporting the opposition.

2014 ORB poll conducted in May 2014. That poll found that more Syrians believe the Assad government best represents their interests and aspirations than believe the same about any of the opposition groups

2015 an American poll ORB asked the Syrian people who was having the most positive effect on Syria and Assad came out of that poll in the number 1 position.

2014- wins election with 88% of the vote. Observers from 32 countries including the US, Canada, Ireland, Brazil all declared that the election was fair and democratic.

so countless polls, from the USA, the UK, Qatar etc all show Assad is the peoples choice. He won an election in 2014 which was decalred free and transparent by the observers from many countries including Ireland, USA, Canada and Brazil.

You can disagree all you want about the election, it is irrelevant because the western polls and western evidence all show assad has the support of the Syrian people. The election mirrors the wests own evidence.

so yes you were wrong that the Syrian people want assad out of power. All the evidence from inside Syria, and outside Syria all show Assad is the peoples choice.

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Nothing on that wiki page says anything about it being rigged apart from the ramblings of western politicians who like you don't give any evidence.  So basically you got no evidence.

just admit you were wrong, you said that assad is not wanted by the Syrian people. You made that comment and you have failed to back it up apart from post a Wikipedia link which discusses the 2014 election.

I have posted polls which are from british and American organisations and other countries which show that Assad has the majority of Syrian support, over 70% in the British poll.

So lets break this discussion down. You said assad lost support. Your only evidence is a Wikipedia page discussing the 2014 election. On that page it doesn't give any evidence it was rigged apart from the ramblings of some western politicians who coincidentally don't give any evidence in their ramblings.

My evidence that he has the public support is;

The biggest group fighting in Syria is the Syrian army and they are fighting on the side of assad. So boots on the ground assad has the most support.

2011 poll conducted by Qatar showed that even at the height of the protests assad was still the most popular choice with 55% of Syrians saying they support him.

2012 research by the Guardian newspaper showed that Assad had 70% of the Syrian public supporting him.

2013- a Poll by NATO found that 70% of Syrians supported Assad with 20% neutral and 10% supporting the opposition.

2014 ORB poll conducted in May 2014. That poll found that more Syrians believe the Assad government best represents their interests and aspirations than believe the same about any of the opposition groups

2015 an American poll ORB asked the Syrian people who was having the most positive effect on Syria and Assad came out of that poll in the number 1 position.

2014- wins election with 88% of the vote. Observers from 32 countries including the US, Canada, Ireland, Brazil all declared that the election was fair and democratic.

so countless polls, from the USA, the UK, Qatar etc all show Assad is the peoples choice. He won an election in 2014 which was decalred free and transparent by the observers from many countries including Ireland, USA, Canada and Brazil.

You can disagree all you want about the election, it is irrelevant because the western polls and western evidence all show assad has the support of the Syrian people. The election mirrors the wests own evidence.

so yes you were wrong that the Syrian people want assad out of power. All the evidence from inside Syria, and outside Syria all show Assad is the peoples choice.

So another rambling post full of froth with little, to nothing, of substance.

Still no links from you. I'm going to be kind and say that you simply don't know how to debate.

My next post will provide the facts, since you seem incapable of knowing what facts are when you're looking right at them.

I was going to provide a list of facts, with links to sources but, with your tract record of obfuscation, whataboutery, deflection, denial and general inability to comprehend simple data, I will post one fact, explain as best I can, as simply as I can, and wait for what I'm sure will be a devastating rebuttal from your good self.

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Nothing on that wiki page says anything about it being rigged apart from the ramblings of western politicians who like you don't give any evidence.  So basically you got no evidence.

just admit you were wrong, you said that assad is not wanted by the Syrian people. You made that comment and you have failed to back it up apart from post a Wikipedia link which discusses the 2014 election.

I have posted polls which are from british and American organisations and other countries which show that Assad has the majority of Syrian support, over 70% in the British poll.

So lets break this discussion down. You said assad lost support. Your only evidence is a Wikipedia page discussing the 2014 election. On that page it doesn't give any evidence it was rigged apart from the ramblings of some western politicians who coincidentally don't give any evidence in their ramblings.

