Originally Posted by
Crimson Dynasty
This is nonsense and you know it.
She's repeatedly denied what is commonly understood and accepted as the claim of Assad as a war criminal who's literally butchered his own people, and as recently as 2017 made a trip there to give him a photo-op (that's the visit you're referring to, and it was roundly panned as nothing more than a photo-op for Assad's benefit and none of what she was claiming) and bolster his claims of trying to eradicate terrorist rebels in his country versus what he really was doing which was violently and brutally stamping out dissent including carpet bombing areas of his country known to be in opposition to his rule (as with the Kurds in the North and the areas controlled by the Free Syrian army) with the help of one Vladmir Putin - that great bastion and paragon of individual liberties, freedom and democracy that we know him to be.
Opposing regime change is one thing (and frankly speaking, nobody is talking about regime change in Syria - certainly not the kind prompted by external forces ala Iraq), but openly lying about what a proven war criminal is doing is something entirely on a completely different level.
1) Wikileaks cables show that regime change in Syria was being discussed as far back as 2006. Conspiracy theorists would suggest it was earlier.
After Obama won this was shown to be the continued policy from 2009 onwards.
Regime change is off the table now as the Russians have gotten involved at the request of a longtime ally to restore stability.
Having fuelled a civil war and supplied forces I dont think anyone can get away from their share of responsibility in the destabilisation.
Again a civil war by default is a brutal event.
There are geopolitical interests regarding power in the region and supply of gas to the EU. Russia with/influencing Syria are not wanting the proposed pipeline through Syria as they have their own interests in Nordstream 2. The US and others have interests in getting that gas pipe through Syria and against nordstream2, the us is miffed with Germany over nordstream2. (1
Fascinating.
So because (in your view) people made wild hyperbolic claims about some other leaders before, then therefore the claims about this particular leader must be viewed through the same exeggerrated lens of hyperbole and thus be equally dismmised?
Are you familiar with this modern newe-fangled concept called the 'False Equivalence'.
You should really look into it.
And which war did "O'bomber deporter in chief" start that you're claiming is "his war" to win election (or re-election)?
You're really revealing yourself here.
2) No. Perhaps you should read that again. I said Christopher Hitchens suggested that Bill Clinton destroyed Yugoslavia for re-election.
I stated they all won re-election after starting their wars, iirc on that matter.
The point of raising politicians from both sides of the spectrum was in so much as to show how a large swathe of people where a nation is divided will have strong opinions of their rivals. I dont think you can have a full blown war/civil-war without large scale violence.
Obama had his interventions in Libya iirc prior to the 2012 elections. HRC saying later we came, we saw, he died. Referring to Gadaffis eventual death.
I wonder just how pro democracy and liberal say a framed western backed pro-democracy/liberal group really are, when they livestream the capture of Gaddafi, beat, sodomise several times with a bayonet and later execute him.
Imo that's not very humane treatment at all. Perhaps such scenes as with Sadam too prime leaders for what might come their and their families way. I'm not surprised that in many of these civil wars with foreign influences that such terrible things have occurred. War including civil wars by their nature are brutal events.
Libya is worse off now than before, as are many other nations. The second civil war in Libya is still ongoing.
I would suggest you make use of Google as your friend and educate yourself on her stances on these issues, because frankly speaking I really don't have time to go through all of that and educate you on stuff you've clearly decided to ignore (seeing as you were obviously aware of her homophobic stance. It's really not that hard to google "Gay conversion therapy" and to see exactly what's wrong with it as an act - something she actively advocated for early in her career.)
Also, spare me the false equivalence (oh, there it is again) between her vastly more extreme homophobic stance and the more political expedience stance that people like Obama and Biden had (which amounted to believing that gay people should be entitled to civil unions as opposed to full marriage rights like straight people.
3 (Oh no, more sarcasm, the wit I can't handle it)
I've seen her comments on gays, state that she had religious beliefs and that she has moved on since that time. So whilst there might be more I'm not going to look it up. I'm not surprised that people have opinions and prejudices.
I'm fully aware what gay conversion therapy is btw. I'm also aware that many perhaps later gay men and women produce biological offspring in hetero relationships. Yet to meet one who regrets it, but there are those who seek therapy around these issues too and some resolve to retain their marriage, maybe a sham marriage though they value it, as that is their preferred choice. Whilst others decide to leave their marriages/relationships.
Maybe Clinton or Biden or Obama have feigned their political public positions then or now. My point of raising their public stances was just to highlight how in the democratic party the official positions were similar.
I know plenty of gay people who find the idea of heterosex revolting and skin crawling.
Holy crap!
The stretch in that comparison, though....
(Klopp to a homophobic, war criminal supporting bigoted politician)
I hope you didn't strain or tar any muscles with that reach.
But then again, maybe don't act like you had a choice where Klopp was concerned in this regard (or any manager we likely would have hired, particularly had they been continental European and almost certainly anti-Brexit - which you clearly support. Even potential British managers we would have hired would likely have similarly been anti-Brexit (though perhaps not as openly vocal about it).
Bookmarks