let suppose that you have two options

[Godobeyer]

to live in regime control by Dictator or regime control by terrorists .

the poll is would be a result about what happened in Syria
which some people said it's control by Dictator , but if the terrorist won , it's would control by terrorist

and that's mean the west would maybe occupate it to eliminate the terroristes ? !!!

what you would choose to live in?

 

[Godobeyer]

for my opinion this the most important thread about Syrian futur , ignored !!!

 

[Alceste]

In Syria, I hope that both sides lose.

 

[Godobeyer]

In Syria, I hope that both sides lose.

that's hope :beach:, what about reality ?

 

[YmirGF]

As I have said several times here on RF, I never thought I'd see the day I was hoping that Assad would win and defeat these rebels. That day has since come and gone and I see no reason, whatsoever, to support the rebels in Syria. Better the evil you know.

 

[Godobeyer]

As I have said several times here on RF, I never thought I'd see the day I was hoping that Assad would win and defeat these rebels. That day has since come and gone and I see no reason, whatsoever, to support the rebels in Syria. Better the evil you know.

:clap

I agree with you

 

[Breathe]

Out of these two choices, I'd rather have the dictator, personally.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Hmmmn as an outsider id choose the dictator thanks, as a local... not so sure, itd depend on how the 'terrorists' (remembering how often that term is abused) treat the people in the region they control, for the syrian situation, i would probably prefer the dictator unless I was part of a group that was targeted and oppressed by assad and for whom the rebels were an improvement (I cant think of such a group off the top of my head).

 

[HonestJoe]

Given the choice is really between a dictator willing to commit acts of terror and terrorists who would seek a dictatorship (or a theocracy, which is effectively the same thing), the question is something of a moot point.

Syria isn't really restricted to those too options of course, though any other wouldn't be at all easy to achieve.

 

[Godobeyer]

Given the choice is really between a dictator willing to commit acts of terror and terrorists who would seek a dictatorship (or a theocracy, which is effectively the same thing), the question is something of a moot point.

Syria isn't really restricted to those too options of course, though any other wouldn't be at all easy to achieve.

good point , but i just put the option of Dictator for who believe that Bashar is Dictator

for me i don't believe that Bashar is Dictator , because if we suppose that he killed the protesters , so in Egypt and Turkey and Tunisia and Saudi Arabia , Bahrain their regimes killed the protesters !!!!

why the west did not called Ardogan as dictator ?!!!!

the dictatorship and terrorists regimes are absolutly differents and had different abuses .

terrorists is may abuse by beliefs , and dictator is politic/beliefs/justice ...etc .

what we see right now in Syria the terroristes called the shia and Alawistes and the regime of Bashar is kufaar NOT just dictatorship .



btw
the terrorists (Jabhat Alnusra...etc) are against the democraty in Syria

so they fought to elimin (Alawits , Christians , Shai, kurds , ...etc ) NOT for establish democraty , for establish Caliphate

 

[HonestJoe]

for me i don't believe that Bashar is Dictator , because if we suppose that he killed the protesters , so in Egypt and Turkey and Tunisia and Saudi Arabia , Bahrain their regimes killed the protesters !!!!

Dictatorship isn't defined by actions but by the means power is obtained and held. While the specifics are always complex, Syria is generally recognised as being within that kind of scope (anywhere power passes from father to son without contest is highly questionable).

Dictators don't need to be bad. You could have a benevolant dictator, who holds an iron grip on power but does good things with it. This is largely hypothetical though and dictatorships are generally not positive for a population.

 

[F0uad]

I would choose the people, not the terrorist (but the real demonstrators).
A dictator is not better then a terrorist they are the same thing.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

If we assume that the dictator is not terroristic, and the terrorists are not totalitarian, I'd go for the dictator.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Not entirely sure what control by terrorists means, but I'd say I'd prefer a dictator over a terrorist

 

[Falvlun]

Depends who the terrorists are terrorizing.

If the dictator was bad to his people, and the terrorists were good to the people, then maybe I'd prefer the terrorists despite them doing bad things to other people. I could see my morals not being as staunch as I'd hope them to be.

But if the dictator was good to everyone, then I'd prefer the dictator even if the terrorists were freely elected.

 

[Godobeyer]

I would choose the people, not the terrorist (but the real demonstrators).
A dictator is not better then a terrorist they are the same thing.

"people" that out my zone options

i have a suppose , about the futur of syria , if the terrorists won "dictator" Bashar , isn't the Bashar regime is heaven than the hell of the terrorists regime ?

My main question : Why we the muslims did not take the lesson from our past,the history of the terrorists in Algeria , and Iraq , Egypt ...etc ?

 

[Pagan_Patriot]

Does anyone actually have proof that he called for protesters to be killed?

 

[Godobeyer]

Does anyone actually have proof that he called for protesters to be killed?

EDITED;

there is no proof .


and I don't think that Bashar accept that the protesters (against him) to be killed

the problem is , whom supporting "the revolution" they accuatly (Directly or Indirectly )support the terrorists too.

so my point in this thread is : isn't insane to remove what they called "Dictatoric regime " by and replace him by " Terrorism regime "

 

[F0uad]

EDITED;

there is no proof .


and I don't think that Bashar accept that the protesters (against him) to be killed

the problem is , whom supporting "the revolution" they accuatly (Directly or Indirectly )support the terrorists too.

so my point in this thread is : isn't insane to remove what they called "Dictatoric regime " by and replace him by " Terrorism regime "

This is crap the whole thing happened because protesters were killed, if they weren't killed or harmed they would have never reached this level of anger.

 

[F0uad]

"people" that out my zone options

i have a suppose , about the futur of syria , if the terrorists won "dictator" Bashar , isn't the Bashar regime is heaven than the hell of the terrorists regime ?

My main question : Why we the muslims did not take the lesson from our past,the history of the terrorists in Algeria , and Iraq , Egypt ...etc ?

Iraq? Iraq had a dictator not terrorist until America invaded, Egypt were are the terrorists there? Algeria is something different then Iraq and Egypt.
The Syria uprising happened because "civilians" had enough of Basar not because of "extreme ideology" maybe many extreme people joined the battle afterwards.

Like i said Bassar himself is a terrorist, i would recommend to search up the definition of the word before slandering it all over the place.