My evidence that he has the public support is;

The biggest group fighting in Syria is the Syrian army and they are fighting on the side of assad. So boots on the ground assad has the most support.

2011 poll conducted by Qatar showed that even at the height of the protests assad was still the most popular choice with 55% of Syrians saying they support him.

2012 research by the Guardian newspaper showed that Assad had 70% of the Syrian public supporting him.

2013- a Poll by NATO found that 70% of Syrians supported Assad with 20% neutral and 10% supporting the opposition.

2014 ORB poll conducted in May 2014. That poll found that more Syrians believe the Assad government best represents their interests and aspirations than believe the same about any of the opposition groups

2015 an American poll ORB asked the Syrian people who was having the most positive effect on Syria and Assad came out of that poll in the number 1 position.

2014- wins election with 88% of the vote. Observers from 32 countries including the US, Canada, Ireland, Brazil all declared that the election was fair and democratic.

so countless polls, from the USA, the UK, Qatar etc all show Assad is the peoples choice. He won an election in 2014 which was decalred free and transparent by the observers from many countries including Ireland, USA, Canada and Brazil.

You can disagree all you want about the election, it is irrelevant because the western polls and western evidence all show assad has the support of the Syrian people. The election mirrors the wests own evidence.

so yes you were wrong that the Syrian people want assad out of power. All the evidence from inside Syria, and outside Syria all show Assad is the peoples choice.

So another rambling post full of froth with little, to nothing, of substance.

Still no links from you. I'm going to be kind and say that you simply don't know how to debate.

My next post will provide the facts, since you seem incapable of knowing what facts are when you're looking right at them.

I was going to provide a list of facts, with links to sources but, with your tract record of obfuscation, whataboutery, deflection, denial and general inability to comprehend simple data, I will post one fact, explain as best I can, as simply as I can, and wait for what I'm sure will be a devastating rebuttal from your good self.

WHat more do you want then the name of the poll or company who ran the polls and the year the poll was conducted in? You do know you can easily find the polls I refer to by typing in the name that I provided and the year that I provided into a search engine right? But of course you most likely have done that already and you have seen the polls but you are trying to once again find any excuse not to admit you were wrong.

So lets debate the issue which is that the polls all show assad has the support of the Syrian people, so you were wrong when you said he wasn't wanted by his people.

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Nothing on that wiki page says anything about it being rigged apart from the ramblings of western politicians who like you don't give any evidence.  So basically you got no evidence.

just admit you were wrong, you said that assad is not wanted by the Syrian people. You made that comment and you have failed to back it up apart from post a Wikipedia link which discusses the 2014 election.

I have posted polls which are from british and American organisations and other countries which show that Assad has the majority of Syrian support, over 70% in the British poll.

So lets break this discussion down. You said assad lost support. Your only evidence is a Wikipedia page discussing the 2014 election. On that page it doesn't give any evidence it was rigged apart from the ramblings of some western politicians who coincidentally don't give any evidence in their ramblings.

My evidence that he has the public support is;

The biggest group fighting in Syria is the Syrian army and they are fighting on the side of assad. So boots on the ground assad has the most support.

2011 poll conducted by Qatar showed that even at the height of the protests assad was still the most popular choice with 55% of Syrians saying they support him.

2012 research by the Guardian newspaper showed that Assad had 70% of the Syrian public supporting him.

2013- a Poll by NATO found that 70% of Syrians supported Assad with 20% neutral and 10% supporting the opposition.

2014 ORB poll conducted in May 2014. That poll found that more Syrians believe the Assad government best represents their interests and aspirations than believe the same about any of the opposition groups

2015 an American poll ORB asked the Syrian people who was having the most positive effect on Syria and Assad came out of that poll in the number 1 position.

2014- wins election with 88% of the vote. Observers from 32 countries including the US, Canada, Ireland, Brazil all declared that the election was fair and democratic.

so countless polls, from the USA, the UK, Qatar etc all show Assad is the peoples choice. He won an election in 2014 which was decalred free and transparent by the observers from many countries including Ireland, USA, Canada and Brazil.

