Military Events in Syria and Iraq thread #3

[iceaura]

duplicate post

 

[Schmelzer]

The videos are not direct evidence of anything, for you, because you are completely ignorant of the context of them and have been induced to replace it with the propagandist's preference.
... People had to go hunting around on the net to find the missing piece and show it to you explicitly, remember?

No. What I remember is that I have found the context (which you have not provided) myself. Maybe somebody else has also looked for this and found it, irrelevant. I have after this slightly corrected my first impression. So, no, I'm not completely ignorant of it, but aware of it and have taken it into account. For what I have considered the important information for me, the context was irrelevant.

You have the fact that I have not personally demonized Assad.

About this I have only a joepistole-like "fact". You have not distanced yourself from the Western "Assad must go", instead supported it with arguments. The Russian position is that the Syrians should decide, in democratic elections. Which, as everybody knows, Assad would win. If he would not, what would be the problem for the West of accepting democratic elections, with Assad remaining in power up to the elections?

No, they weren't. They were facts of his regime - not his person - you were denying, for some reason.

Oh, I'm again in denial of something. So what, I'm already used to be accused of denying here of almost everything, inclusive the holocaust. So I will ignore this denial claim, it is anyway off-topic.

Not maniacs, in other words.

You think jews who prefer a civil war in the neighbour country, and for this purpose support (in clever and hidden ways) forces who would like to kill all jews if they would be able to do it, are not maniacs? Of course, from a medical point of view you may be correct, but I used it obviously in a metaphorical way.

"Subtle", that's the word of the day? There's nothing new about the cynical power politics of divide and conquer, or anything particularly subtle about bringing soldiers and bombs to force the issues.

Politics in the East are quite subtle. If you think differently, this remembers the typical American approach to politics in the middle East, and we actually see the results of this. And the Russian politics is not "divide and conquer".

Dictators don't make such deals unless forced, and if any dictator is as silly in their reasoning as you are - extrapolating from one deal in a far off corner of the planet to all of politics everywhere - they will have short tenures anyway.

Why do you think they are extrapolating to all of politics everywhere? This has happened in the days of the American empire, in one of its provinces, so it is reasonable to extrapolate about American politics.
And dictators are dictators because they have some own force too. Even if they are only American vassals like Pinochet. They have the choice to fight to death. And if they have to expect prison, independent of what is offered, they will fight. Erdogan has learned the lesson. The Kurds may have learned the lesson now too: Never trust America. The Russians have learned the lesson when the US has bombed Belgrad. The Russian answer was Putin.

 

[iceaura]

You have not distanced yourself from the Western "Assad must go", instead supported it with arguments.

1) That's not the issue: you claimed I had demonized Assad. I have not done that.
2) That's not true: I have made no argument for removal of Assad, nor advocated for that, nor defended the Western attempts to accomplish that.

If simple and accurate descriptions of Assad's regime sound like arguments for his removal, to you, maybe you should reconsider your evaluation of Putin's military support and involvement.

Why do you think they are extrapolating to all of politics everywhere? This has happened in the days of the American empire, in one of its provinces,

Chile has never been a province of the American empire - even under Pinochet, the American installed strongman, it was not. But if you think democracy has come peacefully to Chile as a result of America's domination and control of its "province", the comparison with what Putin has brought to Syria, Ukraine, and Russia itself, might bring a pause for reflection.

You think jews who prefer a civil war in the neighbour country, and for this purpose support (in clever and hidden ways) forces who would like to kill all jews if they would be able to do it, are not maniacs?

No. They are rational cynics choosing the lesser - that is, weaker - of two evils. These are tactics you praise in Putin - even when he brings bombs and soldiers, rather than being clever or hidden.

Politics in the East are quite subtle.

The stuff you are describing in Syria is not.

If you think differently, this remembers the typical American approach to politics in the middle East, and we actually see the results of this.

Politics does not become subtle by being different from American screwup.

And the Russian politics is not "divide and conquer".

The Russian approach to the Kurds in Syria is divide and conquer - as you yourself described it, detailing the divisions and the goal.

And dictators are dictators because they have some own force too. Even if they are only American vassals like Pinochet. They have the choice to fight to death. And if they have to expect prison, independent of what is offered, they will fight. Erdogan has learned the lesson. The Kurds may have learned the lesson now too: Never trust America

Dictators trust nobody, ever. Pinochet certainly did not trust America. And nobody with a lick of sense trusts Putin.

Pinochet, btw, was never arrested or prosecuted or even extradited by the United States - despite money laundering in US banks on his behalf and direction, violent crimes (bombings and murders) committed in the US on his orders, and gross violations of law (and human decency) committed against US citizens in Chile by his command. If American made any promises of immunity to Pinochet, those promises were kept.

As have been the promises to the long list of deposed thugs and sadists now living out their meaningless old ages on embezzled money in various countries allied with the US. They merely have to avoid traveling to countries less forgiving of the kinds of governance they were famous for, and still operating under the illusion of rule by law.

