[Palmyrene]

Actually a large # of refugees come from Turkey in recent years.

And how much do they consistute the number of refugees in Europe in total?

[anasawad]

@Palmyrene

Most refugees aren't from Turkey. That makes no sense.

You kidding right?
You didn't even notice the news in the past few years?
Tons pass through Turkey.

That's completely different from refugees.

It's different from refugees, true, but it also gives it influence.

Why do I need to explain these things? This topic has literally been discussed 10 thousand times everywhere including here. Just go listen to some news or reports on the subject dude.
You're making yourself look bad.

So you're fine with someone else pretending their decisions are your decisions?

People elect governments to administrate various programs, along with managing foreign policy.
People choose which candidate to elect based on their policy proposals.

Great, now we have to explain the very basic concept of voting and elections.

My point is that Iran is basically using the warzone in Afghanistan as a way to create a barrier between it and the US. Afghanis living in those areas suffer.

And they suffer because they're in a war zone created by the soviet, then American invasions. Iran did not create the war, it simply supports Afghani resistence with a weapons dump every couple of years to help them kick American forces out.
Both the Afghani people and Iran benefit when the US troops are withdrawn.
Saying that it's Iran's fault that Afghanis are suffering is retarded. The Soviet Union then the US invaded Afghanistan, not Iran.

Shared interest with whom? Which Afghani resistence groups?

All of them generally, Iran doesn't like discrimination.
And I mean that literally, whoever is fighting, the Iranian government is more than willing to help them at this point.

Funding those interests is participating in the war. This is what is called a proxy war.

Sure, but it didn't start or create the war or circumstances that is leading to the suffering. It simply took sides after the war had already begun.

It means they'll shut up if they know what's best for them. There are no hardliners in Assad's regime at least not after the Civil War.

You've been following the war dude?
Seriously, did you watch any of the news regarding the Syrian war?
No hardliners, not a single one.

Yes, that's why we had Arab Spring. That's why the Syrian Revolution occurred. Because we support our governments and love them. Such logic and rationalism!

Syrians are gathering around Assad.
Libyans are supporting 3 factions, 2 of which were part of the Gaddafi regime.
Iraqi Sunnis are still loyal to Saddam's regime, which is why we had ISIS.
Egyptians elected Al-Sisi who is literally one of the key members of the old regime and released Mubarak from prison.
And so on.
Dictators are only in power because they have a base supporting them kid.
The Arab world doesn't have dictators in the traditional sense, it rather has a dictatorship of the majority if so to say.

The minute these "dictators" lost favor with the people they were removed, then the people saw the alternatives and decided: hey, the old one was better. And they brought these regimes back.
The reason why the Arab world is like this isn't because of dictators, those are just a symptom. The reason is the fanatism inspired by Islam and traditional culture.

Which Arabs? Saddam had been systematically dividing the country so it would be easier to control. People cheer because they don't want to feel the consequences of not doing so.

In Iraq even after Saddam was gone people are still afraid to talk about him. In Syria it's the same thing but worse. In Damascus people have to pretend that there is no Civil War going on.

Iraqi Sunnis are still cheering for Saddam to this very day.
Again, this is where large parts of ISIS came from.

For Syria, Syrians have been out on protests in Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey, along with other countries in support of Assad. Syrian refugees.

No, they don't. Governments, specifically Arab governments, don't make land claims based on the support of the population. In Baathism the vanguard party is supposed to be the enlightened people who rule the unwashed masses.

Their consent is not necessary. It never was.

Then where do these claims come from?
How does a political party get any of its ideas and use them to appeal to the people to give it power?
Does it just make random claims out of nowhere, or does it use whatever claims that's already circulating within the population?

As I said before, they aren't interested or serious enough for Turkish support.

If a proxy war between Turkey and Russia broke out, then Turkey will make the effort to revive their movements.
This is how all proxy wars work.

And? I don't identify as Syrian it is only the country I live in and one that won't last that long.

You deal with me as me; not as a Syrian, Arab, Iraqi, Kurdish, Persian, etc.

I am not bound by your identitarianism.

Man, you really should do more on your reading skills.
You as a person are not important enough for states to even notice you, nor am I, nor is anyone here.
When I say Syrian opinions, I mean collectively.
And Iran doesn't take what any faction in Syria thinks into consideration, it doesn't have to.
It further doesn't give much importance to any Syrian opinions because Syria is split among fascists, Sunni Islamists, Kurds, and pro-American...well, Islamists as well. Meaning all 4 factions, with the many groups within each, are either enemies or potential enemies.
The only reason Iran is supporting Syria is for convenience, it needs the route, not the country.

Who said anything about partitioning. Although, if it was partitioned, anarchism would be easier to spread around.

Anarchism is an ideology of unity not division. It is unity based on our differences.

This is just ridiculous.

Military organization has no bearing on statehood. You don't have to be a state to have military organization or any other organization for that matter.

Then you clearly don't know anything about military organization.
Military units organize in a command structure, and in a command structure you have commanders, so when this unit be it a few 100s or a few 1000s of soldiers strong control an area, you have a proto-state in place since it now governs this area.

[MadMonk]

And how much do they consistute the number of refugees in Europe in total?

Whether the refugees actually originate from Turkey or not is irrelevant, Turkey has long been a major gateway for refugees heading for Europe from all over the Middle East, Asia and Africa. In resent years this has been severely curtailed only after the EU leadership negotiated terms with Erdogan and his administration.

No one across the entire political spectrum in the West (except certain very far-right figures) likes or trusts the current Turkish political regime. Hyper-nationalist, revisionist of Ottoman Empire with a sprinkle of Islamist while playing all sides in every single 'conflict' in the region for the past decade.

The largest jailer of journalists in the world, massive purges of civil servants not 'loyal' enough for the state apparatus. During negotiations with the EU, Erdogan has threatened everything from politicians to political institutions to even european civilians in order to gain political leverage. When visiting the US he also let his fascist thugs loose on protesters and got away with it.

Yeah, Turkey holds a significant geo-strategic value for the US/NATO/EU troika but with 'friends' like this, who really needs enemies?

[Palmyrene]

@Palmyrene

You kidding right?
You didn't even notice the news in the past few years?
Tons pass through Turkey.

Ohhhh you mean that. I thought you meant that most refugees were Turkish.

Yeah I don't have an opinion on that. I only feel bad for the refugees since they're being used as a bargaining chip but European governments were the ones who caused all of this due to colonialism sooo...

It's different from refugees, true, but it also gives it influence.

Why do I need to explain these things? This topic has literally been discussed 10 thousand times everywhere including here. Just go listen to some news or reports on the subject dude.
You're making yourself look bad.

I'm not interested in maintaining appearances.

People elect governments to administrate various programs, along with managing foreign policy.
People choose which candidate to elect based on their policy proposals.

Try doing that in a dictatorship (choose between Assad, Assad with a mustache, Assad with a hat, Assad with glasses, or Assad in a wig) or a semi-democracy like Iran or Lebanon.

Even in electoral systems a great deal of the people's vote is distilled and maneuvered so that people don't get what they want. And even then, majority vote is still tyranny.