You can disagree all you want about the election, it is irrelevant because the western polls and western evidence all show assad has the support of the Syrian people. The election mirrors the wests own evidence.

so yes you were wrong that the Syrian people want assad out of power. All the evidence from inside Syria, and outside Syria all show Assad is the peoples choice.

So another rambling post full of froth with little, to nothing, of substance.

Still no links from you. I'm going to be kind and say that you simply don't know how to debate.

My next post will provide the facts, since you seem incapable of knowing what facts are when you're looking right at them.

I was going to provide a list of facts, with links to sources but, with your tract record of obfuscation, whataboutery, deflection, denial and general inability to comprehend simple data, I will post one fact, explain as best I can, as simply as I can, and wait for what I'm sure will be a devastating rebuttal from your good self.

WHat more do you want then the name of the poll or company who ran the polls and the year the poll was conducted in? You do know you can easily find the polls I refer to by typing in the name that I provided and the year that I provided into a search engine right? But of course you most likely have done that already and you have seen the polls but you are trying to once again find any excuse not to admit you were wrong.

So lets debate the issue which is that the polls all show assad has the support of the Syrian people, so you were wrong when you said he wasn't wanted by his people.

Links, that's what I want.

If you don't know how to provide links, just ask.

Ok, starting with the fact that the Syrian election was a sham:



Eligibility criteria

The conditions required to be a candidate in a presidential election are the following:

(1) A candidate must be Muslim

Article 3

(2) A candidate must have the support of no less than 35 members of the parliament

Article 85.3

(3) A candidate must be 34 years old or older *

Article 84.1

(4) A candidate must have lived in Syria for 10 years before the election

Article 84.5

(5) A candidate must be Syrian by birth, of parents who are Syrians by birth

Article 84.2

(6) A candidate must not be married to a non-Syrian spouse

Article 84

(All in bold from Wiki)

* The linked Articles state 40 years, however, the age limit was amended, overnight, from 40 years to 34 years to allow Assad the Presidency. I will come back to this.

Wiki failed to add a further election criterion:

(7)  Enjoy civil and political rights and not convicted of a dishonorable felony, even if he was reinstated.

Article 84.3

You can probably understand why the constitutional criteria for Presidential election is undemocratic, just at face value, but I will expand much more on why the criteria is undemocratic, and in fact corrupt, while also providing other examples of Syrian law to reinforce that contention.

There are also events surrounding that election that need drawn out.

For now, I'm going to sleep.

Munchkin wrote:Ok, starting with the fact that the Syrian election was a sham:



Eligibility criteria

The conditions required to be a candidate in a presidential election are the following:

(1) A candidate must be Muslim

Article 3

(2) A candidate must have the support of no less than 35 members of the parliament

Article 85.3

(3) A candidate must be 34 years old or older *

Article 84.1

(4) A candidate must have lived in Syria for 10 years before the election

Article 84.5

(5) A candidate must be Syrian by birth, of parents who are Syrians by birth

Article 84.2

(6) A candidate must not be married to a non-Syrian spouse

Article 84

(All in bold from Wiki)

* The linked Articles state 40 years, however, the age limit was amended, overnight, from 40 years to 34 years to allow Assad the Presidency. I will come back to this.

Wiki failed to add a further election criterion:

(7)  Enjoy civil and political rights and not convicted of a dishonorable felony, even if he was reinstated.

Article 84.3

You can probably understand why the constitutional criteria for Presidential election is undemocratic, just at face value, but I will expand much more on why the criteria is undemocratic, and in fact corrupt, while also providing other examples of Syrian law to reinforce that contention.

There are also events surrounding that election that need drawn out.