The Russians have learned the lesson when the US has bombed Belgrad. The Russian answer was Putin

The Russians had no lesson to learn. And Putin is not the answer to any question about America - Putin is the answer to the question of which strongman was going to win the battle for strongman control of Russia. The former head of the KGB, as it turned out - not much of a surprise there.

 

[iceaura]

No. What I remember is that I have found the context (which you have not provided) myself. Maybe somebody else has also looked for this and found it, irrelevant. I have after this slightly corrected my first impression. So, no, I'm not completely ignorant of it, but aware of it and have taken it into account. For what I have considered the important information for me, the context was irrelevant.

You did not find the context at all.

After being directed and guided you found - and I remember that you did find, as well as others - the missing piece of one video you had not even noticed was missing in your deluded state of mind. But the context of the video you have never yet recognized, or informed yourself about.

And of course you considered that context irrelevant, and still do - that was and is exactly your vulnerability, as has been pointed out to you. You regard your own ignorance as no problem, not a source of error. You are confident you can interpret and allow for propaganda and bias in media, without knowing anything about the physical and historical reality involved. That was how you were victimized, made to look gullible and foolish in public, by clever American propaganda mongers. They took advantage of your ignorance, elicited from you the context they wanted, and you then interpreted their carefully chosen video just as they wanted you to. You got played, as they say in my town.

 

[Schmelzer]

1) That's not the issue: you claimed I had demonized Assad. I have not done that.
2) That's not true: I have made no argument for removal of Assad, nor advocated for that, nor defended the Western attempts to accomplish that.
If simple and accurate descriptions of Assad's regime sound like arguments for his removal, to you, maybe you should reconsider your evaluation of Putin's military support and involvement.

Assad's enemies are not just Wahabis, but also Kurds etc, and his record of brutality in consolidating his acquisition of power has confirmed them. He has not tolerated political opposition, instead performing the standard tyrant two-step upon taking power (cf Stalin, Mao, any number of others) in which an initial period of tolerance and benign rhetoric is employed to identify enemies, who are then stepped on.

Ok, so that we learn here that assigning to him a personal record of brutality and comparing him with Stalin and Mao is not the usual demonization of war propaganda, but, I would guess joepistole truth or so. I'm very sorry that I have so much misinterpreted you.

But if you think democracy has come peacefully to Chile as a result of America's domination and control of its "province", the comparison with what Putin has brought to Syria, Ukraine, and Russia itself, might bring a pause for reflection.

Of course, democracy was there even before Pinochet came, so I don't think the US has given it to Chile. Then came Pinochet, and I think nobody has named that time democratic. Not? Then, I may have somehow completely missed news about a heavy civil war in Chile, so I'm not aware that the removal of Pinochet and the replacement by a democratic rule was not peaceful. If you think there was no American domination during the Pinochet time, so be it, let's note that I believe otherwise.
Given that I'm not a democrat, what would be the aim of your suggested reflection?

No. They are rational cynics choosing the lesser - that is, weaker - of two evils. These are tactics you praise in Putin - even when he brings bombs and soldiers, rather than being clever or hidden.

I praise reasonable tactics to reach reasonable aims. A civil war in a neighbor country is not a reasonable aim. If it is, there is already something deeply wrong with you already on a more fundamental, strategic level.
If to fight is reasonable - and if there are strong terrorist forces which aim to conquer your country, there is - why should I object if Putin brings bombs and soldiers to fight them? To hide them is, in general, not clever, because in the long run it becomes known. Openly fighting for good reasons is honorable. Supporting terrorists is despicable.

The stuff you are describing in Syria is not. Politics does not become subtle by being different from American screwup.

Of course, my descriptions are in no way subtle. They are for a mainly Western forum, with many Americans, thus, I cannot expect that subtleties would be understood. The Russian politics in all this is subtle.

The Russian approach to the Kurds in Syria is divide and conquer - as you yourself described it, detailing the divisions and the goal.

No. I have simply described the fact that the Kurds are divided. Not only geographically, but also politically. In fact, they are far from being a nation in the usual European meaning. The Kurdish state is, essentially, yet another stupid American nation-building project, fatally flawed from the start. There is no evidence at all that Russia tries to divide the Kurds.

Dictators trust nobody, ever. Pinochet certainly did not trust America. And nobody with a lick of sense trusts Putin.

Trust is a very relative thing. If you simply trust nobody, you will be unable to reach anything, and certainly not be able to become a dictator. And there are a lot of people who trust Putin. Starting with the Jeltsin family and the oligarchs who had accepted Putin's conditions. So that your claim about Putin is simply another example how personal demonization by the Western propaganda of the leader of enemy forces works in your case too.

Pinochet, btw, was never arrested or prosecuted or even extradited by the United States - despite money laundering in US banks on his behalf and direction, violent crimes (bombings and murders) committed in the US on his orders, and gross violations of law (and human decency) committed against US citizens in Chile by his command.

I know. I'm talking not about the USA as a state, but about the empire.