Great, now we have to explain the very basic concept of voting and elections.

None of that applies in the Middle East where corruption and authoritarianism is rampant. Your vote doesn't matter and even elected representative may make decisions that you don't agree with and if you didn't vote for them you're stuck with a person ruling over you that you didn't want.

And they suffer because they're in a war zone created by the soviet, then American invasions. Iran did not create the war, it simply supports Afghani resistence with a weapons dump every couple of years to help them kick American forces out.

Which Afghani resistence group? And no one is saying the Iranian government started the war just that they are currently acting in ways which certainly don't de-escalate the conflict.

Both the Afghani people and Iran benefit when the US troops are withdrawn.
Saying that it's Iran's fault that Afghanis are suffering is retarded. The Soviet Union then the US invaded Afghanistan, not Iran.

I'm saying that insuring that Afghanistan remains a no man zone isn't helping the Afghani population. I know what a no man zone is like and it's not fun.

All of them generally, Iran doesn't like discrimination.
And I mean that literally, whoever is fighting the government is more than willing to help at this point.

Then the government isn't helping and you won't see an end to war because rebel groups fight each other as much as they fight the opposition.

It seems, based on what you're saying, the Iranian government isn't interested in ending the war.

Sure, but it didn't start or create the war or circumstances that is leading to the suffering. It simply took sides after the war had already begun.

That doesn't excuse actions being taken now.

You've been following the war dude?
Seriously, did you watch any of the news regarding the Syrian war?
No hardliners, not a single one.

You mean government sponsored individuals who support crushing rebels? Those aren't hardliners, they're actors meant to do propaganda towards the population.

Look at Syria's reaction to Israel taking Golan Heights. Just a "fuck you" and that's all. Then in the news they just cussed out Israel a whole lot and that's it. There are no military actions taken against them and there wasn't for Syria's land claim towards southern Turkey.

Syrians are gathering around Assad.

They don't have a choice. You either are with Assad or you die. There is no alternative.

Libyans are supporting 3 factions, 2 of which were part of the Gaddafi regime.

Have you actually talked to Libyans or are you pulling this out of your ass?

Iraqi Sunnis are still loyal to Saddam's regime, which is why we had ISIS.

ISIS was started by a low brow criminal who was too violent even for Al-Qaeda. It has nothing to do with loyalty towards Saddam. Are you stupid?

And my one of uncles also fought in the Iran-Iraq War and he fucking hated Saddam. He was so stuck up his own ass and always feared letting his generals make their own decisions. His government and military was organized around loyalty not skill or competency.

Egyptians elected Al-Sisi who is literally one of the key members of the old regime and released Mubarak from prison.

That's a tricky and complicated situation altogether. Simplifying it as "Egyptians love being oppressed! Those filthy animals need a dictator to keep them in line" is very disingenious.

And so on.

You're going to have to name more kid.

Dictators are only in power because they have a base supporting them kid.

You mean the ruling class? The power base of dictators are the most influential people in the country who hold all the keys to power. The dictator has to make his keys happy not the common people.

The Arab world doesn't have dictators in the traditional sense, it rather has a dictatorship of the majority if so to say.

That's completely wrong.

The minute these "dictators" lost favor with the people they were removed, then the people saw the alternatives and decided: hey, the old one was better. And they brought these regimes back.

Yeah no. Syria certainly isn't like that. This only applies to Egypt and in Egypt the situation was incredibly complex.

The reason why the Arab world is like this isn't because of dictators, those are just a symptom. The reason is the fanatism inspired by Islam and traditional culture.

No. First off, dictators are often secular in the Arab world. Secondly, dictators don't rely on popular support only the support of their keys. Thirdly, if you're going to argue that Islam causes all of this why point to dictators instead of jihadis? You even screwed that up.

Iraqi Sunnis are still cheering for Saddam to this very day.

They're afraid to speak his name although there are still some people that support him but only out of nostalgia rather than any love for him personally.

Again, this is where large parts of ISIS came from.

It isn't.

For Syria, Syrians have been out on protests in Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey, along with other countries in support of Assad. Syrian refugees.

?

Then where do these claims come from?
How does a political party get any of its ideas and use them to appeal to the people to give it power?
Does it just make random claims out of nowhere, or does it use whatever claims that's already circulating within the population?

There's something called coercion which involves using force to get what you want. States use this all the time especially via the police.

If a proxy war between Turkey and Russia broke out, then Turkey will make the effort to revive their movements.
This is how all proxy wars work.

Again I don't think they're interested or serious enough.

Man, you really should do more on your reading skills.
You as a person are not important enough for states to even notice you, nor am I, nor is anyone here.

Yeah I know.

That's why I'll make them hear me.

When I say Syrian opinions, I mean collectively.
And Iran doesn't take what any faction in Syria thinks into consideration, it doesn't have to.
It further doesn't give much importance to any Syrian opinions because Syria is split among fascists, Sunni Islamists, Kurds, and pro-American...well, Islamists as well. Meaning all 4 factions, with the many groups within each, are either enemies or potential enemies.
The only reason Iran is supporting Syria is for convenience, it needs the route, not the country.

Ok and?

This is just ridiculous.

You just need an example. I'll show you one .

Then you clearly don't know anything about military organization.
Military units organize in a command structure, and in a command structure you have commanders, so when this unit be it a few 100s or a few 1000s of soldiers strong control an area, you have a proto-state in place since it now governs this area.

Looks like someone hasn't heard of Clausewitz or Prussian military organization, or the Black Army.

[anasawad]

Try doing that in a dictatorship (choose between Assad, Assad with a mustache, Assad with a hat, Assad with glasses, or Assad in a wig) or a semi-democracy like Iran or Lebanon.

Even in electoral systems a great deal of the people's vote is distilled and maneuvered so that people don't get what they want. And even then, majority vote is still tyranny.

Dictatorships only stand because they have popular support, a dictatorship is installed with popular support and falls when it no longer has it.
The only exception is when a foreign power installs a dictatorship, and those don't last for long.

Also, Iran is a federation of local democratic governments. And Lebanon is a country where each area effectively governs its self due to various factors.

None of that applies in the Middle East where corruption and authoritarianism is rampant. Your vote doesn't matter and even elected representative may make decisions that you don't agree with and if you didn't vote for them you're stuck with a person ruling over you that you didn't want.

Refer to the above.

Then the government isn't helping and you won't see an end to war because rebel groups fight each other as much as they fight the opposition.

It seems, based on what you're saying, the Iranian government isn't interested in ending the war.

More accurately, it doesn't care.

You mean government sponsored individuals who support crushing rebels? Those aren't hardliners, they're actors meant to do propaganda towards the population.

Look at Syria's reaction to Israel taking Golan Heights. Just a "fuck you" and that's all. Then in the news they just cussed out Israel a whole lot and that's it. There are no military actions taken against them and there wasn't for Syria's land claim towards southern Turkey.

No, I mean the hardline Baathist like the one my father married last who is more than willing to condemn someone to death for not supporting the party, those types, and many of those exist, both in lower and higher positions.
I've met a good number myself.