For now, I'm going to sleep.

so your whole basis that the elction was rigged is the eligibility criteria? Every country has eligibility criteria including the UK which states to stand as an mp ( and stand a chance to be PM) you have to be British or commonwealth citizen, and Candidates must be nominated by ten parliamentary electors of the constituency they wish to stand in and pay a £500 fee and be above the age of 18. Just because the Syrian eligibility is stricter doesn't make it rigged, if that is the constitution then that is the eligibility criteria that applies to all.

but your whole basis that the election as rigged is the eligibility criteria? 3 candidates passed the eligibility criteria so where is your evidence that it was rigged for them to lose? If you're going to argue it was rigged at least start with a better opening then the eligibility criteria. Its hardly a rigged election when the candidate must be Syrian or must be above a certain age or be muslim (in a deeply muslim arab country).

so your first swipe at claiming the election was rigged is a paragraph from wiki about who is eligible to stand. No doubt your other evidence will be paragraph 2 of wiki   and then you will say that further evidence the election was rigged is because of paragraph 3 of wiki     and then you will give a link to wiki and act like you have provided me with proof that its rigged 

So once again lets get back to the crux of the debate which was does assad have the support of his people. Countless polls say he does, the election results say he does and the fact the MAJORITY of Syrians are fighting FOR him shows that he does.

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Nothing on that wiki page says anything about it being rigged apart from the ramblings of western politicians who like you don't give any evidence.  So basically you got no evidence.

just admit you were wrong, you said that assad is not wanted by the Syrian people. You made that comment and you have failed to back it up apart from post a Wikipedia link which discusses the 2014 election.

I have posted polls which are from british and American organisations and other countries which show that Assad has the majority of Syrian support, over 70% in the British poll.

So lets break this discussion down. You said assad lost support. Your only evidence is a Wikipedia page discussing the 2014 election. On that page it doesn't give any evidence it was rigged apart from the ramblings of some western politicians who coincidentally don't give any evidence in their ramblings.

My evidence that he has the public support is;

The biggest group fighting in Syria is the Syrian army and they are fighting on the side of assad. So boots on the ground assad has the most support.

2011 poll conducted by Qatar showed that even at the height of the protests assad was still the most popular choice with 55% of Syrians saying they support him.

2012 research by the Guardian newspaper showed that Assad had 70% of the Syrian public supporting him.

2013- a Poll by NATO found that 70% of Syrians supported Assad with 20% neutral and 10% supporting the opposition.

2014 ORB poll conducted in May 2014. That poll found that more Syrians believe the Assad government best represents their interests and aspirations than believe the same about any of the opposition groups

2015 an American poll ORB asked the Syrian people who was having the most positive effect on Syria and Assad came out of that poll in the number 1 position.

2014- wins election with 88% of the vote. Observers from 32 countries including the US, Canada, Ireland, Brazil all declared that the election was fair and democratic.

so countless polls, from the USA, the UK, Qatar etc all show Assad is the peoples choice. He won an election in 2014 which was decalred free and transparent by the observers from many countries including Ireland, USA, Canada and Brazil.

You can disagree all you want about the election, it is irrelevant because the western polls and western evidence all show assad has the support of the Syrian people. The election mirrors the wests own evidence.

so yes you were wrong that the Syrian people want assad out of power. All the evidence from inside Syria, and outside Syria all show Assad is the peoples choice.

So another rambling post full of froth with little, to nothing, of substance.

Still no links from you. I'm going to be kind and say that you simply don't know how to debate.

My next post will provide the facts, since you seem incapable of knowing what facts are when you're looking right at them.

I was going to provide a list of facts, with links to sources but, with your tract record of obfuscation, whataboutery, deflection, denial and general inability to comprehend simple data, I will post one fact, explain as best I can, as simply as I can, and wait for what I'm sure will be a devastating rebuttal from your good self.

WHat more do you want then the name of the poll or company who ran the polls and the year the poll was conducted in? You do know you can easily find the polls I refer to by typing in the name that I provided and the year that I provided into a search engine right? But of course you most likely have done that already and you have seen the polls but you are trying to once again find any excuse not to admit you were wrong.

So lets debate the issue which is that the polls all show assad has the support of the Syrian people, so you were wrong when you said he wasn't wanted by his people.

Links, that's what I want.

If you don't know how to provide links, just ask.

I don't need to post links to provide evidence. As long as I name the polls and give the dates that is ample evidence as it gives you everything you need to find out if I'm telling the truth or not by googling it. Your idea of posting evidence is a link to Wikipedia which quite frankly is laughable.

but once again if I post the name of the organisation who ran the poll and I post the year they did it in, that is sufficient evidence and more than enough for you to type it into google to ascertain its truthfulness.

