You've caused the deaths of thousands, because you're American.
So sue me. You're distorting my point.
He's not distorting it, he's applying it. You are to be held responsible for the tortures at the black sites, responsible for the human rights abuses in Iraq, responsible for killing and killing so many.
You guys must live in bubbles.
This comes from http://journal-neo.org/2015/12/20/bashar-al-assad-the-democratically-elected-president-of-syria/
“Butcher”; “thug”; “dictator”; “murderer”; “savage”; “tyrant”; “oppressor”; “despot”. These are just some of the words that many in the Western world associate with the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, after four years of incessant and hypnotic war propaganda. Democratically elected leader of a sovereign country however, is not a narrative the propagandists want to be circulated. The 2014 election in Syria is an event that the ‘Ministry of Truth’ in the West desperately wants to be memory-holed, as it runs in stark contrast to the narrative they are still trying to inculcate in the minds of the public.
In June of last year, Assad won Syria’s Presidential election with 88.7 percent of the vote, in the country’s first multi-candidate election in almost five decades. In a country which had a population of 17,064,854 in July 2014 (according to an estimate from CIA World Factbook), over 10 million people voted for Assad. 73.42 percent of the Syrian population voted in the election, with voting only taking place in government controlled areas.
A group of international observers emphasized that the election was a valid and democratic expression of the views of the Syrian people. Predictably, Western nations denounced the election as a sham and a fraud, with US Secretary of State, John Kerry, calling the election afarce a few months prior to the vote.
Despite the efforts of the Western establishment to delegitimize the election, it is obvious that Assad has popular support in Syria. The Western narrative – which claims that Assad is an insane dictator who butchers his own people – is illogical, as if this was true, Assad would have been ousted years ago."
The Syrian people elected for Al-Assad and they are thus responsible for the tyranny he has created. I will support to the death the decision of other Muslim countries to depose Al-Assad, but the US has no role and no interest in removing a democratically chosen President simply because he doesn't listen to us.
And what international organisations are trustworthy on this kind of stuff? They're going to either be payed either/and be threatened if they don't fulfill someone's agenda. And they say how could the Syrian state live on so long without popular support? A country doesn't need popular support as long as it has a powerful, loyal army. The foreign support is nice, too. Also, I bet if you held these elections in other, non-government controlled sites, you'd have the elections be most toward whoever holds the land. And the article says that all the fighting in Syria has come from foreign, while that is a big bit, it's probably at most, half. It started in 2011 as purely a denizen revolt, which turned bloody, and whether began by government, or folk, it's clear that the government is being hated here. Just looking it up, I can see one big undemocratic thing, that is a requirement for voting: being Muslim.
And even then, even if it was all democratic, I already addressed that. And the US most certainly has interests in removing or absorbing its foes and dissenters, not important democratic or not. The great majority of countries nowadays are not democratic, though.
Edited 2/7/2016 05:09:01