They don't have a choice. You either are with Assad or you die. There is no alternative.

Even when they're not in Syria?

Have you actually talked to Libyans or are you pulling this out of your ass?

Easily accessible information about the current state of Libya. Not that you'd follow the news or anything.

ISIS was started by a low brow criminal who was too violent even for Al-Qaeda. It has nothing to do with loyalty towards Saddam. Are you stupid?

ISIS evolved from Al-Qaeda branch in Iraq, which is mainly populated by old baathists from Saddam's followers.
They became much more violent and extreme after the Iraqi civil war.
Again, public info.

That's a tricky and complicated situation altogether. Simplifying it as "Egyptians love being oppressed! Those filthy animals need a dictator to keep them in line" is very disingenious.

They don't need to love hem, they just need to support hem for hem to stay in power, and they do.
Infact, all the news coming out of Egypt recently shows he's gaining even more support as the regional political climate grow darker in tone.
Basically, they're rallying around the safe option.

You mean the ruling class? The power base of dictators are the most influential people in the country who hold all the keys to power. The dictator has to make his keys happy not the common people.

If they don't have people on the ground pushing their way, then they wouldn't have power.

No. First off, dictators are often secular in the Arab world.

Secular or not, it doesn't matter.
The culture established by Islam and traditions creates the conditions where these governments arise in ease.

Secondly, dictators don't rely on popular support only the support of their keys.

They rely on popular support to gain power, all dictators where ever they may be do.

Thirdly, if you're going to argue that Islam causes all of this why point to dictators instead of jihadis? You even screwed that up.

Both are symptoms of the same problem.
And back when Christianity still had teeth, it caused the same problems.

Funny enough, all collectivist ideologies seem to cause these problems.

They're afraid to speak his name although there are still some people that support him but only out of nostalgia rather than any love for him personally.

Read up on the Iraqi civil war and the following years.


So you weren't following the news when Syrian refugees went out in marches and protests in support of Assad during the last election.
Interesting.

There's something called coercion which involves using force to get what you want. States use this all the time, especially via the police.

But a party needs to get into power before it can use that. How does a party or a movement gain popular support and get power in the beginning?
Does it just make random claims out of nowhere, or does it use whatever claims that's already circulating within the population?

Again I don't think they're interested or serious enough.

Read up on the cold war.

Looks like someone hasn't heard of Clausewitz or Prussian military organization, or the Black Army.

All armies have a command structure. It's what makes them armies.

[Palmyrene]

Dictatorships only stand because they have popular support, a dictatorship is installed with popular support and falls when it no longer has it.
The only exception is when a foreign power installs a dictatorship, and those don't last for long.

They don't rely on popular support but their keys to power. Read The Dictator's Handbook.

Also, Iran is a federation of local democratic governments. And Lebanon is a country where each area effectively governs its self due to various factors.

Iran has the Ayatollahs and Lebanon is a country where every man, woman, and child has their own militia. The fact that Lebanon hasn't blew up is a miracle unto itself.

More accurately, it doesn't care.

Then why are you pretending it's a "win-win" situation.

No, I mean the hardline Baathist like the one my father married last who is more than willing to condemn someone to death for not supporting the party, those types, and many of those exist, both in lower and higher positions.
I've met a good number myself.

?

Pardon?

Are they a part of the party? If not, they have no influence on wtf goes on. They can have whatever opinions they want but it doesn't effect the party itself

Even when they're not in Syria?

I'm specifically talking about in Syria.

Yes, there are Assadists outside of Syria however you'll be hardpressed to find one in it.

And Assad is already making policies which punish refugees for leaving like taking their property and what not.

Easily accessible information about the current state of Libya. Not that you'd follow the news or anything.

You think ISIS was started by Saddam followers. You don't know shit.

ISIS evolved from Al-Qaeda branch in Iraq, which is mainly populated by old baathists from Saddam's followers.
They became much more violent and extreme after the Iraqi civil war.
Again, public info.

https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/577030/

No. You're wrong.

They don't need to love hem, they just need to support hem for hem to stay in power, and they do.

I'm pretty sure it's only the middle class who support him since they got cold feet about the whole democracy thing and tried their hardest to get someone else elected.

Democracies don't represent the people.

Infact, all the news coming out of Egypt recently shows he's gaining even more support as the regional political climate grow darker in tone.
Basically, they're rallying around the safe option.

Funny. I've heard the opposite. Things are getting worse in Egypt, especially the economy.

If they don't have people on the ground pushing their way, then they wouldn't have power.

It's like you don't understand how a hierarchy works or what coercion is.

You're under the delusion that the actions of nations represent the people. They don't. You're stupid if you believe that.

Secular or not, it doesn't matter.
The culture established by Islam and traditions creates the conditions where these governments arise in ease.

You base this on what?

Dictatorships arise from hierarchy and instability. They are not specific to a given religion or culture.

They rely on popular support to gain power, all dictators where ever they may be do.

Dictators are characterized by their lack of reliance on popular support. It's why there's a difference between democracy and dictatorship.

Both are symptoms of the same problem.
And back when Christianity still had teeth, it caused the same problems.

It's like you ignore socio economic conditions and only focus on religion.

You have no class consciousness.

Funny enough, all collectivist ideologies seem to cause these problems.

Says the ethno-nationalist.

Thankfully I'm not a collectivist.

Read up on the Iraqi civil war and the following years.

My uncle already told me stories about fighting Saddam. I don't need to.

So you weren't following the news when Syrian refugees went out in marches and protests in support of Assad during the last election.
Interesting.

I want to know how that's relevant. Not that I didn't know.

But a party needs to get into power before it can use that. How does a party or a movement gain popular support and get power in the beginning?

Does it just make random claims out of nowhere, or does it use whatever claims that's already circulating within the population?

Yeah you don't know the history of the Syrian government.

Yes at first they relied on popular support. Then the coup happened, the country became a military government via Assad, and no longer did it rely on the popular support of people.

Read up on the cold war.

You still don't get it.

All armies have a command structure. It's what makes them armies.

That's not what makes them armies.

[anasawad]

@Palmyrene

They don't rely on popular support but their keys to power. Read The Dictator's Handbook.

I did, and unless you can quote a single passage in the book that says dictators don't need popular support to cease power, then it's not a source for you.
The book talks about managing power, not gaining it.

Then why are you pretending it's a "win-win" situation.

It is, for Iran. If the war continued Iran wins, and If the US withdrew, Iran also wins.

Are they a part of the party? If not, they have no influence on wtf goes on. They can have whatever opinions they want but it doesn't effect the party itself

Funny enough, those are the types of people enforcing the well of the party, so they go a little more power than you think.

I'm specifically talking about in Syria.

Yes, there are Assadists outside of Syria however you'll be hardpressed to find one in it.

And Assad is already making policies which punish refugees for leaving like taking their property and what not.

No worries, they're already starting to go back.

You think ISIS was started by Saddam followers. You don't know shit.

https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/577030/

No. You're wrong.