You both should be posting links (and no wikipedia isn't a source) to provide evidence of what your saying. It's not up to the other person to prove your right by doing the leg work for you. You want to get your point across and show your right so stick the links up.

*It's a very interesting debate btw. kudos to both of you

Derbymanc wrote:You both should be posting links (and no wikipedia isn't a source) to provide evidence of what your saying. It's not up to the other person to prove your right by doing the leg work for you. You want to get your point across and show your right so stick the links up.

*It's a very interesting debate btw. kudos to both of you

Yes, mouse should be providing links, and yes Wiki is a source. In fact it's a source for sources, if used correctly. The wiki link I posted provided sources for the brief description of the 2014 Syrian election, and that was one link from the rest. In short; Wiki is not authoritative, the sources it provides may be. That's true for most articles.

It would be a more interesting discussion if mouse would engage in genuine debate, rather than froth. Saying that, I find these topics interesting without the need for debate, so I still get value.

With so much information out there, much of it contradictory, you have to really dig in sometimes to get to the truth. This is certainly true for events in Syria. For example; in his latest interview, Assad suggested the victims of the chemical attack are fake, and the tin hats on his side will simply suck it up as gospel.

That's why I wouldn't use Wiki as a source Munch. Personally i'd put the direct links up to show what I was saying was right, (it might also help educate those that won't track all the sources through wiki)

One of my favourite sections is the off topic section as I've learnt quite a bit from the more knowledgable (and up to speed) posters. Just wish the vitriol was turned down a notch sometimes as it doesn't help anyone really.

(not a dig at anyone in particular, just saying)

Musclular-mouse wrote:


so your whole basis that the elction was rigged is the eligibility criteria?  

You have an issue with comprehension. Try reading my post again, and if you still can't comprehend then ask an adult to help you.

I haven't really started to highlight why the election criteria is flawed, and obviously favours Assad. You would know that if you could comprehend plain English.

Oh, and your point about other Countries having election criteria gave me a giggle

I will try and add a bit to the constitutional articles later.

Derbymanc wrote:That's why I wouldn't use Wiki as a source Munch. Personally i'd put the direct links up to show what I was saying was right, (it might also help educate those that won't track all the sources through wiki)

One of my favourite sections is the off topic section as I've learnt quite a bit from the more knowledgable (and up to speed) posters. Just wish the vitriol was turned down a notch sometimes as it doesn't help anyone really.

(not a dig at anyone in particular, just saying)

Generally speaking, I agree. I wouldn't normally link to Wiki, but did this time to see if mouse could dig a bit deeper. Sometimes posters are less confrontational when they discover things for themselves. Not that it works for me

As for the vitriol? I agree, and I do tend to fight fire with fire, and as guilty as the next. I do prefer discussions that are strong, but well reasoned and without the flaming that normally accompanies these discussions. I tend to learn more from them.

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:


so your whole basis that the elction was rigged is the eligibility criteria?  

You have an issue with comprehension. Try reading my post again, and if you still can't comprehend then ask an adult to help you.

I haven't really started to highlight why the election criteria is flawed, and obviously favours Assad. You would know that if you could comprehend plain English.

Oh, and your point about other Countries having election criteria gave me a giggle

I will try and add a bit to the constitutional articles later.

I know you haven't, but you claimed that you did

I'm waiting for you to post paragraph 2 from Wikipedia about rebel controlled areas and then I will wait for you to post paragraph 3 from Wikipedia about rebel activity during the election and if I'm lucky you might post paragraph 5 from Wikipedia

why do you ignore all the evidence that Assad is ahead in all of the polls? and that he has the majority support of the Syrian people? Its purely because you don't want to accept defeat

here is the evidence once again

2011 poll conducted by Qatar showed that even at the height of the protests assad was still the most popular choice with 55% of Syrians saying they support him.

2012 research by the Guardian newspaper showed that Assad had 70% of the Syrian public supporting him.

2013- a Poll by NATO found that 70% of Syrians supported Assad with 20% neutral and 10% supporting the opposition.

2014 ORB poll conducted in May 2014. That poll found that more Syrians believe the Assad government best represents their interests and aspirations than believe the same about any of the opposition groups

2015 an American poll ORB asked the Syrian people who was having the most positive effect on Syria and Assad came out of that poll in the number 1 position.

