Santiago Alba Rico — The role and bias of this geopolitical obsession becomes very clear as soon as one compares the different attitudes toward Palestine and Syria.
Sorry, I’m not the one that tried to imply that heads of state stepping down was an impossible demand that could not have reasonably been expected to be fulfilled by the opposition, instead of one of the most common demands and one of the most commonly fulfilled demands upon national unrest even in authoritarian regimes.
Sorry that was too complex for you to parse. Would you like me to simplify it further?
Depends on the domestic failure and whether that head of state thinks there is another path forward.
Too much trouble, clearly what needs to be done is to slaughter civilians en masse. That’s what you’re onboard for, after all, since this isn’t your first time bootlicking Assad.
With the power of hindsight, sure, but obviously that wasn’t the anticipated outcome. Even his opposition didn’t think the war would have lasted this long.
“With the power of hindsight, sure”
With the power of every passing fucking year. But sure, Assad was just waiting for victory around the corner.
I see that you didn’t bother to answer my question and instead decided to accuse me of being an apologist for dictators and atrocities.
This may be over your head, but there’s a bit of a difference between rioters attempting to stop certification of a democratic election and people under a legitimately authoritarian regime taking up arms for a years-long struggle against the legitimacy of the government itself.
But you’re here to downplay Assad as much as you can, because “West Bad”, hence why you’ve slobbered all over Assad’s (and Gaddafi’s, and Saddam’s) boots in declaring them the superior regimes to their alternatives.
Sorry, I’m not the one that tried to imply that heads of state stepping down was an impossible demand
That’s literally your wording. Looking at the rest of your post, I’ve deemed it not worth my time to respond to you until you’ve finished your temper tantrum. Come back to me when you’ve settled down, gained some maturity, and learned reading comprehension instead of arguing with a strawman you’ve made up in your head. By the way, have another downvote.
“One officeholder must step down” is apparently an impossible demand.
You:
When the officeholder is the one on the opposite side of the negotiation table, it tends to be a difficult point to reconcile. Do you think the ruler of a country should step down any time a group demands their resignation?
If you don’t like your dictator bootlicking being called out for what it is, maybe you should consider not being a fascist apologist in the future?
Sorry, I know that’s a big request to ask of you.
Notice that I followed that up with a question about whether a ruler should step down any time a group demands their resignation.
Yes, that’s definitely a question asked in good faith (‘any time a group demands their resignation’) and not at all downplaying the fact that the resignation was demanded in the process of a nationwide uprising including mass defections from the nation’s military, directed towards a figure who had never allowed legitimate elections in his life. /s
Since you’re genuinely having trouble understanding, I’ll help you out with this. My exact words were, “it tends to be a difficult point to reconcile”, I didn’t say it was impossible. Notice that I followed that up with a question about whether a ruler should step down any time a group demands their resignation. This goes back to my original point of looking toward the future. If the leading opposition is looking to install a theocracy, then do you consider this acceptable? I guess you do since you must be a terrorist bootlicker and apologist, according to your own logic.
This is my final response for real now. Have a nice day.
Sorry, I’m not the one that tried to imply that heads of state stepping down was an impossible demand that could not have reasonably been expected to be fulfilled by the opposition, instead of one of the most common demands and one of the most commonly fulfilled demands upon national unrest even in authoritarian regimes.
Sorry that was too complex for you to parse. Would you like me to simplify it further?
Too much trouble, clearly what needs to be done is to slaughter civilians en masse. That’s what you’re onboard for, after all, since this isn’t your first time bootlicking Assad.
“With the power of hindsight, sure”
With the power of every passing fucking year. But sure, Assad was just waiting for victory around the corner.
This may be over your head, but there’s a bit of a difference between rioters attempting to stop certification of a democratic election and people under a legitimately authoritarian regime taking up arms for a years-long struggle against the legitimacy of the government itself.
But you’re here to downplay Assad as much as you can, because “West Bad”, hence why you’ve slobbered all over Assad’s (and Gaddafi’s, and Saddam’s) boots in declaring them the superior regimes to their alternatives.
That’s literally your wording. Looking at the rest of your post, I’ve deemed it not worth my time to respond to you until you’ve finished your temper tantrum. Come back to me when you’ve settled down, gained some maturity, and learned reading comprehension instead of arguing with a strawman you’ve made up in your head. By the way, have another downvote.
@[email protected] and @[email protected] please bring this conversation to a close.
Me:
You:
If you don’t like your dictator bootlicking being called out for what it is, maybe you should consider not being a fascist apologist in the future?
Sorry, I know that’s a big request to ask of you.
Yes, that’s definitely a question asked in good faith (‘any time a group demands their resignation’) and not at all downplaying the fact that the resignation was demanded in the process of a nationwide uprising including mass defections from the nation’s military, directed towards a figure who had never allowed legitimate elections in his life. /s
Since you’re genuinely having trouble understanding, I’ll help you out with this. My exact words were, “it tends to be a difficult point to reconcile”, I didn’t say it was impossible. Notice that I followed that up with a question about whether a ruler should step down any time a group demands their resignation. This goes back to my original point of looking toward the future. If the leading opposition is looking to install a theocracy, then do you consider this acceptable? I guess you do since you must be a terrorist bootlicker and apologist, according to your own logic.
This is my final response for real now. Have a nice day.