First of all, your source is talking about a person, not the overall origins.
Second of all, it agrees with me.
and Third of all, go read up on Abu Ghraib and the "pressure cooker of extremism" stuff.

I'm pretty sure it's only the middle class who support him since they got cold feet about the whole democracy thing and tried their hardest to get someone else elected.

Democracies don't represent the people.

Or because the alternatives are worse.

Funny. I've heard the opposite. Things are getting worse in Egypt, especially the economy.

It is getting worse, all over the place.
Which is why people are currently rallying up behind hem. He's the safe option with the current regional climate.

It's like you don't understand how a hierarchy works or what coercion is.

So far everything says the opposite.
Funny is that you just claimed to have read the Dictator's handbook on the first line of your post, and then you don't know what I'm referring to here.

You're under the delusion that the actions of nations represent the people. They don't.

It represents atleast a notable slice of it, that's for sure.

Dictatorships arise from hierarchy and instability. They are not specific to a given religion or culture.

Dictatorships form hierarchies, they rarely arise from them.
Instability doesn't always result in dictators taking over.
Certain cultures and principles do increase the likelihood of a population to support an extremist group, including an authoritarian party.

Dictators are characterized by their lack of reliance on popular support. It's why there's a difference between democracy and dictatorship.

After they gain power, not before.

It's like you ignore socio economic conditions and only focus on religion.

I don't ignore socio-economic conditions, I just focus on why they're like that.

ethno-nationalist.

An ethno-nationalist wouldn't support a diversity of ethnic groups and cultures living in one place.

My uncle already told me stories about fighting Saddam. I don't need to.

The Iraqi civil war came after Saddam.

Yeah you don't know the history of the Syrian government.

I do, not only from reading but even from direct experience.

Infact, my father not only gave consultancy to the Syrian government but he even gave speeches at the national assembly, the last one being in 2011.

Now, his wife maybe a member of the Baath party (no one in our family talks to her so..) and a director in the Syrian government, but he personally doesn't care about the Syrian government, he's more there diplomatically than for love of the party.

Yes at first they relied on popular support. Then the coup happened, the country became a military government via Assad, and no longer did it rely on the popular support of people.

Which is exactly my fucking point. They need popular support to get into power.

And the things they have in their manifesto is made to appeal to the wider population, not made out of thin air.

That's not what makes them armies.

If they don't have a command structure, they would be considered militias.

[Palmyrene]

@Palmyrene

I did, and unless you can quote a single passage in the book that says dictators don't need popular support to cease power, then it's not a source for you.
The book talks about managing power, not gaining it.

Firstly, the book says that it isn't the revolutionaries who singlehandedly gain the power of the state, it's the military who let's them.

Secondly, we're specifically talking about maintaining power. This is because Arab dictators don't rely on the legitimacy of the population to maintain power (this is what you said and why you think victim blaming Arabs is perfectly fine) just like in the handbook.

It is, for Iran. If the war continued Iran wins, and If the US withdrew, Iran also wins.

Not for Afghans which is my point. A win-win situation means both parties win. It isn't a win-win situation if only one of them does.

Funny enough, those are the types of people enforcing the well of the party, so they go a little more power than you think.

No, they aren't. Most people who are a part of the Syrian military (at least the higher ups) for example are only there because they're relatives of government officials or rich people. None of those teenagers are in anyway hardliners.

Secondly hardliners don't have any political power. The only use they have is in legitimizing state abuse of power which is why Syria, Egypt, and other countries use them for propaganda purposes; they don't make any decisions.

No worries, they're already starting to go back.

That's good. The refugees, either voluntarily or not, will find that Assad has destroyed or taken their homes. If they were Assadists before that, they aren't now. I'll take advantage of that.

First of all, your source is talking about a person, not the overall origins.
Second of all, it agrees with me.
and Third of all, go read up on Abu Ghraib and the "pressure cooker of extremism" stuff.

First, it talks about the guy who started it. That's like saying an autobiography on Saddam or Assad is irrelevant to a discussion on Baathism.

Second, it doesn't unless you're mixing up the Iraqi insurgency for "Saddam loyalists". They aren't.

Third, how is he relevant?

Or because the alternatives are worse.

If you're referring to the Muslim Brotherhood I think they should've won. Even if they are bad, the fact that they were democratically elected meant that they could be held accountable and it would be a great way to test out Egypt's democracy. It's a challenge but a necessary one.

It is getting worse, all over the place.
Which is why people are currently rallying up behind hem. He's the safe option with the current regional climate.

He's the one causing the issues and he's not interested in helping either.

Do you know why New Cairo has giant walls around it? Do you know why only the 1% live in New Cairo? It's because it's a fortress for the rich and government to hide in if something happens or if the populace has enough of their shit.

So far everything says the opposite.
Funny is that you just claimed to have read the Dictator's handbook on the first line of your post, and then you don't know what I'm referring to here.

It's like you read the first chapter and then ignored everything else.

Arab dictators are already established. There's no use in seeing how parties act when overthrowing the government if it's already overthrown and the party established.

It represents atleast a notable slice of it, that's for sure.

No, it isn't. The only reason why no one is protesting is because people have accepted defeat. In areas where Arab Spring didn't happen, like Sudan, people still want to revolt.

Dictatorships form hierarchies, they rarely arise from them.

Wtf do you think a military coup is? Dictatorships arise from incorporating or integrating aspects of the previous hierarchy into the "new" state.

When the Ayatollahs took over Iran, the Pahlavi government wasn't completely destroyed, it was just repurposed and it's administrators were shifted around.

Fukuyama talks about this in one of his books on the Origins of Political Order.

Instability doesn't always result in dictators taking over.

It does because there's a certain amount of instabilty and chaos between the transition from one leadership over to another. That's why mass killings and imprisonment occurred in all countries that became dictatorships.

Certain cultures and principles do increase the likelihood of a population to support an extremist group, including an authoritarian party.

I highly doubt that. The early Baathist party promised democracy and even the late Assad paid homage to democracy and "the will of the people" in his speeches.

After they gain power, not before.

We are talking about after. Syria isn't becoming a dictatorship, it is one.

I don't ignore socio-economic conditions, I just focus on why they're like that.

They're like that because a combination of brutal inept leaders and colonialism.

An ethno-nationalist wouldn't support a diversity of ethnic groups and cultures living in one place.

You don't support that. You support the idea that Lebanon is special ethnically and you refuse to believe or are disgusted by a majority of the Lebanese population because most of them identify as Arab.

Your ideas of ethnicity are tied to your nationalist delusions of Lebanon. You are an ethno-nationalist.

The Iraqi civil war came after Saddam.

No shit sherlock.

I do, not only from reading but even from direct experience.

Infact, my father not only gave consultancy to the Syrian government but he even gave speeches at the national assembly, the last one being in 2011.

Now, his wife maybe a member of the Baath party (no one in our family talks to her so..) and a director in the Syrian government, but he personally doesn't care about the Syrian government, he's more there diplomatically than for love of the party.

I want to say something personal about my life related to this but due to anonymity reasons I can't. I'll just let you know I also have ties to the Syrian government.