The Russians had no lesson to learn. And Putin is not the answer to any question about America - Putin is the answer to the question of which strongman was going to win the battle for strongman control of Russia. The former head of the KGB, as it turned out - not much of a surprise there.

Thank you for supporting my point that to explain more subtle things in such a forum is hopeless. You somehow forget that (at least according to Western propaganda) at that Yeltsin time the Russian leader was a good pro-Western democrat, a good friend of Clinton, and not at all a strongman, and that at that time elections in Russia were very free and democratic and so on. Not?

You did not find the context at all. After being directed and guided you found - and I remember that you did find, as well as others - the missing piece of one video you had not even noticed was missing in your deluded state of mind. But the context of the video you have never yet recognized, or informed yourself about. And of course you considered that context irrelevant, and still do - that was and is exactly your vulnerability, as has been pointed out to you.

If the context is relevant, you would have been able to explain it and provide arguments for this. You have not succeeded with this. If you would have provided better arguments, say, about her medical conditions - that she has some medical problems with her eyes, which are politically irrelevant, but automatically make her look like a maniac, I may have decided differently. Or my point that she is completely corrupt, and corrupt people will not destroy the world.

And, no, that the search of truth is a complex process, where you start with errorneous assumptions and, then, somehow improve them, is something everybody would better know, and if people see me during this process, and, therefore, making claims which I later recognize as false, I have no problem with this. Those who have a problem with this have a greater problem - they are forced to defend undefendable nonsense they have said in the past.

 

[iceaura]

Ok, so that we learn here that assigning to him a personal record of brutality and comparing him with Stalin and Mao is not the usual demonization of war propaganda,

1) I didn't compare him with Stalin and Mao, I compared one of his tactics, accurately, with those famous examples of that tactic in operation - evidence of it being standard tyrant behavior.
2) Get used to it - the guy is who he is. Describe him accurately, he looks bad. That's not demonization.

I'm very sorry that I have so much misinterpreted you

Misinterpreted, misread, misrepresented, mistook. How about you quit doing it?

Of course, democracy was there even before Pinochet came, so I don't think the US has given it to Chile.

Either the peaceful transition to democracy was made as a "province" of the US, or Chile was not a "province" of the US. Make up your mind.

Given that I'm not a democrat, what would be the aim of your suggested reflection?

That you credit the US with better results in Eastern Europe and Chile than anything Putin has even attempted, and remember that when comparing Putin's "subtlety" with whatever the US is screwing up this time.

No. I have simply described the fact that the Kurds are divided. Not only geographically, but also politically.

That's not true. What you described was Putin's division of treatment of different Kurds - bombing some, protecting others.

In fact, they are far from being a nation in the usual European meaning. The Kurdish state is, essentially, yet another stupid American nation-building project, fatally flawed from the start

The attempts to found a Kurdish state have been in defiance of the Americans, and the Americans have been working against them. The Kurdish-proposed State is not a project of the US, but a project opposed by the US.

I know. I'm talking not about the USA as a state, but about the empire.

Then quit talking nonsense about "promises" made by "democrats" to dictators. Whatever you think you are talking about as an "empire" is not composed of democrats, and not an entity capable of making promises.

Thank you for supporting my point that to explain more subtle things in such a forum is hopeless. You somehow forget that (at least according to Western propaganda) at that Yeltsin time the Russian leader was a good pro-Western democrat, a good friend of Clinton, and not at all a strongman, and that at that time elections in Russia were very free and democratic and so on. Not?

Start new topics on new threads.

If the context is relevant, you would have been able to explain it and provide arguments for this.

The context is always relevant. My argument for that was to point to your demonstrated gullibility when encountering American professional propaganda operations, over a half dozen issues from Clinton to climate change to the Confederacy.

For example:

Or my point that she is completely corrupt, and corrupt people will not destroy the world

She is not completely corrupt, only partially influenced. Neither is she a maniac. She doesn't even look like a maniac, in those videos, if you know the context - your perceptions are biased by your preconceptions, your assumed context the propagandists have taken advantage of.

And, no, that the search of truth is a complex process, where you start with errorneous assumptions and, then, somehow improve them, is something everybody would better know, -

If there is a search for truth involved in your posting, it's not visible.

 

[Schmelzer]

Some interesting copypast from some forum (too lazy to check for the original).

London (AFP) - President Bashar al-Assad claimed Western powers are "becoming much weaker" in Syria, in a confident interview published in The Sunday Times.

Assad acknowledged the key role played by Russian airstrikes, saying: "What made the difference, of course, was firepower. They have firepower we don't have."

He added: "At the end we were fighting an unlimited reserve of terrorists coming to Syria and we struggled, so Russian firepower and Iranian support has compensated."

However, he said of the Russians: "They never try to interfere because they don't want anything from us. They don't ask us to be a puppet president."
Assad also confirmed his determination to crush rebel forces in Aleppo.

Interesting, this would look like the West shifts its media politics, once now even interviews with the devil become possible.

Misinterpreted, misread, misrepresented, mistook. How about you quit doing it?

