Bashar Speech today (last 3 minutes)

[the-Unexpected-Soul]

so bashar today have made a speech, well i'm not posting the speech, this shot is exactly after he finished the speech, tell me what you think ?

[libstaK]

I think the auditorium was filled with card holding members of his party. I doubt his security would risk his life by allowing dissenters within a mile of him. Therefore the chanting and adoration was to be expected, if not outright orchestrated.

[Mr.United_Nations]

Do they love him for security or for money?

[the-Unexpected-Soul]

here is the full speech in English

[the-Unexpected-Soul]

filled with card holding members of his party

they are called Shabiha (Ghost-ers)

[the-Unexpected-Soul]

Do they love him for security or for money?

it's a whole culture, but i didn't expect that people would still be like that after what he done

[Helen of Annoy]

I have prejudice against long speeches.

An hour long speech is still short compared to Castro’s or Gaddafi’s records, but the very length of Assad’s speech was not promising at all.

So I decided to look for summary of sorts and here it is:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/world/middleeast/syria-war-developments.html?_r=0

President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, sounding defiant, confident, and, to critics, out of touch with the magnitude of his people’s grievances, proposed on Sunday what he called a plan to resolve the country’s 21-month uprising with a new constitution and cabinet.

...

Mr. Assad, whose family has ruled Syria for 42 years, said Sunday that he was open to dialogue with “those who have not betrayed Syria,” a likely reference to tolerated opposition groups that reject armed revolution, such the National Coordinating Body for Democratic Change, whose members have been floated by Syria’s allies China and Russia as possible compromise brokers.

Yet Mr. Assad’s speech appeared unlikely to satisfy even those among his opponents who reject the armed rebellion, since it made no apology for the arrests of peaceful activists or for airstrikes that have destroyed neighborhoods. Mr. Assad gave no sign of acknowledging that the movement against him was anything more than a foreign plot or had any goals other than to inflict suffering and destroy the country.

So, if I understood it right, he’s not giving up, the power or the methods he used so far to stay in power.

Also, it's interesting how his definition of a foreign plot changes according to foreign preferences - it's like Assad thinks he himself is Syria, or all that matters about Syria.

A leader should care about nation more than about himself personally. Yes, I'm that naive.

[the-Unexpected-Soul]

So I decided to look for summary of sorts and here it is:

http://www.nytimes.c...ments.html?_r=0

great summary, it sum up lots of things

Edited January 6, 2013 by the-Unexpected-Soul

[+and-then]

The good thing about his speech is that it leaves no room for any doubt of his intentions. He's in this 'til the last dog dies. If he isn't assassinated by one of his own - I expect him to launch chemical weapons against Israel and or Turkey when he senses that it's over for himself personally. He's a dangerous man in a very dangerous part of the world.

[Mr Right Wing]

I have prejudice against long speeches.

An hour long speech is still short compared to Castro’s or Gaddafi’s records, but the very length of Assad’s speech was not promising at all.

So I decided to look for summary of sorts and here it is:

http://www.nytimes.c...ments.html?_r=0

So, if I understood it right, he’s not giving up, the power or the methods he used so far to stay in power.

Also, it's interesting how his definition of a foreign plot changes according to foreign preferences - it's like Assad thinks he himself is Syria, or all that matters about Syria.

A leader should care about nation more than about himself personally. Yes, I'm that naive.

In the not too distant past China was on the rise and got its wings clipped by the British in the opium wars -

1. Afganistan was used to grow opium and smugglers allowed to take it across the border into China.

2. Iran was used to grow opium and smugglers allowed to take it across the border into China.

Fast foward 100 years and china is on the rise again -

1. Afganistan gets occupied and guess what? Thats right growing opium has been made legal by us.

2. In addition Afganistan was found to hold vast mineral reserves a couple years before the war including lithium. For those that dont know China exports 97% of the world lithium which is most commonly used in laptop and mobile phone batteries.

3. Iraq gets picked off so it cant export its oil to China.

4. Libya gets picked off insuring its oil goes to the west.

5. Irans ally Syria is in the process of being picked off.

6. Iran is being threatened despite no evidence of a nuclear weapons program.

Why is this? Is it because China gets 40% of its oil from Iran? Is it to flood China with opium?

Edited January 6, 2013 by Mr Right Wing

[Ashotep]

Assad is full of himself and needs to go. He doesn't care about anything but himself. I hope the next leaders put the welfare of Syria first and not for just a few.