Btw, what's your mother's name? I may have seen her.

Which is exactly my fucking point. They need popular support to get into power.

And the things they have in their manifesto is made to appeal to the wider population, not made out of thin air.

Yes and like any good politicians they lie and don't fulfill their promises except it's worse because you can't kick them out.

If they don't have a command structure, they would be considered militias.

Militias still have command structures but I digress.

The core strategic reason why there is hierarchy in the military is because of information. Information about the wider picture is reserved for the commanders or higher ups while soldiers are left in the dark. This is because the plan can be jeopardized if a soldier knows too much and is captured.

However you don't need hierarchy to deal with that issue. You just need security culture .

[anasawad]

@Palmyrene

1- Regarding the discussion about dictatorships.

Dictators comes from parties taking over power by force. Dictators need popular support to take power.
To gain popular support they usually take the ideas already existing within the population and put it into their manifestos.
That is why Syria still claim the southern provinces of Turkey because the population claims them and the Baath party added it to their claims to gain support.

We weren't talking about maintaining power, you just moved the goalpost.
However, dictatorships still need a portion of the population to support it in order to maintain power.
In the book you claim to have read, The Dictator's Handbook, you'd have noticed the dictatorships are essentially a pyramid of power, each level has key to power from the lower level, the bottom few layers of that pyramid are regular people, and those are usually the hardliners and enforcers of the dictator's will, and they do have power in that they're the ones running things on the ground.

2- Regarding Iraq.

Most of the people who joined the Iraqi Al-qaeda, latter on forming ISIS, including Al-Zarqawi and Al-Baghdadi were the result of prison camps like Abu Ghraib; There, former Iraqi military men, officers, and Baath party members were put all together with Islamists and joined together.
They'll be the ones who carried the insurgency, and latter on civil war in Iraq.
Majority of Iraqi ISIS fighters are former Baathists. That's why Raghad is with them for example.

Also,

No shit sherlock.

You're the one who seemed to confuse the Iraq civil war with the 90s uprisings with all the talks about your uncle fighting Saddam. Try not to act like a smart ass, it doesn't fit.



And finally; 3-

You don't support that. You support the idea that Lebanon is special ethnically and you refuse to believe or are disgusted by a majority of the Lebanese population because most of them identify as Arab.

Your ideas of ethnicity are tied to your nationalist delusions of Lebanon. You are an ethno-nationalist.

I do support that, you just continuously demonstrate your lack of ability to read.
Saying the there are people who are ethnically Lebanese doesn't mean that Lebanon as a nation has multiple ethnic groups, cultures, and religions.
Furthermore, Arabs don't represent a majority in Lebanon, rather just another minority. Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. If it was true, you wouldn't need a military force to enforce the label.

[Palmyrene]

@Palmyrene

1- Regarding the discussion about dictatorships.

Dictators comes from parties taking over power by force. Dictators need popular support to take power.

They don't need it afterward which is what we're talking about.

To gain popular support they usually take the ideas already existing within the population and put it into their manifestos.

That's false. Socialism didn't exist as an idea in the Arab world until Baathism.

That is why Syria still claim the southern provinces of Turkey because the population claims them and the Baath party added it to their claims to gain support.

Baathists claimed southern Turkey after they got into power.

We weren't talking about maintaining power, you just moved the goalpost.

No, you did. You said that Arabs deserve whatever dictators do because dictators only have power if they have popular support. This is false. They don't need popular support to remain in power so they can do whatever they want.

However, dictatorships still need a portion of the population to support it in order to maintain power.

Yes, the keys. The keys aren't the entire population, they're the upper class.

In the book you claim to have read, The Dictator's Handbook, you'd have noticed the dictatorships are essentially a pyramid of power, each level has key to power from the lower level, the bottom few layers of that pyramid are regular people, and those are usually the hardliners and enforcers of the dictator's will, and they do have power in that they're the ones running things on the ground.

They don't run things on the ground or the big picture because they're just enforcers or officers. They don't make decisions, they enforce the decisions of people above them.

The morality police for example doesn't run the country, it just enforces the will or law of the higher ups.

[Qute]
2- Regarding Iraq.

Most of the people who joined the Iraqi Al-qaeda, latter on forming ISIS, including Al-Zarqawi and Al-Baghdadi were the result of prison camps like Abu Ghraib; There, former Iraqi military men, officers, and Baath party members were put all together with Islamists and joined together.
They'll be the ones who carried the insurgency, and latter on civil war in Iraq.
Majority of Iraqi ISIS fighters are former Baathists. That's why Raghad is with them for example. [/quote]

That doesn't mean they're Saddam loyalists.

For example, a great deal of the rebels in Syria were former members of the Syrian Army who left it during the early parts of the revolution. They were the ones who formed a great deal of the Islamist groups in the conflict. They certainly aren't loyal to Assad.

Also,

You're the one who seemed to confuse the Iraq civil war with the 90s uprisings with all the talks about your uncle fighting Saddam. Try not to act like a smart ass, it doesn't fit.

Was the Intifada not a civil war in the purest sense of the word?

And finally; 3-


I do support that, you just continuously demonstrate your lack of ability to read.
Saying the there are people who are ethnically Lebanese doesn't mean that Lebanon as a nation has multiple ethnic groups, cultures, and religions.
Furthermore, Arabs don't represent a majority in Lebanon, rather just another minority. Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it true. If it was true, you wouldn't need a military force to enforce the label.

I'm talking about identity not your pseudoscientific genetic bullshit. Lebanese people identify as Arab and have done so since the 11th century based on all the sources I've given. They didn't all start identifying as Arab after Syria invaded them.

And btw I don't have a military force. I will but I'm going enforcing people to do anything. That's very unanarchist.

[anasawad]

@Palmyrene

1- Michel Aflaq, Zaki al-Arsuzi, Salah al-Din al-Bitar. Read on their ideas.

You said that Arabs deserve whatever dictators do because dictators only have power if they have popular support. This is false. They don't need popular support to remain in power so they can do whatever they want.

Try not to put words into my mouth, I said Arab dictatorships stand because they have popular support, even if not an overwhelming majority, they still do.

Yes, the keys. The keys aren't the entire population, they're the upper class.

No they're not, all enforcers and staff are keys to power. Majority of the keys of power are not upper class.

They don't run things on the ground or the big picture because they're just enforcers or officers. They don't make decisions, they enforce the decisions of people above them.

They do run things on the ground, and even with orders from above, the interpretation and implementation is done on the lower levels.

Was the Intifada not a civil war in the purest sense of the word?

Uprising.

I'm talking about identity not your pseudoscientific genetic bullshit. Lebanese people identify as Arab and have done so since the 11th century based on all the sources I've given. They didn't all start identifying as Arab after Syria invaded them.

If they did, then they wouldn't have elected not to identify the country as an Arab country when the constitution was first being made, and it wouldn't have taken a military occupation to force the change.

[Palmyrene]

@Palmyrene

1- Michel Aflaq, Zaki al-Arsuzi, Salah al-Din al-Bitar. Read on their ideas.

I have. At least I was forced to.

