UN General Assembly Calls on Assad to Step Down (137-12)

Again, it appears that you are done. I await your next daft dalliance with doublespeak.

 

You're still here, moon? Evidently, the fuse hasn't hit the powder yet.

Quote?
Praise?



Ski pole in the chest?

 

More postmortem twitching.

 

Maybe if you pulled that ski pole out of your chest you'd stop twitching...

 

Third-rate plagiarism. Even postmortem.

 

Didnt moon already say he supports almost all UN res'ns?

Are you going to take it back or move the goalposts?

 

Oh NO , it's wheedling winkie weekend

 

Still with us, moon?

Maybe after you're done prying out the ski pole of hypocrisy you threw yourself on you'll find time to produce the quote and praise we've been waiting on all day...

 

Don't move the goalposts yourself, sport. We're looking for specifics, not "almost all".

BYW, would you like to help moon with that ski pole sticking out of her chest? She threw herself on that earlier today and it's starting to look infected...

 

I don't agree with people that have nothing directly to do with a country telling it who should or should not be leading it.

Now, if the U.N. wants to condemn Assad for shelling cities/towns? That is fine with me.
And if the U.N. wants to send in troops to stop this murder of innocent civilians...power to them.
But it should NEVER take sides in a civil war...that is strictly an internal matter.
It should only protect civilians (if it can without choosing sides).


But the only people that should tell Syrians who should or should not be their leader are Syrians.

 

Creation was being specific. I said that I supported all General Assembly- approved resolutions. Creation was perceptive enough to note that I didn't include Security Council - approved resolutions. So, who's this ' we ' that's looking for specifics along with you ?

 

Too bad Bashar doesn't agree with you. He's the head of a hereditary monarchy that can't be bothered with the will of the Syrian people...

 

Duplicate. Crap server.

 

Very good. Then you'll have no problem specifically praising the GA for its resolution on Syria as well as the resolution itself.

As for the quote you're still failing to produce, any time you're ready. How many hours has it been now?

 

I know EXACTLY what Assad is and his position in Syria:

By Gwynne Dyer

'As the Syrian opposition abandons non-violent protest for armed resistance, many people think this means that President Bashar al-Assad and his Baathist regime are in even deeper trouble than before. On the contrary, it means that Assad and the Baathists are winning.

The Baathists know how to destroy armed resistance. Bashar’s father, Hafez al-Assad, crushed the armed uprising of 1982 with massive military force, destroying the city of Hama and killing between 10,000 and 40,000 people in the process. He got away with it, stayed in power, and died peacefully in his bed 18 years later.

This time, the focus of the Baathist regime’s attention is the rebel city of Homs, only an hour’s drive south of Hama, and it is clearly willing to do the same thing there. The people around Bashar believe they’ll get away with it this time too—and they may be right.

The Arab League can pass a resolution demanding that Bashar hands over power to a deputy at once, and that the Baathists form a “unity” government with the opposition within two months, but Syria’s rulers simply shrug it off. The Arab League is not going to send troops to Syria.

Besides, the Baathist leadership comes mainly from the Alawite community, a Shia Muslim minority that accounts for only ten percent of Syria’s population. About 70 percent of Syria’s people are Sunni Muslims, as are the governments in all the other members of the Arab League except Iraq and Lebanon. So the Syrian Baathists think that the League’s resolution is merely intended to drive Syria’s Shias from power, and they just ignore it.

A comparable resolution by the United Nations Security Council will never happen, because Assad’s Russian and Chinese friends will veto it again if necessary. And even if such a resolution were passed, no Western country is going to send troops to intervene in Syria either. The country is too big and the regime is too well armed: this is not another Libya.

So Assad’s calculations all have to do with how the confrontation plays out in Syria itself. In that context, it is greatly to his advantage that the opposition is turning to violence. Violence is much easier to defeat than non-violence.

It’s a quarter century since non-violent movements began driving oppressive regimes from power: the Philippines, Indonesia, South Korea, East Germany, the Soviet Union, Chile, South Africa, Serbia, Georgia, and most recently Egypt, not to mention a dozen others. By now, everybody on both sides of the barricades has the playbook. The tactics of the protesters are governed by strict rules—and the regimes also know and understand those rules.

Non-violent protesters have a whole menu of actions they can take to undermine the regime’s authority: mass demonstrations, strikes, sit-ins, stay-at-homes, and much more. They also have a strict rule never to use violence against the regime and its servants—not because the protesters are pacifists, but because non-violence works better.

It gets better results because if the protesters avoid violence, it is almost impossible for a dictator to unleash all the force at his command. The regime’s troops and police will kill a few protesters each day, or even a few dozen, but they are psychologically deterred from mass killing because the protesters pose no direct threat to them.

Whereas if the protesters do attack the regime’s security forces, the soldiers and police are released from this inhibition and will use extreme violence to “protect” themselves. If physical force is what decides the confrontation, the regime almost automatically wins, because the force it can deploy is so much greater. As soon as the protesters throw the first brick or fire the first shot, the balance of power shifts radically in favour of the regime.