Stop to answer my postings, if you don't like my answers. I will continue to answer objections to my posts, if there are no very strong arguments against this (like, say, author joepistole) and sometimes even in this case. And I will interpret you texts, once I answer them. You will not like these interpretations, and name them misXed. I will never interpret them in ways you like, so there is no reason for hope.

Either the peaceful transition to democracy was made as a "province" of the US, or Chile was not a "province" of the US. Make up your mind.

Learn to read quotes. The quote was "democracy was there even before Pinochet came, so I don't think the US has given it to Chile", which is about something different.

That you credit the US with better results in Eastern Europe and Chile than anything Putin has even attempted, and remember that when comparing Putin's "subtlety" with whatever the US is screwing up this time.

I did not credit the Eastern European results to US. They have to be credited to the Eastern European people as well as the Soviet leadership. Where the US became involved, like in Yugoslavia, thing became horrible enough, with the US starting a war and bombing Belgrad to gain a big military base in Kosovo.

Then Putin came to Power, the transition to more or less liberal democratic capitalism was already finished, and not the problem, and the End Of History already acclaimed.

Then, as a non-democrat, I do not give a lot of credit for a transfer from military dictatorship to democracy. I care about basic human freedoms, like to leave a country, to read what one likes, to say what one likes, and they have not very much to do with what is named today democracy.

That's not true. What you described was Putin's division of treatment of different Kurds - bombing some, protecting others.

Are you completely off? Please quote where I describe Putin bombing Kurds. What Putin has done was not to care much about the Turkish Euphrat shield operation. Before the Kurdish attack against the Syrian enclave in Hasaka the Russian answer to Euphrat shield would have been very different, namely bombing Turkish invasion troops. After this, it was a mild diplomatic protest.

The attempts to found a Kurdish state have been in defiance of the Americans, and the Americans have been working against them.

In official diplomacy, yes. Because Turkey is in the NATO, and they did not want open conflict with Iraq too.

Then quit talking nonsense about "promises" made by "democrats" to dictators.

Literary criticism sometimes has some justification, but here it is off-topic.

The context is always relevant.

No. In a world with two much information, most of it being irrelevant to almost everything, one needs some methods to rationally ignore some parts of the information. One can never completely exclude that the ignored part contains something valuable. But such is life. What you don't ignore based on reasonable criteria, you will ignore because you have not enough time.

My argument for that was to point to your demonstrated gullibility when encountering American professional propaganda operations, over a half dozen issues from Clinton to climate change to the Confederacy.

And in fact what is behind this is simply that you did not agree with my conclusions. And, having no further arguments about the content, started to argue ad hominem and tried to present me as a simpleton. A cheap technique of a loser.

 

[iceaura]

Interesting, this would look like the West shifts its media politics, once now even interviews with the devil become possible.

No shift visible. What change are you thinking you see, and why?

Are you completely off? Please quote where I describe Putin bombing Kurds

You described "different" treatment. I provided some examples of the differences.

I did not credit the Eastern European results to US.

I noticed. The only US behavior you "credit" in the arena - or any arena - is badly motivated military violence and oppression.

That is in tandem with the only Putin behavior you refuse to credit to him, namely badly motivated military violence and oppression.

"Either the peaceful transition to democracy was made as a "province" of the US, or Chile was not a "province" of the US. Make up your mind."
Learn to read quotes. The quote was "democracy was there even before Pinochet came, so I don't think the US has given it to Chile", which is about something different.

No, that wasn't the quote. You don't get to retroactively choose which quotes I am responding to. You referred to Chile as a "province" of the American empire - I pointed out that the US would then deserve credit for the peaceful transition to democracy you praised. So choose.

One can never completely exclude that the ignored part contains something valuable. But such is life.

The context is always critical to the meaning of a video. If you don't know anything about it, you don't know what you are looking at. You have made that very obvious.

In official diplomacy, yes. Because Turkey is in the NATO, and they did not want open conflict with Iraq too.

And also in military policy and economic pressure and political influence - such as refusing to sufficiently arm or support the Kurds in Iraq, because they threatened to establish independence of the central Iraqi government.

So when you posted about US "nation-building" a Kurdish State, you knew better. Noted.

And in fact what is behind this is simply that you did not agree with my conclusions. And, having no further arguments about the content, started to argue ad hominem and tried to present me as a simpleton.

My argument was simply that you were ignorant of the context, in consequence had made very obvious errors of interpretation (including overlooking a blatant edit scam), and were posting familiar wingnut propaganda memes as if they were your "conclusions" without even recognizing that they were wingnut propaganda memes. You have since confirmed that you were ignorant of the context, but instead of informing yourself (or accepting the information I provided, such as the history of Clinton's political conflicts and behavior in fact) have chosen to deny that your ignorance has had the effects any informed person can see in your posts.

So what would be my next step, if I assumed you were arguing in good faith here - an increasingly unlikely assumption?

 

[Schmelzer]

No shift visible. What change are you thinking you see, and why?