2014- wins election with 88% of the vote. Observers from 32 countries including the US, Canada, Ireland, Brazil all declared that the election was fair and democratic.

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:


so your whole basis that the elction was rigged is the eligibility criteria?  

You have an issue with comprehension. Try reading my post again, and if you still can't comprehend then ask an adult to help you.

I haven't really started to highlight why the election criteria is flawed, and obviously favours Assad. You would know that if you could comprehend plain English.

Oh, and your point about other Countries having election criteria gave me a giggle

I will try and add a bit to the constitutional articles later.

I know you haven't, but you claimed that you did

I will just highlight that little gem as it confirms your level of intellect, and lack of interest in genuine debate.

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:


so your whole basis that the elction was rigged is the eligibility criteria?  

You have an issue with comprehension. Try reading my post again, and if you still can't comprehend then ask an adult to help you.

I haven't really started to highlight why the election criteria is flawed, and obviously favours Assad. You would know that if you could comprehend plain English.

Oh, and your point about other Countries having election criteria gave me a giggle

I will try and add a bit to the constitutional articles later.

I know you haven't, but you claimed that you did

I will just highlight that little gem as it confirms your level of intellect, and lack of interest in genuine debate.

Munchkin will you please put this mouse to sleep, he's becoming very tiresome

Trump needs to realise less is more....

US stocks up 10 percent since November...Increasing confidence in the Labor markets and the Economy.

Just play golf and be thankful you inherited a recovery.....

You can be the biggest t*t in the World like Ulysses Grant or an intelligent guy like Grover Cleveland but if you inherit a good economy you should have it made...

Grant did two terms and Grover checked out after one term twice... (Only President to "win" the White house twice rather than win and retain was honest Grover....Only President to get married in office too)

Smart move is to do little and then go to the electorate saying look at all the jobs and wealth created on my watch..

May not be down to him but it's a good message...Presidents rarely lose with messages like that.

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:


so your whole basis that the elction was rigged is the eligibility criteria?  

You have an issue with comprehension. Try reading my post again, and if you still can't comprehend then ask an adult to help you.

I haven't really started to highlight why the election criteria is flawed, and obviously favours Assad. You would know that if you could comprehend plain English.

Oh, and your point about other Countries having election criteria gave me a giggle

I will try and add a bit to the constitutional articles later.

I know you haven't, but you claimed that you did

I will just highlight that little gem as it confirms your level of intellect, and lack of interest in genuine debate.

Well your idea of a debate is to copy and paste all of your arguments from a Wikipedia page...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Trump needs to realise less is more....

US stocks up 10 percent since November...Increasing confidence in the Labor markets and the Economy.

Just play golf and be thankful you inherited a recovery.....

You can be the biggest t*t in the World like Ulysses Grant or an intelligent guy like Grover Cleveland but if you inherit a good economy you should have it made...

Grant did two terms and Grover checked out after one term twice... (Only President to "win" the White house twice rather than win and retain was honest Grover....Only President to get married in office too)

Smart move is to do little and then go to the electorate saying look at all the jobs and wealth created on my watch..

May not be down to him but it's a good message...Presidents rarely lose with messages like that.

What is your view on Trump in the few months he has been president?

Whoops. Another campaign promise out the window then...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39708768

navyblueshorts wrote:Whoops. Another campaign promise out the window then...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39708768

Jobs are up.. The economy is improving and he isn’t saddled with the nightmare known as Brexit.

You'd be better off worrying about the UK ...

Shouldn't worry to much about his campaign promises, he's engineering a war in the Pacific which should drive his rating skyward

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Whoops. Another campaign promise out the window then...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39708768

Jobs are up.. The economy is improving and he isn’t saddled with the nightmare known as Brexit.

You'd be better off worrying about the UK ...

Yeah, amazing what Obama put in place isn't it? Fits your earlier post re. keeping schtum and reaping the gains.
This is a thread about Trump's Presidency, so I thought I'd post something about his damned Wall. Would seem odd banging on about Brexit here don't you think?