Try not to put words into my mouth, I said Arab dictatorships stand because they have popular support, even if not an overwhelming majority, they still do.

So you are talking about maintaining power which you just said doesn't require popular support and we agree that the Dictators Handbook says this.

No they're not, all enforcers and staff are keys to power. Majority of the keys of power are not upper class.

Actually yes. Those who are closer to the top recieve the most wealth because the dictator has to keep those keys loyal to him. Any revenue spent on anything else lowers loyalty.

This ends up with the people on the top accumulating the most wealth compared to the bottom.

They do run things on the ground, and even with orders from above, the interpretation and implementation is done on the lower levels.

That depends on the order. It's not always open to interpretation.

Uprising.

What's a civil war if not an uprising?

If they did, then they wouldn't have elected not to identify the country as an Arab country when the constitution was first being made, and it wouldn't have taken a military occupation to force the change.

The constitution was written by the French after it gave Lebanon it's independence. It wasn't voted on.

Furthermore you're ignoring evidence from the 11th to 20th century on how the Lebanese identified as Arab.

[anasawad]

@Palmyrene

So you are talking about maintaining power

That was in response to your post talking about maintaining power.
The discussion began on how these parties with dictatorships get the ideas in their manifestos, in which I said they get it from the populace to gain support for their take over, then ofcourse you started moving the goalpost.

which you just said doesn't require popular support and we agree that the Dictators Handbook says this.

It doesn't require full popular support, it requires a good portion of the population to support the regime however.
Read what I said.
And regarding the book, since you haven't read it in full, let me summarize its main findings.
It talks about the power structure in dictatorships, the dictator needs keys to power, those are his direct hands to maintain power; These keys to power have their own keys to power, just one level down; This trend keeps going down level after level until it reaches the on-the-ground keys who carry out all the tasks.
This power structure that all dictatorships have need a good percentage of the population to support the dictator for the power structure to be maintained. If it didn't have one, then it falls apart.

The lower levels of this power structures, who are not upper class nor politicians, do have power and can bring key changes or even force them through. That's how Qaddafi for example took power and started his regime, a lower member on the power structure brought it down.

The constitution was written by the French after it gave Lebanon it's independence. It wasn't voted on.

The first Lebanese constitution was written in the 1920s, and then heavily edited and adjusted under the rule of Bchara Al-khouri after independence.
Further more, there is the national pact, which most Lebanese laws come from, which was a pact between the various Lebanese factions with no foreign intervention.

Furthermore you're ignoring evidence from the 11th to 20th century on how the Lebanese identified as Arab.

I've read your "evidence" and they're all bullshit propaganda.
The various Lebanese factions clearly stated in both the constitution and the national pact that it was not an Arab country, until the Syrians forced an amendment in the 90s to change it to an Arab country.

The original letter mentioned that Lebanon is a multicultural, multi-religious, and multi-ethnic country.
I already provided a source for this explaining it in details, you can go back and read it.

[Palmyrene]

@Palmyrene

That was in response to your post talking about maintaining power.
The discussion began on how these parties with dictatorships get the ideas in their manifestos, in which I said they get it from the populace to gain support for their take over, then ofcourse you started moving the goalpost.

No. Don't even pretend that's what happened. You said dictators only stay in power because of popular support. You said nothing about them gaining power. Nothing. This whole manifesto nonsense was just started two posts. I didn't move goalposts, you did.

It doesn't require full popular support, it requires a good portion of the population to support the regime however.
Read what I said.

So you are saying that popular support is necessary to maintain power but that's false. Not only did you not say that, but that's not what the Dictator's Handbook implies. The dictator is required to reward only his top keys, no one else as to maintain loyalty because once those top keys become disloyal enough, the dictator is disposed of.

We agreed on this but you slipped this in again.

[Qyote]
And regarding the book, since you haven't read it in full, let me summarize its main findings. [/quote]

I have read it in full so you don't need explain jack shit. And you tell this is case because thoroughly explained why your statements make no fucking sense.

Actually yes. Those who are closer to the top recieve the most wealth because the dictator has to keep those keys loyal to him. Any revenue spent on anything else lowers loyalty.

This ends up with the people on the top accumulating the most wealth compared to the bottom.

I also explained this in another post but I'm to lazy to find it.

It talks about the power structure in dictatorships, the dictator needs keys to power, those are his direct hands to maintain power; These keys to power have their own keys to power, just one level down; This trend keeps going down level after level until it reaches the on-the-ground keys who carry out all the tasks.
This power structure that all dictatorships have need a good percentage of the population to support the dictator for the power structure to be maintained. If it didn't have one, then it falls apart.

You clearly missed the point.

The Dictator's Handbook goes into detail as to exactly why these sorts of systems are hard to get out of and that's due to the way the hierarchy is organized. You see, the keys on the bottom are subservient to the keys on the top and this keeps on going till we reach the dictator. This means that the dictator has to appease a small circle of people rather than the public at large.

Even it's fucking wikipedia page explains this:

The main difference between the scenarios of democratic and authoritarian politicians is that the former have to please a large number of power brokers and/or the public at large while authoritarian ones please relatively small circles.

Given that you only read the wikipedia article, you have no excuses.

The lower levels of this power structures, who are not upper class nor politicians, do have power and can bring key changes or even force them through. That's how Qaddafi for example took power and started his regime, a lower member on the power structure brought it down.

The fuck are you on about. What "lower member"?

The first Lebanese constitution was written in the 1920s, and then heavily edited and adjusted under the rule of Bchara Al-khouri after independence.
Further more, there is the national pact, which most Lebanese laws come from, which was a pact between the various Lebanese factions with no foreign intervention.

None of that democratic at all or even indicates that Lebanese didn't identify Arab just that the dictator or factions either thought it was obvious or didn't care to put it on their constitution.

I've read your "evidence" and they're all bullshit propaganda.

Academic and historical works as well as wikipedia are propaganda. You're retarded. Like honestly this is just a pathetic argument.

Explain to me how it's propaganda. Is anything you don't like propaganda? Is anything that goes against your narrative propaganda.

[Quote[
The various Lebanese factions clearly stated in both the constitution and the national pact that it was not an Arab country, until the Syrians forced an amendment in the 90s to change it to an Arab country.[/quote]

Just because it's not on the constitution doesn't mean people didn't identify as Arab. I gave a full list of everyone who identified as Arab from the 11th century onward but apparently history started from 1920s according to you.

You're a joke. You have meltdowns upon meltdowns.

[anasawad]

@Palmyrene

No. Don't even pretend that's what happened. You said dictators only stay in power because of popular support. You said nothing about them gaining power. Nothing. This whole manifesto nonsense was just started two posts. I didn't move goalposts, you did.

So you are saying that popular support is necessary to maintain power but that's false. Not only did you not say that, but that's not what the Dictator's Handbook implies. The dictator is required to reward only his top keys, no one else as to maintain loyalty because once those top keys become disloyal enough, the dictator is disposed of.

The book explains the power structure in dictatorships.
Just like the dictator has his keys to power, his keys have theirs.