Impossible to explain to you, joepistole and others unable to identify the patterns of Western propaganda.

You described "different" treatment. I provided some examples of the differences.

Oh, nice way to describe lies. So, if you see some differences between us, I will also provide some examples, like you murder innocent children and I'm not, and that's fine?

I noticed. The only US behavior you "credit" in the arena - or any arena - is badly motivated military violence and oppression. That is in tandem with the only Putin behavior you refuse to credit to him, namely badly motivated military violence and oppression.

You know, I participated in the turnover in Eastern Germany, and so I can tell this from the first hand. And, then, it is a lie, because the replacement of Pinochet by a democracy, which I have intruced into the discussion, I have attributed to the US empire. In a positive way - even if combined with some criticism of what followed.

No, that wasn't the quote. You don't get to retroactively choose which quotes I am responding to.

????????? I see from the text what you have quoted, and what you have written in response. #362, the third quote from above.

You referred to Chile as a "province" of the American empire - I pointed out that the US would then deserve credit for the peaceful transition to democracy you praised. So choose.

So what? Why I would have to choose? I have no problem with giving some credit to the US if they do good things. The problem is, this seldom happens.
What is the relation to "Of course, democracy was there even before Pinochet came, so I don't think the US has given it to Chile." which you have, for some reason I don't understand yet, criticized? What the US has done was to return democratic power to Chile. Not to give it to Chile.

And also in military policy and economic pressure and political influence - such as refusing to sufficiently arm or support the Kurds in Iraq, because they threatened to establish independence of the central Iraqi government.

As usual with US politics in the Middle East, it is full of contradictions. Some people interpret this as intentional - promising all sides support, money, weapons and so on, and then have fun that a civil war starts in enemy land. "Empire of Chaos" it has been named for this. Some see different factions of the US deep state, with different interests, fighting each other.

So when you posted about US "nation-building" a Kurdish State, you knew better. Noted.

See above. Except for Israel, I know about nobody else who really supports a Kurdish state. That the US support is nothing one can rely upon, a lot of US puppet dictators have learned. Noriega, Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, ... Now the Kurds had to learn this lesson too.

Further usual blabla about how stupid I am disposed.

So what would be my next step, if I assumed you were arguing in good faith here - an increasingly unlikely assumption?

I do not give you recommendations about your behavior, except for general rules of behavior in civilized discussions. Part of this is, of course, that one should accept, as a fact of life, that one seldom succeeds in convincing the other side, and even if one succeeds, this will usually not be openly admitted. Very simply, if you write something which convinces the people, nobody objects. That's all. But they may not object simply out of ignorance too, so you never know. But if you don't succeed, live with it. And don't start speculations about the stupidity of the other side. I have tried to explain you why I thought Clinton is a maniac, looking at the videos, and taking into account all what you have proposed in her defense. I have not succeeded. I accept this fact. I have explained why I have changed my mind since, seeing now some serious mental problem with her eyes, which made her look much more maniacal. I see her today more moderate, of course, with a high body count, but a corrupt, and not an especially maniacal type of murderer who could start WW III intentionally.

But that a vote for Clinton is a vote for war remains.

 

[iceaura]

As usual with US politics in the Middle East, it is full of contradictions.

The US has never supported a Kurdish State in the Middle East. It has always opposed such a State, in practice as well as in rhetoric.

The foolish US nation-building in the area has been focused on the nation of Iraq, which directly conflicts with a Kurdish State.

That is in spite of many American intellectuals and analysts who point out that there is moral as well as practical basis for establishing a Kurdish State, and the US should by its declared principles at least recognize that.

See above. Except for Israel, I know about nobody else who really supports a Kurdish state

Are you bullshitting about Israel also? Because it sounds like you are getting that from the same place you got the US Kurdish State "nation-building", which was your ass.

Impossible to explain to you, joepistole and others unable to identify the patterns of Western propaganda.

Nothing has been better established here than your unreliability in identifying Western propaganda in the first place, let alone "patterns" in it.

The only sense I can make of that latest one is that you think a London newspaper interviewing Assad represents some kind of shift in an organized media operation encompassing the entire Western press, which heretofore has been intentionally excluding Assad from interviews and demonizing him in concert without allowing him to respond.

Here's a New York mass media newspaper interview with Assad from July: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...ssad-not-serious-isis-fight-article-1.2711111
Here's one on a major US TV interview program, government supported public TV no less, from 2013: http://www.thirteen.org/programs/pb...assad-interview-assad-warns-of-repercussions/
Here's one from 2011, in a major rightwing newspaper fully backed by the "deep state" in the US: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703833204576114712441122894

And that's just a couple from the US, the last few years. The man has been interviewed all over the mainstream Western media for his entire tenure in office. Ok?

- I have tried to explain you why I thought Clinton is a maniac, looking at the videos, and taking into account all what you have proposed in her defense. I have not succeeded.

You did succeed. You just didn't like the explanation you successfully presented. You fell for American wingnut propaganda. You got played by professional propagandists, the best in the world.