Gwlad wrote:Shouldn't worry to much about his campaign promises, he's engineering a war in the Pacific which should drive his rating skyward

I hope you're wrong about that, but hard to tell with that wingnut. Still, more or less the last regime on the planet you'd want to be in possession of nuclear-tipped ICBMs is the one of that porker in North Korea. Maybe Trump's trying to bump China into dealing with them, instead of just sitting there doing diddly?

navyblueshorts wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Shouldn't worry to much about his campaign promises, he's engineering a war in the Pacific which should drive his rating skyward

I hope you're wrong about that, but hard to tell with that wingnut. Still, more or less the last regime on the planet you'd want to be in possession of nuclear-tipped ICBMs is the one of that porker in North Korea. Maybe Trump's trying to bump China into dealing with them, instead of just sitting there doing diddly?

I just feel that there has been a 180 since Trump from a US aiming to be collegial at least in it's image to a US happy t revert to power broking. His moves and rhetoric has no doubt inflamed North Korea who have a clear propensity for violence. I agree Trump is doing exactly that, giving China the all clear to act which i would expect would make Japan nervous so i should think Trump has let them know that this is a restricted campaign.

navyblueshorts wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Whoops. Another campaign promise out the window then...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39708768

Jobs are up.. The economy is improving and he isn’t saddled with the nightmare known as Brexit.

You'd be better off worrying about the UK ...

Yeah, amazing what Obama put in place isn't it? Fits your earlier post re. keeping schtum and reaping the gains.
This is a thread about Trump's Presidency, so I thought I'd post something about his damned Wall. Would seem odd banging on about Brexit here don't you think?

Also seems that US growth has slowed to its slowest rate in three years.

Gwlad wrote:Shouldn't worry to much about his campaign promises, he's engineering a war in the Pacific which should drive his rating skyward

Yep...He couldn't get his Healthcare bill passed so a war in the pacific should be no problem..

"Congress" Ever heard of it ??

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Shouldn't worry to much about his campaign promises, he's engineering a war in the Pacific which should drive his rating skyward

Yep...He couldn't get his Healthcare bill passed so a war in the pacific should be no problem..

"Congress" Ever heard of it ??

Be a student of history. When does China EVER get involved. Not onc win my lifetime have i been so aware of Chinese military movements, and this in apparent preparation to deal with a fellow Communist. Did Congress present a problem in 1941? Why was that?
The USA is a militant nation, i know i live next to it and travel there every month. Go to a 4th of july celebration in a small mid west town you'll understand. They like a war, need a war, about once every 10 years will do to keep the $ rolling. Trump has created uncertainty and increased paranoia in North Korea with his naval shenanigans, the latest being the USS Vinson battle group going on a jolly in the Pacific…to who knows where….! All very careful orchestrated to increase tensions and with the level of nationalism in Pyong Yang such as it is it is likely that the regime will up its anti western rhetoric to a point where Trump can sit back and let matters take their course.

If you keep poking the hornets nest you'll get stung. That is what China is waiting for.

Gwlad wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Shouldn't worry to much about his campaign promises, he's engineering a war in the Pacific which should drive his rating skyward

Yep...He couldn't get his Healthcare bill passed so a war in the pacific should be no problem..

"Congress" Ever heard of it ??

Be a student of history. When does China EVER get involved. Not onc win my lifetime have i been so aware of Chinese military movements, and this in apparent preparation to deal with a fellow Communist. Did Congress present a problem in 1941? Why was that?
The USA is a militant nation, i know i live next to it and travel there every month. Go to a 4th of july celebration in a small mid west town you'll understand. They like a war, need a war, about once every 10 years will do to keep the $ rolling. Trump has created uncertainty and increased paranoia in North Korea with his naval shenanigans, the latest being the USS Vinson battle group going on a jolly in the Pacific…to who knows where….! All very careful orchestrated to increase tensions and with the level of nationalism in Pyong Yang such as it is it is likely that the regime will up its anti western rhetoric to a point where Trump can sit back and let matters take their course.

If you keep poking the hornets nest you'll get stung. That is what China is waiting for.

I am very aware of history.............Which is why I know bollox when I read it..