Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

The Magistrate

(96,043 posts)
19. A Couple of Small Points, Sir
Thu Sep 19, 2013, 01:59 PM
Sep 2013

Fighting tends to harden people, to weld them tight to an enabling and motivating belief. It is hardly a surprise men on the line with guns in hand express a firm commitment to Islam, in all things and for all seasons.

Small 'd' democrats are pretty thin on the ground in many places; I cannot recall off-hand if Syria has ever had an election that would pass Better Government Association standards, but strongly suspect if I dragged books down I would find it has not. To its adherents, Islam does present itself as a unitary system, in which distinction between religion and state is meaningless. Most Moslems would answer if asked that they want an Islamic state, but there would be almost as many visions of exactly what that might entail as there were Moslems asked.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

As Lister acknowledges, 68-80 percent reject democracy in the Western-accepted sense as a concept leveymg Sep 2013 #1
"We're on the wrong side in this. Both sides - practically all sides, are wrong." ProSense Sep 2013 #2
You're talking about replacing a secular despot with an Islamic caliphate. The cost - only 100K leveymg Sep 2013 #3
So your preference is for Assad's brutality because he's a "secular despot"? ProSense Sep 2013 #4
My preference is that we not be involved in the Syrian civil war. Comrade Grumpy Sep 2013 #5
Well, ProSense Sep 2013 #6
And the rebels are the Mary Poppins Brigade, strewing flowers and singing folk songs? Comrade Grumpy Sep 2013 #13
Who said that? ProSense Sep 2013 #15
Can I check "None of the Above"? Or, is someone forcing us to take sides? leveymg Sep 2013 #9
No one ProSense Sep 2013 #10
You should knock off that accusatory "you may not care" bullshit. Comrade Grumpy Sep 2013 #14
Bullshit. ProSense Sep 2013 #16
You directed that remark right at me, so don't dance around the bush. Comrade Grumpy Sep 2013 #23
Right, because your comment implied the U.S. shouldn't get involved ProSense Sep 2013 #25
That is correct. In addition this one can feel the tug of his leash from Moscow. TheKentuckian Sep 2013 #27
A Couple of Small Points, Sir The Magistrate Sep 2013 #19
In all Civil Wars, both sides "kill their own people" As did the North and the South in US History libdem4life Sep 2013 #7
Which American leader/President are you comparing to Assad? n/t ProSense Sep 2013 #8
The Syrian Civil War is small change compared to the US Civil War - >700,000 killed. Want to leveymg Sep 2013 #11
War as "small change"? ProSense Sep 2013 #12
How many more people need to die to meet your standards of moral righteousness and regime change? leveymg Sep 2013 #18
You're the one categorizing war as "small change," and why? ProSense Sep 2013 #20
I'm not comparing anyone...speaking to civil war mentality and history...ours and others. libdem4life Sep 2013 #21
The British were ready to intervene on behalf of the South, but backed off geek tragedy Sep 2013 #17
I had not heard that, but incidentally, here is info from Wiki I found interesting... libdem4life Sep 2013 #22
They were considering recognizing the South as an independent nation. geek tragedy Sep 2013 #24
Yes, that would make sense. Thanks for the info. libdem4life Sep 2013 #26
K & R Scurrilous Sep 2013 #28
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Syria's insurgency beyond...»Reply #19