Assuming, of course, you were posting honestly - not deliberately posting what you knew to be wingnut falsehood, in pursuit of the obvious Russian agenda in the US Presidential campaign. That's the other possibility that fits the facts.

 

[CptBork]

We have already seen the consequences, as in Iraq, as in Libya. What else do you need?

So if we manage to find living relatives of Tsar Nicholas, do you think they should be seated back on the throne, and hope that after centuries of international embarassment and futility, Mother Russia will finally become a prosperous country not populated by lazy, violent, dysfunctional lying drunks? At least the royals weren't threatening a suicidal nuclear war (this actually benefits ordinary Russians who don't want to get nuked).

 

[Schmelzer]

First, the serious things - information about Syria, which I, by error, have put into a wrong thread (sorry): In Aleppo, there are good news. The Syrian side is counterattacking, and they have taken now Tal Muta, an important hill South of the 1070 housings. This may become decisive for the control of the 1070 district, because this hill allows to fire-control the communications toward this district. But 1070 is the closest thing the terrorists partially control which could give them hope to break through to East Aleppo. North of this, in Minyan, the terrorists are also losing the few things they have been able to take.

The US has never supported a Kurdish State in the Middle East. It has always opposed such a State, in practice as well as in rhetoric.

In official rhetoric, I agree. But it has, in the recent conflict in Hasaka, almost openly supported the Kurds fighting the pro-Syrian forces, with threats to shot Syrian airforce because it was too close to American forces. The Kurdish state is a project of the deep state.

The foolish US nation-building in the area has been focused on the nation of Iraq, which directly conflicts with a Kurdish State.
That is in spite of many American intellectuals and analysts who point out that there is moral as well as practical basis for establishing a Kurdish State, and the US should by its declared principles at least recognize that.

Some of these "intellectuals and analysts" sitting in Think Tanks which are considered by many as part of the deep state.

Are you bullshitting about Israel also?

Oh, I'm very sorry that I may have possibly violated some political correctness taboo mentioning Israel.

Nothing has been better established here than your unreliability in identifying Western propaganda in the first place, let alone "patterns" in it.

Nothing has been better established than your unwillingness to see it.

The only sense I can make of that latest one is that you think a London newspaper interviewing Assad represents some kind of shift in an organized media operation encompassing the entire Western press, which heretofore has been intentionally excluding Assad from interviews and demonizing him in concert without allowing him to respond.
Here's a New York mass media newspaper interview with Assad from July: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...ssad-not-serious-isis-fight-article-1.2711111

That NBC interview I had seen also as a sign of hope that something changes. This hope was unjustified. I have to acknowledge that in such cases I tend to be overly optimistic toward a hope for change.

So if we manage to find living relatives of Tsar Nicholas, do you think they should be seated back on the throne, and hope that after centuries of international embarassment and futility, Mother Russia will finally become a prosperous country not populated by lazy, violent, dysfunctional lying drunks? At least the royals weren't threatening a suicidal nuclear war (this actually benefits ordinary Russians who don't want to get nuked).

Let's translate this nonsense into a symmetric American version.

So if we manage to find a living English Queen, do you think she should be seated back on the throne over America, and hope that after centuries of worldwide genocide, war, mass murder, America will finally become a civilized country, not populated by pedophile lying genocidal robberers and murderers? At least the royals weren't threatening a suicidal nuclear war (this actually benefits ordinary Americans who don't want to get nuked).

 

[Yazata]

The SDF have announced an offensive to take Raqqah. This raises more questions than it answers.

Obviously the US wants them to do this right now. With their largest city Mosul under attack, ISIS will have limited resources to devote to the defense of their capital. So the Americans want that vulnerability exploited.

The Kurds have apparently been designated the Americans' surrogate 'local boots on the ground' who will do the hard and dirty work the Americans don't want to do. (With the Americans taking credit.)

So what's in it for the Kurds? Why did they agree to this? Their goal is first-and-foremost to create their Rojava statelet, not to fight ISIS. So the Americans almost certainly promised them something, but what?

Raqqah is a predominately Arab city. So if the SDF does take it, who will occupy it? I doubt that the Kurds will want to do that long-term. In Iraq the objective is to restore Iraqi government control over Mosul. But in Syria, do the US and the SDF propose to turn Raqqah over to Assad's government, the legal government of Syria? Presumably the US anticipates Arab "rebels" taking control of Raqqah after the Kurds do the hard work of taking it, but who will those Arabs be? Big potential problems there.

And what will Turkey's response be? They consider the SDF to be as much of an enemy as ISIS. If the US has suddenly tilted towards the SDF, Ankara won't be happy. So presumably the US is promising the Turks things too. So are Washington's promises to the SDF even consistent with its promises to the Turks? Or are one or both of the Turks and the Kurds going to end up screwed?