[+and-then]

In the not too distant past China was on the rise and got its wings clipped by the British in the opium wars -

1. Afganistan was used to grow opium and smugglers allowed to take it across the border into China.

2. Iran was used to grow opium and smugglers allowed to take it across the border into China.

Fast foward 100 years and china is on the rise again -

1. Afganistan gets occupied and guess what? Thats right growing opium has been made legal by us.

2. In addition Afganistan was found to hold vast mineral reserves a couple years before the war including lithium. For those that dont know China exports 97% of the world lithium which is most commonly used in laptop and mobile phone batteries.

3. Iraq gets picked off so it cant export its oil to China.

4. Libya gets picked off insuring its oil goes to the west.

5. Irans ally Syria is in the process of being picked off.

6. Iran is being threatened despite no evidence of a nuclear weapons program.

Why is this? Is it because China gets 40% of its oil from Iran? Is it to flood China with opium?

Right...... they are undergoing massive, economy destroying, potentially politically destabilizing sanctions just so they can produce electricity from nuclear power. You people are amazing...... What bothers me most is that when Iran decides to assemble their bomb you'll then make excuses for that as well. I don't mind when a person picks a side but at least be honest about it for heaven's sake.

[acidhead]

Just curious....

A few days ago the number of deaths so far in this conflict was approximately 46, 000 individuals. Most members here have been using the number 50, 000. But today most trusted western mainstream media has been using a 60, 000 number. They quote the UN as coming out with that number.

????

The United Nations says 60,000 people have been killed in the civil war, the longest and bloodiest of the conflicts to emerge in two years of revolts in Arab states.

http://www.reuters.c...E8AJ1FK20130106

The link Reuters uses to the UN provides no article or source to back up their claim of 60, 000.... CLICK on it... all the articles in the link are about Iran.

I'm sick of being led like a dog by western MSM. If you start throwing out numbers PROVIDE a ******* link!.... helllllllooooooooooooooooo!

*****

I'm still on the fence on this issue. I don't trust either side. It's none of my business. And frankly I'm disappointed that the west would provide money and weaponry to a sovereign revolution. Isn't this against international law?

Edited January 7, 2013 by acidhead

[Yamato]

Right...... they are undergoing massive, economy destroying, potentially politically destabilizing sanctions just so they can produce electricity from nuclear power. You people are amazing...... What bothers me most is that when Iran decides to assemble their bomb you'll then make excuses for that as well. I don't mind when a person picks a side but at least be honest about it for heaven's sake.

At least be honest. There's no evidence of a nuclear weapons program.

The dishonest arguments are those that take the form of:

Humans develop nuclear weapons programs. Iran has humans in it! --> Iran has a nuclear weapons program.

[Indiogene]

Bashar Assad holds a grip on his country and its people, he assumes the role of hero or protector of the Syrian people. Watching the people approach him like that in fanatic zeal concerns me and with over 45,000 people killed in the civil war, I expect Bashar Assad to be indicted to the International Human rights tribunal in the Hague if approved. I only hope the violence comes to an end in Syria with the end of the tyrannical Assad regime, but I ask myself whenever Democracy actually arrives in Syria.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Tsa-La-Gie Oyate

[+and-then]

At least be honest. There's no evidence of a nuclear weapons program.

The dishonest arguments are those that take the form of:

Humans develop nuclear weapons programs. Iran has humans in it! --> Iran has a nuclear weapons program.

So logic and common sense mean nothing in this context? Your example is specious at best and is NOT what I implied. Governments - even wannabe theocracies - do not intentionally do self harm for no benefit. There is no proof of a weapon because there hasn't been a weapon assembled yet. Provision was made to fuel both power generation reactors and medical isotope reactors. It was refused. Iran will have their bomb when they choose to assemble it because the world has chosen to allow it. Sort of like the gutless decision to allow Hitler his run up to WWII - and maybe with just as drastic results. But hey - it's only FAIR, right? The first time Iran even obliquely threatens Israel with a nuke they should deracinate every proxy that Iran supports. And they probably will. Then the world will weep, moan and clench the fist but that's about all. And the mullahs will watch and learn.

[Yamato]

So logic and common sense mean nothing in this context? Your example is specious at best and is NOT what I implied. Governments - even wannabe theocracies - do not intentionally do self harm for no benefit. There is no proof of a weapon because there hasn't been a weapon assembled yet. Provision was made to fuel both power generation reactors and medical isotope reactors. It was refused. Iran will have their bomb when they choose to assemble it because the world has chosen to allow it. Sort of like the gutless decision to allow Hitler his run up to WWII - and maybe with just as drastic results. But hey - it's only FAIR, right? The first time Iran even obliquely threatens Israel with a nuke they should deracinate every proxy that Iran supports. And they probably will. Then the world will weep, moan and clench the fist but that's about all. And the mullahs will watch and learn.