The Dictator's Handbook goes into detail as to exactly why these sorts of systems are hard to get out of and that's due to the way the hierarchy is organized. You see, the keys on the bottom are subservient to the keys on the top and this keeps on going till we reach the dictator. This means that the dictator has to appease a small circle of people rather than the public at large.

You're arguing in circles. The dictator has to appeal a small circle of keys, and each of these keys has to appease a small circle of keys a level below, and so on.
As I said, a pyramid structure.

Given that you only read the wikipedia article, you have no excuses.

I didn't even know it has one, but thanks for guiding me to it.

The fuck are you on about. What "lower member"?

Qaddafi was a low level commander.

None of that democratic at all or even indicates that Lebanese didn't identify Arab just that the dictator or factions either thought it was obvious or didn't care to put it on their constitution.

Those factions are made of small communities.

Explain to me how it's propaganda. Is anything you don't like propaganda? Is anything that goes against your narrative propaganda.

When it goes against the reality on the ground but seem to serve the political or social goals of its publisher, it's propaganda.

Just because it's not on the constitution doesn't mean people didn't identify as Arab.

So all the community leaders, churches, mosques, etc gathered around and agreed it's not an Arab country, but everyone else identified as Arab. Got it.

I gave a full list of everyone who identified as Arab from the 11th century onward but apparently history started from 1920s according to you.

There are Arabs in Lebanon, that doesn't mean the entire country is Arab, otherwise, France would be Arabic by now.
The reality on the ground says otherwise.

You're a joke. You have meltdowns upon meltdowns.

[Palmyrene]

@Palmyrene

You literally just proved that you were saying that dictators need popular support to maintain power. Everything here shows this. I'm right. Maybe you shouldn't have made this at night; you may have been better at cherrypicking then.

The book explains the power structure in dictatorships.
Just like the dictator has his keys to power, his keys have theirs.

Duh. I've explained thus already but apparently you can't understand.

You're arguing in circles. The dictator has to appeal a small circle of keys, and each of these keys has to appease a small circle of keys a level below, and so on.
As I said, a pyramid structure.

That's exactly what I said. Are you this dense? I've said this the first time I've mentioned the Dictator's Handbook. It's specifically because of it's pyramid that the lower keys can't do anything to stop the pyramid because they're coerced by their higher ups to do so and once they fight against it, they're no longer a part of the pyramid.

I didn't even know it has one, but thanks for guiding me to it.

Uh huh.

Qaddafi was a low level commander.

Instituting a coup doesn't rely on government support.

Those factions are made of small communities.

Did every inhabitant in those small communities have a say or was it just their clergy or authorities?

When it goes against the reality on the ground but seem to serve the political or social goals of its publisher, it's propaganda.

History is reality so clearly an academic article and wikipedia aren't propaganda you idiot. I've actually posted statements by Lebanese who identify as Arab and state that Lebanese not identifying as Arab is a minority position. Are they all propagandists?

So all the community leaders, churches, mosques, etc gathered around and agreed it's not an Arab country, but everyone else identified as Arab. Got it.

Wow I know you like to take things out of context but this is too much.

There are Arabs in Lebanon, that doesn't mean the entire country is Arab, otherwise, France would be Arabic by now.
The reality on the ground says otherwise.

I don't think you're on the ground. I think you're high.

A majority of Lebanese identify as Arab. This is a fact no matter how many tantrums you have.

Don't worry, it's ok. I know it's hard to be a heaping set of contradictions.

[anasawad]

@Palmyrene

You literally just proved that you were saying that dictators need popular support to maintain power. Everything here shows this. I'm right. Maybe you shouldn't have made this at night; you may have been better at cherrypicking then.

What is stated is that dictators need popular support to cease power, and need to maintain a certain level of popular support to maintain it.
The book also inclines this, since these are the lower levels of the power structure.

Duh. I've explained thus already but apparently you can't understand.

That's exactly what I said. Are you this dense? I've said this the first time I've mentioned the Dictator's Handbook. It's specifically because of it's pyramid that the lower keys can't do anything to stop the pyramid because they're coerced by their higher ups to do so and once they fight against it, they're no longer a part of the pyramid.

So you spent half an hour saying that the pyramid structure I talked about is wrong, and claiming the book is saying otherwise, then now you change your position to me being wrong and you saying this all along?
Seriously?

Instituting a coup doesn't rely on government support.

It does relly on supporters, irrelevant of government support.

Did every inhabitant in those small communities have a say or was it just their clergy or authorities?

All of those are ancient communities with their governing structures, if the leader didn't represent his community, then he wouldn't be a leader much longer. So yes, they did have a say in it.

A majority of Lebanese identify as Arab.

Even the CIA notes in its own categorization that many Lebanese Christians don't identify as Arabs.
Christians represent 80% of the overall Lebanese people, as even your own sources shows.
It's not a minority position.
If it was, then the early wars during the civil war wouldn't have happened, since the position of the key factions were either Lebanese nationalists or Arab nationalists and Islamic nationalists.

[Palmyrene]

@Palmyrene

What is stated is that dictators need popular support to cease power, and need to maintain a certain level of popular support to maintain it.
The book also inclines this, since these are the lower levels of the power structure.

No the posts you just fucking quoted of yourself disprove that. Like, you aren't really fooling me and it's only me because no else gives a fuck about our conversation so don't pull "audience" shit.

Dictators, as said in the book and wikipedia article, only need to maintain the support of their small power circle of the largest keys. Nothing else. What the keys below the dictator do doesn't matter. If some lower in the hierarchy does something, the person above them punishes them for it.

So you spent half an hour saying that the pyramid structure I talked about is wrong,

I said your conclusions were wrong. Not the pyramid structure.

and claiming the book is saying otherwise, then now you change your position to me being wrong and you saying this all along?
Seriously?

You shifting goalposts from saying "the people on the top have all the power" to "the people on the bottom have all the power".

It does relly on supporters, irrelevant of government support.

It relies on the military. That's the only entity capable of performing a coup because a coup can only occur within the government and not from the general population.

All of those are ancient communities with their governing structures, if the leader didn't represent his community, then he wouldn't be a leader much longer. So yes, they did have a say in it.

I'm absolutely sure they don't. The Druze for instance have an authoritarian government structure and while I'm not sure about the different flavors of Christians I doubt they're very democratic either with hierarchial institutions of the church.

Even the CIA notes in its own categorization that many Lebanese Christians don't identify as Arabs.

Where's the section that they say that so I can more closely examine it.

Christians represent 80% of the overall Lebanese people, as even your own sources shows.

This includes the diaspora. The CIA article may or may not be mentioning them. I need to take a closer look but you won't give me the sectiom you found that quote in.

It's not a minority position.

.

I according to other Lebanese people, it is.

If it was, then the early wars during the civil war wouldn't have happened, since the position of the key factions were either Lebanese nationalists or Arab nationalists and Islamic nationalists.

You don't have to be an Arab nationalist to identify Arab. How can you be this stupid? This is dumbest thing I've ever heard.

I guess a white person is a white nationalist or a black person is a black nationalist.