And do the Kurds even have the military capability to do as we ask? They don't have armor or very much artillery. They are more of a fighters in back of pickup trucks force. In Mosul, the US has several thousand American forces, embedded as advisors in Iraqi units at the higher command levels, providing direct artillery support, forward air controllers and doubtless other specialist functions like communications intelligence. French forces are doing similar things, as are the British, who are training Kurdish bomb-disposal technicians to remove the booby-traps that ISIS always leaves behind. In Raqqah, the US will supply the air power, but does Washington propose to do any more? At the very least, there will need to be forward air controllers to designate targets in close urban fighting.

That's assuming that it really happens... There still hasn't been much movement on the ground. So maybe everyone is just bullshitting each other. Or may be its a feint, designed to induce ISIS to move assets from Mosul to Raqqah. I kind of suspect that last one.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37894817

https://www.rt.com/news/365533-syria-raqqa-rebels-us/

 

[CptBork]

Let's translate this nonsense into a symmetric American version.

So if we manage to find a living English Queen, do you think she should be seated back on the throne over America, and hope that after centuries of worldwide genocide, war, mass murder, America will finally become a civilized country, not populated by pedophile lying genocidal robberers and murderers? At least the royals weren't threatening a suicidal nuclear war (this actually benefits ordinary Americans who don't want to get nuked).

Ok, so you've answered your own question, by drawing comparisons to the American Revolution and the accompanying freedom, prosperity and general advancement of the human race that resulted: unless they've agreed to a peaceful, democratic and timely transition, all dictators around the globe should be resisted and deposed at any opportunity by those who seek a more liberal, human rights-oriented system of government.

You seem to claim here that American officials have threatened to initiate a suicidal nuclear war, which would imply the use of nuclear weapons in a first strike capacity. Can you provide us with some quotes where President Obama has threatened a nuclear first strike on Russia or any other nation?

 

[iceaura]

Oh, nice way to describe lies. So, if you see some differences between us, I will also provide some examples, like you murder innocent children and I'm not, and that's fine?

So where's the lie, in my post? You describe the typical actions of a strongman extending power by dividing and conquering his foes. I point to your description, and clarify a couple of vague terms in it.

In official rhetoric, I agree. But it has, in the recent conflict in Hasaka, almost openly supported the Kurds fighting the pro-Syrian forces, with threats to shot Syrian airforce because it was too close to American forces. The Kurdish state is a project of the deep state.

So the US is engaged in subtle actions, similar to Putin's? Although maybe there are some differences: http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/151220153

Supporting some Kurds in some circumstances is of course US policy - official and "deep" both. That is not the same as supporting a Kurdish State - remember, that was your point about Putin's actions.

The US has never supported a Kurdish State. Not officially, not clandestinely, not as a project of your imagined "deep state", not at all. The US has opposed a Kurdish State, by word and by deed, consistently, for decades - since WWII if not earlier.

Some of these "intellectuals and analysts" sitting in Think Tanks which are considered by many as part of the deep state.

So? All kinds of stuff comes out of those think tanks - much of it mutually contradictory, very little of it ever adopted as State policy or "project", deep or shallow.

Oh, I'm very sorry that I may have possibly violated some political correctness taboo mentioning Israel.

You have never violated a political correctness taboo, and I don't think you can - certainly not on purpose. You would have to know what they were. Saying bad stuff about Israel is quite common on US internet forums.

The question was whether your allegation there, that Israel supported a Kurdish State, had the same source - your ass - as your allegation that the US did.

By the way: as the people making the moral and ethical case for a Kurdish State have long claimed, the fact that the US opposes it is a criticism of the US. Like Putin, the US is behaving badly towards the Kurds, not doing the right thing, doing wrong and bad things. Agreed?

That NBC interview I had seen also as a sign of hope that something changes. This hope was unjustified.

You claimed that the Western press allowing an interview with the demonized Assad was a new and possibly noteworthy event. You were obviously unaware that such interviews have been commonplace in the Western press since Assad took power. That is your pattern, in dealing with Western propaganda - you lack information about the context, so you get it wrong.

 

[Schmelzer]

Good news from Aleppo: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-hezbollah-seize-key-aleppo-district/ and other sources claim that the Syrian army has taken control of the 1070 housing as well as Tal Muta:

My claim that Tal Muta has been taken two days ago was false, there has been intense fighting around this hill during the last days. Obviously after the hill has been taken, the terrorists have decided to withdraw from 1070. Actually there are claims that they have withdrawn even from Hikma school. Which would mean that they have given up all hopes to break through. This would be the end of the second big terrorist battle for Aleppo.

Good idea to meet the American elections in such a way, giving its terrorists a kick in the ....

You seem to claim here that ....

So you are even unable to understand the point of my joke?

So where's the lie, in my post?

What you described was Putin's division of treatment of different Kurds - bombing some, protecting others.

I did not describe any bombing of Kurds.

So the US is engaged in subtle actions, similar to Putin's? Although maybe there are some differences: http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/151220153

Ok, if you want to use the meaning "illegal, undercover" of "subtle" you can name the US actions "subtle". But this was not the meaning I used.

