• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About sToNED_CAT

  • Rank
    Council Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

3,450 profile views
  1. It is actually pretty normal and it is done all the time.
  2. Multiple biased researchers trying so hard to pin the revolution on global warming, so that climate change can be made to look soooo dangerous to political stability. Again, in 2010-2011 there were revolutions all over Arab world. It is logical to conclude that Syria is just one case out of many not special one caused by climate change and economic distress, especially when at the time of revolution the situation was already improving. Timeline simply doesn't fit sorry.
  3. Not in Syria. The conflict was primarily sectarian - sunni muslim brotherhood majority against Shia, Christians, secularists, and other minorities - it was destined to happen sometimes. Hell it has been going on since 1979 over the whole ME. It already happened in Syria under Assad elder (he crushed the revolt ruthlessly back then) Inspiration from other Arab Spring movements and Western support were far more important factors than some drought.
  4. Fertile crescent was known for agriculture - 2000 years ago. Now it's agricultural production is total joke. IMO Arab Spring revolutions had one major common cause, not several separate ones as you alleged - rebellion of more democratic and islamist movements against more secular and authoritarian regimes. The drought contributed just a little. The rebellion would have happened drought or no drought. Also keep in mind that by 2010 the drought mostly ended in 2010 and the situation has improved significantly already in 2009. So why rebel in 2011 after it ended?
  5. Those comments are irrelevant because ban doesn't include vast majority of world's muslim population. How is it possible, that it discriminates on basis of religion if 85% muslims are not affected?
  6. That's just absurd. Syria was not some rural country dependent on agriculture to that extent. You are not talking about fucking Chad or Mali. Syrian economy was relatively well diversified, not as well, when compared to western countries, but much better than other 3rd world nations. There were revolutions over whole ME, even in places where there was no drought. How do you explain that? THe difference is simply that SYrian civil war has no winner, so it is far more bloody. Foreigners in US HAVE constitutional rights. But while this ban influenced some people who already are in US, it MOSTLY dealt with FUTURE immigration of people OUTSIDE US. At least that part of ban should be immediately upheld without any questioning.
  7. But THEIR rights were not violated! There's no constitutional right to invite someone to immigrate to US, recruit students, workers etc.
  8. That's completely absurd. How does being just relative of American citizen confers US constitutional rights to you? Those are individual rights not "family unit" rights.
  9. Just because one judge ruled that the ban should be reviewed, doesn't matter he will also rule that it's unconstitutional. In fact it is highly unlikely, because foreigners have no constitutional rights. The same about appeals court. For example that Boston judge blocked it temporarily too, before declaring it is OK.
  10. No he won't. Again, this order just temporarily blocks ban until it is reviewed by district judge. Nothing more.
  11. Ahem, there's no need to take this to SCOTUS right now... Remember that the ban was not ruled unconstitutional or unlawful. It's has just been temporarily blocked until the decision about it's legality is made.
  12. Hillary Clinton lost. Not everyone uses Clintonian methods to boost his approval ratings or distract from scandals. Well, that's what ACLU always does, so I guess yes. And he was not really slapped down. What happened was that courts ordered the release of few hundred green card holders,the ban itself is still valid. You can't really vet people from failed states, that's the point.
  13. Of course they expected minor demonstrations (that's what they were), threats of retaliation and "allies" lecturing. Why should he back down? Even if the restrictions against green card holders are repealed, most important parts of ban should stay. In few months it will become an acceptable part of US foreign policy and everybody will adapt to new reality.
  14. Government doesn't equal country, I think he was talking more about globalist elites of both parties that form government right now. If so, he has my full support. And frankly most people who elected him would support it too. Both corporate republicanism and clintonian democrats are not especially popular right now. Step in against Trump, or to support him against "Resitance"?
  15. Oh, and for those who believe that somehow Bannon is not qualified to have a chair in NSC, here is his CV: I have the impression most people think he was nothing but Breitbart CEO, before joining administration.