91–100 of 213 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
as long as Assad was ruling Assad's secular dictatorship is massively preferable to ISIS rule, especially to the 25% of the Syrian population that are non-Sunni.
Sigh, it seems so surreal now that the Arab Spring was once cheered on by the whole world. Edit: word
Meta-commentary: This is one of the more fascinating threads I have seen on HN. It seems to parallel many of the problems with political discourse in the world today - maybe it's always been like this, but I'm not old enough to know. I would break down the comments into several types: 1) conspiracy theorists who believe in some secret cult that is unilaterally organizing everything 2) trolls - state sponsored or othe…
How open-minded of you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But aren't they stuck in abyss now? If that's the choice, maybe it wasn't a good plan after all.
The current situation is not a stable state, at some point one of the combating sides will win or the country will split into several independent states.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ok, but how do you go from that to islamic state ? How did Trump win the election?
Collusion of the DNC and Hillary campaign to hurt Sanders, Hillary's not ever turning over her work emails when she was done at the State department, Clinton's universal college plan which would bankrupt the United States... and it goes on and on.
More generally, he's been even more disastrous than people campaigning against him expected, up to the point of letting Russian intelligence wander around the Oval Office and take pictures.
I am currently in Syria, tried opening it, it gave me 403 response (As all sites based on Google cloud services do)
I wish there were more definite sources detailing what the actual conflict is about. People are giving all sorts of accounts online and it seems to be divided into a few camps: 1) western and sunni middle eastern press: it's all Assad's (government's) fault. People want democracy. Specifically this is supposed to be a response to violent repression of pro-democracy protests from March 2011. Problem: very hard to beli…
Meta-commentary: This is one of the more fascinating threads I have seen on HN. It seems to parallel many of the problems with political discourse in the world today - maybe it's always been like this, but I'm not old enough to know. I would break down the comments into several types: 1) conspiracy theorists who believe in some secret cult that is unilaterally organizing everything 2) trolls - state sponsored or othe…
Nice of you to label everyone who preferes a more isolationist approach to global policy as a "troll" How open-minded of you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's really possible to argue the country is in any way better off than it was before the insurrection. The question is then, what would have been a better solution? Surely as long as Assad was ruling they were stuck (at best) at a local maximum and would have never transitioned to a free democracy without overthrowing the current government.
as long as Assad was ruling Assad's secular dictatorship is massively preferable to ISIS rule, especially to the 25% of the Syrian population that are non-Sunni.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> trolls - state sponsored or otherwise pushing an anti-humanitarian cause. I've seen this idea brought up a few times here in our community, and have been accused of it at least once for expressing an unpopular opinion. I have such a hard time believing there's state sponsored posters who troll hacker news. It seems extremely tinfoil hat to me. Honestly folks we're not that important.
It's fairly well established that intelligence agencies have active "social media" operations, and that there's paid distributors of "fake news" about. Establishing any particular account as a paid troll is almost impossible, although the moderators might be able to infer things from the login IP addresses if their opsec is bad.