The fights of resistence fighters with Syrian occupation cannot be divided into "Lebanese nationalists and Arab nationalists".

Most Lebanese didn't see it that way, all they saw was an invading force of Syrians coming to brutalize them. Even if they identified as Arab they would still resist.

[anasawad]

@Palmyrene

Dictators, as said in the book and wikipedia article, only need to maintain the support of their small power circle of the largest keys. Nothing else. What the keys below the dictator do doesn't matter. If some lower in the hierarchy does something, the person above them punishes them for it.

Everyone needs to maintain and appease their keys to power. That doesn't mean each is independent, they're all in the same structure.

"the people on the top have all the power" to "the people on the bottom have all the power".

I never said the people on the bottom have all the power, that's just another one of your strawman BS.
I clearly said that the lower levels of the structure do have power, in contrast to you saying they have none.
Have power =/= All the power.

It relies on the military. That's the only entity capable of performing a coup because a coup can only occur within the government and not from the general population.

And this is why my argument is correct all along, while you don't know what you're talking about.
From a direct practical example of a dictator.

The dictator does have power. But the lower levels also have power. That is why each level of the power structure must maintain and appease their keys to power from a level just below theirs.
If they don't, The entire house of cards falls apart and the collapse reaches all the way to the top.
The lower levels of the power structure are not appeased, so they no longer take orders, the level above them lost their keys, which in themselves are keys to someone above them so that person also lost some of their keys, and so on to the very top.
It's a strict power structure where each level needs to maintain and appease their keys to power.
The dictator does hold significant power as an individual, but no man rule alone, and for the dictator to maintain his power, all the levels need to be appeased.
That is why, the dictator still does need a portion of the populace to support hem, those would be the lower levels in the power structure along with their families and relatives who all gather around hem.

This takes us back to my very very first statement as seen in the pics above, The dictator needs popular support to take power, and still needs some popular support to maintain power, and thus leading to another one of my statements; If those Arab dictators didn't have any supporters, they wouldn't be in power.

The books talks about this BTW. I don't know about any commentary on digital versions as I prefer hard copies, although it's 29$, it's still better than digital. But I doubt any commentary on it would disprove this since this is an easily observable fact in reality.

The Druze for instance have an authoritarian government structure

Funny enough, this pro or anti Arab identitarian argument did reach into the Druze community, which is why we now have Junblat and Arsalan in the Druze community each leading a faction on this topic.
But I'm sure you already knew this.

while I'm not sure about the different flavors of Christians I doubt they're very democratic either with hierarchial institutions of the church.

The Church in Lebanon acts the same way as the court does in Baalbek, it's a place where community leaders meet, it's not similar to the role of churches in Europe.

Where's the section that they say that so I can more closely examine it.

This includes the diaspora. The CIA article may or may not be mentioning them. I need to take a closer look but you won't give me the sectiom you found that quote in.

It's easily found in the demographics, in all the sources both from me and you.
Again, even you brought it in but decided not to mention it so you don't show your position as the BS it is.

Here is straight up from Wikipedia;

the Muslim population was estimated at 57.7% within Lebanese territory and 20% of the 8.6[3]–14[4] million Lebanese diaspora population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Lebanon
Right above the part you quoted.
In the CIA world factbook, you can check in the direct entry referenced in the Wiki page, or you can press search Lebanon Demographics and get all the info you need.

You don't have to be an Arab nationalist to identify Arab.

You are if you want to enforce it and rally around that identity.

The fights of resistence fighters with Syrian occupation cannot be divided into "Lebanese nationalists and Arab nationalists".
Most Lebanese didn't see it that way, all they saw was an invading force of Syrians coming to brutalize them. Even if they identified as Arab they would still resist.

That was before full Syrian invasion and occupation.

[Palmyrene]

@Palmyrene
Everyone needs to maintain and appease their keys to power. That doesn't mean each is independent, they're all in the same structure.

? Ok?

I think you forgot something in between your conclusion. The key structure only holds for the government. The general population is not all a part of the government.

Most of the hardliners aren't even a part of the government and if they are, they aren't high positions regardless of your talks about how they "influence" things, they don't have political power.

I never said the people on the bottom have all the power, that's just another one of your strawman BS.

I clearly said that the lower levels of the structure do have power, in contrast to you saying they have none.
Have power =/= All the power.

If you're going to claiming that the general population can get rid if dictator whenever they want because they're in "the lower levels" then you're claiming that, in actuality, the people on the bottom have all the power.

I never said they had no power, that's an actual strawman. I said they don't have major decision making power.

And this is why my argument is correct all along, while you don't know what you're talking about.
From a direct practical example of a dictator.

The dictator does have power. But the lower levels also have power. That is why each level of the power structure must maintain and appease their keys to power from a level just below theirs.
If they don't, The entire house of cards falls apart and the collapse reaches all the way to the top.
The lower levels of the power structure are not appeased, so they no longer take orders, the level above them lost their keys, which in themselves are keys to someone above them so that person also lost some of their keys, and so on to the very top.
It's a strict power structure where each level needs to maintain and appease their keys to power.
The dictator does hold significant power as an individual, but no man rule alone, and for the dictator to maintain his power, all the levels need to be appeased.
That is why, the dictator still does need a portion of the populace to support hem, those would be the lower levels in the power structure along with their families and relatives who all gather around hem.

Everything here I already said you just added the part where the "populace controls the dictator!" which is the argument I was criticizing.

The population isn't a part of the dictator's pyramid. Most of the population isn't. States impose themselves upon the population. The lower levels of the hierarchy don't have jobs that directly influence the top.

In fact, all coups are done by the ones in the middle of the pyramid because they're the only ones with the connections and resources to even attempt to do a coup. The foot soldiers on the bottom of the pyramid have no influence.

You completely screwed up what the lowest part of the pyramid does in the first place.

This takes us back to my very very first statement as seen in the pics above, The dictator needs popular support to take power, and still needs some popular support to maintain power, and thus leading to another one of my statements; If those Arab dictators didn't have any supporters, they wouldn't be in power.

That wasn't your initial statement. Your intial statement was arguing that Arabs (as in, as a whole) are responsible for their own oppression because they support Arab dictators and your evidence for this are refugees which aren't, and I quote:

the lower levels in the power structure along with their families and relatives who all gather around hem.

Are all those Syrian refugees supporting Assad related to him? Exactly.

You've been moving goalposts the entire time.

Funny enough, this pro or anti Arab identitarian argument did reach into the Druze community, which is why we now have Junblat and Arsalan in the Druze community each leading a faction on this topic.
But I'm sure you already knew this. [/quotw]

? How is this relevant?



I'm talking about leadership which were the ones who signed.



Ohhh I didn't notice that because weren't arguing about that at the time.

Wait are you saying the CIA factbook is in wikipedia?



I'm pretty sure most of the Lebanese who identify as Arab don't want to do that.

That's why the argument that if most Lebanese were Arab they would join the Syrians. That's dumb as shit.

Just because you identify as Arab or even Arab nationalist doesn't mean you'll join the invaders who're killing you with open arms.

What was before full Syrian invasion?