Black Swan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bchadwick Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I seem to recall that Assad, or maybe it was > the > > previous Assad wiped out an entire town > (meaning, > > killed everyone in it) because of failed > > assaasination attempt by someone from there. > > Maybe it was even two towns for two > conspirators. > > > > If that doesn’t count as a brutal dictatorship, > > I’m not sure what does. > > > I think that’s more just brutal than it is a > brutal dictatorship. The Roman Republic was known > for similar tactics to suppress defiance to the > empire. Yes, but the empire was a dictatorship. And it could be brutal. And somehow the idea that Assad is not a brutal dictator because civilizations 2000 years ago did the same thing just doesn’t sound like a very strong justification. Surely we have made some progress the standards we hold ourselves to over the last 200 years, if not the last 2000.
I wasn’t arguing that it wasn’t brutal. I was simply stating that dictator may have been an unnecessary addition. While the Roman Republic essentially acted as dictator over those territories, it was actually an ruthless democracy carrying out the actions. So, as I said, I’m not saying the actions were acceptable or even not brutal, but simply that, the dictator / republic / democracy distinction is superfluous in a way.
Valores Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > May be now she is sorry she didn’t pick Harvard > MBA versus brutal dictatorship. > I would smash her pretty face. You’re carrying a lot of somewhat jealous sounding rage toward this woman who probably does not have a meaningful say in anything that’s occurring. It’s not like she’s the first person to sell out for money and fame.
Valores Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > May be now she is sorry she didn’t pick Harvard > MBA versus brutal dictatorship. > I would smash her pretty face. Nice!
Black Swan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wasn’t arguing that it wasn’t brutal. I was > simply stating that dictator may have been an > unnecessary addition. While the Roman Republic > essentially acted as dictator over those > territories, it was actually an ruthless democracy > carrying out the actions. So, as I said, I’m not > saying the actions were acceptable or even not > brutal, but simply that, the dictator / republic / > democracy distinction is superfluous in a way. I see what you’re saying. But I think this discussion evolved by pointing out that Syria is effectively a dictatorship, and a brutal one at that. So the distinction is about brutal dictatorship vs. a benign dictatorship, and not really that not being a dictatorship implies not being brutal. In practice more authoritarian tends to go along with being more brutal and being more democratic tends to go along with being less brutal, but the relationship is not a perfect correlation by any means… democracies that are unable to govern can be more violent to live in than dictatorships, for example (e.g. the early years of post-Saddam Iraq). Now, dictatorships need to be firm about suppressing opposition to some extent, because otherwise, opposition will easily remove it (and perhaps create a more repressive regime in its stead). But even so, there is a range of methods that dictatorships will use (ranging from witholding of privileges to exile to prison to torture to execution to execution of family members and the destruction of entire towns) to maintain order, and that creates the spectrum between benign and brutal dictatorships. Benign dictatorships, in order to qualify for the term, would need to have some argument about how society is progressing under their tutelage, which may or may not actually hold water. Many people would argue that benign dictatorships never actually exist (I tend to think there have been a few, but that they tend to be unstable and unreliable). Nonetheless, on the brutality side, there is definitely a range of behaviors from undesirable to completely abhorrent, and this spectrum clearly exists even if one doesn’t think that beinign dictatorship is possible. Democracies also will repress violent opposition groups, but democracies are supposed to allow for peaceful redress of grievances, which is something that dictatorships will generally not permit.
Black Swan, You don’t make sense. First you say, Syria is a dictatorship though not brutal. Then you agree it’s brutal, but add that you don’t see how it is a dictatorship. “jealous rage” is out of line too, as I didn’t ever mention I was jealous. But the fact that you raise this is probably a proof that you are jealous that you can’t sell yourself for money to a brutal dictator, or whoever who likes your a…se. The difference of her with those “other women” is that she’s got a lot of brains, not just a pretty face. She was raised in a wealthy family, in a democracy, had a very good education and a very successful career. And she does have her say, as she is politically active.
Valores Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Black Swan, > You don’t make sense. First you say, Syria is a > dictatorship though not brutal. Then you agree > it’s brutal, but add that you don’t see how it is > a dictatorship. Not at all what I said in the second post, I simply implied that brutal and dictatorship are not always hand in hand perfectly correlated. Simply a point of semantics, not one of disagreement with the overall spirit of bchad’s post. I mean, the fact that I had to go back 2000 years for an equivalent example shows I was being somewhat picky. > “jealous rage” is out of line too, as I didn’t > ever mention I was jealous. I know you wouldn’t mention you’re jealous. That’s why I did. > But the fact that you > raise this is probably a proof that you are > jealous that you can’t sell yourself for money to > a brutal dictator, or whoever who likes your > a…se. Nah, hency why I’m not bitter sounding like some people I know. > The difference of her with those “other women” is > that she’s got a lot of brains, not just a pretty > face. She was raised in a wealthy family, in a > democracy, had a very good education and a very > successful career. And she does have her say, as > she is politically active. The operative word was “meaningful” say, as in no one in the current regime is going to change their position based on the ramblings of an outsider brought in by marriage. Also, still don’t see why any of that makes a difference or justifies all your rhetoric about her “pretty little face” (other than your jealousy, you cave troll). I mean, why not be mad at her husband who shares her education and western exposure, he would obviously be a more direct and influential perpetrator. But instead you’re all angry at her because lets face it, you wish you could have half of what she does.
Black Swan, It’s funny how you seriously think that she might be a subject of jealousy to anyone. You’ve got problems with ethics. I mentioned her pretty face because she made it to Vogue not just because of her, praised by Vogue, “ethical standards”, but also for certain glamour. I wonder whether you think that all the commentators to the article are also jealous? You’re a funny animal.
I think most ethical stances evaporate fairly quickly when people are placed in the positions they’re critical of. Not everyone, but enough to make it not worthwhile to criticize others’ decisions so vehemently.
Who has time to read all that nonsense and what are all of you yapping about anyway? All I took from this was that SHE IS INSANELY HOT!!! No western woman can ever come close to that type of class, maturity, education etc
bleach Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Who has time to read all that nonsense and what > are all of you yapping about anyway? > > All I took from this was that SHE IS INSANELY > HOT!!! No western woman can ever come close to > that type of class, maturity, education etc ^Um, I’ve seen many hotter, better educated girls? And where are you getting maturity / class from? And lastly, if girls like that exist, you bet they’re in the west, not in the middle east where they aren’t legally allowed to drive cars yet. Clown, please…
Daddy Assad committed the massacre as his son (current Assad) is still fresh (less than 10 years) by Arab dictator standards. The Ba’athist regime is what rules Syria (with Bashar Al-Assad as the leader of the Ba’athist party) and if you are not sure what the Ba’athist can do just keep in mind that Iraq was ruled once by a Ba’athist (see: Saddam).
She is not hot. Check out Princess Ameera married to Prince Alwaleed bin Talal.
Queen Rania is also good looking.
Black Swan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think most ethical stances evaporate fairly > quickly when people are placed in the positions > they’re critical of. Not everyone, but enough to > make it not worthwhile to criticize others’ > decisions so vehemently. Part of being ethical is practicing the integrity that is necessary to ensure that you do not place yourself in positions which may eventually lead you to compromise your code of ethics.
^ yep, and also she claims to be very smart, so there is no excuse. One can say that the oppressed middle-eastern women have no say, but that’s not her case. The fact that she at this time went with her story to Vogue is a huge misjudgment. There is a good article in the Economist, the recipe for despots and European oligarchs how to restore their reputation in the west. That’s what she is trying to do. Dumb Brangelina is a part of the recipe.