Let the record show that I accept your admission that Iran has never even obliquely threatened Israel with a nuke. Please join me in correcting others drunk on their Zionist fear-aid when they claim that Iran does this.

[+and-then]

Let the record show that I accept your admission that Iran has never even obliquely threatened Israel with a nuke. Please join me in correcting others drunk on their Zionist fear-aid when they claim that Iran does this.

Yet you acknowledge none of the logic I explained. This tells me that you are simply being partisan against Israel and that you support the eventual Iranian choice to have a nuke. So be it - honesty is all I ask on this point.

[Yamato]

Yet you acknowledge none of the logic I explained. This tells me that you are simply being partisan against Israel and that you support the eventual Iranian choice to have a nuke. So be it - honesty is all I ask on this point.

Not really in a party yet to be partisan but yes I would find opposing Israeli policy agreeable. But you're wrong about one thing, I don't support anyone's choice to have a nuke and that puts me in a hypocritical spot if I try to impose the opposite on someone else. Iran deserves to have their nuclear programs; on weapons specifically they do not. But if we're going to take the international conventions seriously we have to insist that renegades like Pakistan and Israel get with the program. It's a terrible danger to the world that Israel has nukes and all this warmongering over Iran really begs the question why aren't we making hay out of the terrorist nuclear powers who already have weapons of mass destruction?

[Corp]

Guys can we not derail the thread please?

On topic Assad makes promises of elections and a new constituation but vows to fight until the last "terrorist" is dead? Kind of a mixed message there. Really no surprises sadly.

[Helen of Annoy]

Guys can we not derail the thread please?

On topic Assad makes promises of elections and a new constituation but vows to fight until the last "terrorist" is dead? Kind of a mixed message there. Really no surprises sadly.

Promises elections with more than one candidate.

Elections, now with someone else but Me!

That’s like... anarchy

Seriously, I know I’m boring already, but did you guys know Assads were “elected” in elections with no other candidates?

Isn’t that a bit... I don’t know... obvious?

It was like that in ex-Yugoslavia, where Broz was life-long president after it became distasteful to offend him with “elections”. There was never any other candidate because it was impossible to find an idiot who would - even for the sake of formality - pose as opposition. Then ex-Yu went to hell and Milosevic would win Serbian elections with 104% votes. I kid you not.

Dictators love elections, as long as they are certain they'll win.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Helen of Annoy

[+and-then]

Guys can we not derail the thread please?

On topic Assad makes promises of elections and a new constituation but vows to fight until the last "terrorist" is dead? Kind of a mixed message there. Really no surprises sadly.

I think that as long as he has Russia and Iran backing him he will never surrender or compromise. If he leaves Syria he is impotent or dead so what incentive is there for him to do otherwise?

[Yamato]

Promises elections with more than one candidate.

Elections, now with someone else but Me!

That’s like... anarchy

Seriously, I know I’m boring already, but did you guys know Assads were “elected” in elections with no other candidates?

Isn’t that a bit... I don’t know... obvious?

Dictators love elections, as long as they are certain they'll win.

We have elections like that all the time; where the incumbent is the only name on the ballot. It doesn't show up in national elections but it does in lower level government. What would determine how democratic a ruler is whether or not he was elected, not necessarily the nature by which he was reelected.

Maybe one could say that in a perfect democracy, there's always competition in an election....or maybe in a perfect democracy, our elected leaders are so great that nobody else could seriously challenge them? Maybe it's somewhere in between? Maybe there is no perfect democracy. I think a dictator who frees the slaves is superior to an elected leader who enchains them. This is all just theoretical of course.

[acidhead]

Bashar Assad holds a grip on his country and its people, he assumes the role of hero or protector of the Syrian people. Watching the people approach him like that in fanatic zeal concerns me and with over 45,000 people killed in the civil war, I expect Bashar Assad to be indicted to the International Human rights tribunal in the Hague if approved. I only hope the violence comes to an end in Syria with the end of the tyrannical Assad regime, but I ask myself whenever Democracy actually arrives in Syria.

Just curious... Why is the MSM now quoting the UN as saying 60, 000 have been killed? This began yesterday.

[+and-then]

Just curious... Why is the MSM now quoting the UN as saying 60, 000 have been killed? This began yesterday.

I heard some lame excuse from the UN about their methods of calculating being refined.... 20% more casualties than the worst estimates seems a little fishy to me.