Nowadays, dictators understand this, and do everything in their power to provoke their opponents into using violence. The Syrian protesters resisted this pressure for months, clinging bravely to non-violence despite a relentless toll of deaths and injuries inflicted by Assad’s regime. But then some of the regime’s troops, sick of killing their own people, deserted from the army—and they took their weapons with them.

Once the “Free Syrian Army” started fighting back, the internal pressure on Assad’s regime lessened dramatically. Its claim that it was fighting “armed terrorist gangs” gained some credence, especially among Alawites, Christians, Druze, and other Syrian minorities who fear Sunni Muslim domination in a democratic Syria. And the willingness of the security forces to use really large-scale violence grew, because now they were scared for their own safety.

It is a disaster for the Syrian opposition: their death-toll has now risen to hundreds each week, but the deaths have less moral impact because they are happening in what is becoming a mere civil war. Ugly and destructive though that will be, Assad’s regime has a better chance of survival now than it did when the protests were strictly non-violent.'

http://www.straight.com/article-603851/vancouver/gwynne-dyer-syrian-oppositions-great-mistake


If the Syrian 'rebels' want peaceful assistance...fine.

But the second they want military assistance or have the outside world try and strip from or force a leader down the throats of the Syrian people...forget it.

It was a mistake to help the Rebels in Libya and it would be a mistake to help them now in Syria.

 

MY approval of General Assembly resolutions isn't in doubt. What's keeping your inane rhetoric going is the scrambling for arse-coverings.
Like I said- postmortem twitching.

 

It's wonderful that you "applaud" all GA resolutions, moon - I "applaud" all childrens' theatre performances. American football fans "applaud" their teams after it takes them 3 quarters to cross the 50 yard line. Many of my compatriots have come to "applaud" the US Congress for passing any legislation these days.

Woop-dee-doo.

(BTW, any time you're prepared to praise the GA for this specific resolution and the resolution itself, feel free to do so. The opportunity is still open.)

Evidently, you find something noble in obediently "applauding" all GA resolutions, regardless of the content of the specific resolutions themselves - congratulations to you and everyone else who shares your view of this most "infallible" of human institutions...



Since you have utterly and predictably failed to produce the non-existent quote of the "praise" that you've conjured in your head during your little fishing expedition, I'll save you the trouble of trying to put words in my mouth and speak for myself:

I find it striking that an organization that is filled with right-repressive, dictatorial regimes and permits the likes of Saudi Arabia, Cuba, China and Russia on its Human Rights Council (not to mention actively subverts the human rights covenants it is supposed to promote and defend) - in other words, an organization/institution that has zero credibility when it comes to promoting and defending human rights - would turn against the Syrian autocracy in such overwhelming fashion (137-12).

I would also think that most observers would find it interesting to observe the position that this puts Vlad the Invader and the Wardens of the Laogai in after they vetoed a similar measure at the UNSCR. Will it change the Kremlin's position? Will it compel Moscow to stop cynically selling arms to one of its best clients? And what of the Gulagkateers in Beijing?

Of course, these questions lead to the wider questions of where this conflict is headed and how the parties backing Assad or the opposition will respond. With the Security Council deadlocked, will the Saudis and Qataris proceed to arm the Syrian Free Army to the teeth, the same way the Qataris armed the Libyan opposition? If the uprising in Syria turns into a free-for-all, will the Syrian civil war turn into a regional conflict?

The fact is, the GA vote could be a game changer. It will grant the parties backing the Syrian opposition at least the appearance of legitimacy when they decide to dump funds and arms into the hands of the SFA, et al, in their effort to topple the Assad regime. Obviously, this doesn't bode well for Assad and his benefactors and beneficiaries.

 

I know!!!!!!!

If these terrorists are allowed in Syrian government all my Christian brothers and sisters in this country will be in danger!!!!

 

To be fair, the Syrian opposition has already tried and continues to try non-violent forms of protest against their ruthless Little Dictator:

http://www.politicalforum.com/lates...-dissent-against-top-goon.html#post1060882573

Whether you and I like it or not, the Syrian people opposed to the continuation of Assad's illegitimate hereditary autocracy are already receiving outside military assistance, just as the Assad regime is receiving outside military assistance. I expect the SFA, et al, will be receiving even more of that assistance in the aftermath of the GA resolution against Assad...

 

Christians supporting the persecutions of other Christians in a middle eastern country, calling for the assistance of installing the Islamic extremist resistance group in said country.

I am living in a nightmare.

 

I suspect you are right.

 

LOL.

Cant even be bothered to read exactly what Moon writes.

Cowardice exemplified. Further you feel free to explain to Moon what he thinks and why rather than ask him.

Again cowardice exemplified.

 

Well, sectarian slur-mongers do like a good snipe. Along with a bit of warped innuendo, veiled insult and forked-tongue exercise. Even postmortem.

 

Ok, so Russia and China are supporting Assad via Iran, while Americans, British and the Arab League support the opposition via Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Another regional power balance struggle fueled in part by geopolitical interests.

http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/t...-Russia_confirms_foreign_invasion_of_Syria-0/

 

Yes, an Israel milking the situation like there's no tomorrow. Hopefully, for Zionism there isn't one. Israel, as everybody will recall, actually illegally occupies parts of Syria.