Then, thank you for providing the source of your "Russia bombing Kurds" fantasy. I was not aware that some Kurdish nationalists claim the Jabal Akrad (Kurdish mountains, presenting them a a single Kurdish Mountain), which have been with Kurdish population long ago in the past but now predominantly Turkmen as yet being full of Kurds. In http://sahipkiran.org/2014/08/05/kurdish-population-in-syria/ one does not even see them in this region. But, indeed, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabal_al-Akrad claims them also to Kurds, even if admitting that they speak, for whatever reasons, Arabic. So, those who claim this region to Kurds seem not to be only a few exceptions.

The funny thing is that when the fighting was indeed in Jabal Akrad, Erdogan was whining loudly about Russia bombing Turkmens.

Supporting some Kurds in some circumstances is of course US policy - official and "deep" both. That is not the same as supporting a Kurdish State - remember, that was your point about Putin's actions.

Just to clarify, nobody claims that the US officially supports a Kurdish state. What the US deep state prefers, is not that clear - the deep state does not make official declarations of what he supports. But there are observers who claim that the deep state, as well as Israel, supports a Kurdish state. The point of such a state would be that, similar to Israel, it would be hated by all neighbors, and therefore had to be a staunch US vassal.

It is, of course, difficult to estimate the seriousness of various claims of what the deep state plans. The web is full of various theories about this. But the deep state support for the Kurds seems sufficiently plausible to me. The Iraq Kurds have been openly supported with a non-fly zone before the aggression against Iraq, the Kurds count now as the US boots on the ground in Syria, that they are supported in Iran is really trivial to guess, so that the only exception is the lack of open support for the Turkish Kurds - which would be problematic with Turkey in the NATO.

You have never violated a political correctness taboo, and I don't think you can - certainly not on purpose

Which is quite characteristic of the totalitarian variant of speech control. You cannot be aware if your speed conforms to the rules or not. The other side of Zinoviev's theorem.
http://ilja-schmelzer.de/agora/Zinoviev.php

 

[iceaura]

I did not describe any bombing of Kurds.

You referred to "different treatment" of different Kurds. I provided examples.

Ok, if you want to use the meaning "illegal, undercover" of "subtle" you can name the US actions "subtle". But this was not the meaning I used.

They were almost exactly the tactics you described as "subtle" when they were Putin's. What difference does their "legality" make?

Just to clarify, nobody claims that the US officially supports a Kurdish state. What the US deep state prefers, is not that clear - the deep state does not make official declarations of what he supports. But there are observers who claim that the deep state, as well as Israel, supports a Kurdish state.

Just to clarify, nobody has ever been confused about your distinction of the "deep state". I find it bemusing that you think the US one is invisible, though. And it has never supported a Kurdish State. It has opposed a Kurdish State.

Which is quite characteristic of the totalitarian variant of speech control. You cannot be aware if your speed conforms to the rules or no

Whereas with politically correct speech in the US, one can very easily be aware of whether or not they would be violating the rules, and easily choose whether or not they want to. And many choose to not conform - there's no real penalty except the loss of respect from some people.

That does not help you, of course.

It is, of course, difficult to estimate the seriousness of various claims of what the deep state plans.

Not really. Not the US one.

The web is full of various theories about this. But the deep state support for the Kurds seems sufficiently plausible to me.

That's because you have none of the information you need. The deep state of the US is not a mysterious, hidden entity. However "plausible" it may seem to you that the US would support a Kurdish State, it in fact does not and never has. The minority of noisy intellectuals in the US who occasionally try to bend US policy toward greater support for a Kurdish State have had no influence as yet. (One of the reasons the US has been so meagre and limited in its backing of the Kurds is the threat of abetting a Kurdish State).

Then, thank you for providing the source of your "Russia bombing Kurds" fantasy. I was not aware that some Kurdish nationalists claim the Jabal Akrad (Kurdish mountains, presenting them a a single Kurdish Mountain), which have been with Kurdish population long ago in the past but now predominantly Turkmen as yet being full of Kurds.

Not only some Kurdish nationalists, but the ordinary demographic and geographic sources available to me, show many ethnic Kurds where Putin bombed. Wiki says they have come to speak Arabic, lately, which is unusual for Kurds - is that what you are talking about?

Meanwhile, that was not my source, merely one example. Putin has also bombed Kurds in Aleppo, Hasaka (sp?), and other places. He is accused of greenlighting the Turkish bombing of Kurds as well (important because Russia controls the airspace involved). He protects some, he bombs some, divide and conquer.

 

[Schmelzer]

The hill Tal Batikh in the North-West of the 1070 has been taken by the Syrian army too, so that now all the important hills around the 1070 are under Syrian control. It remains to take the Hikmah school - but reports are that it has been already left by the terrorists, and will soon be taken too. We will see.

The Syrian army is attacking now in Minyan and Al Assad too, and reports are also quite positive, up to that Minyan has been already liberated.

Such a serious success on the West Aleppo front at the American election day raises the question if there is a cause behind it - that the terrorists have been paid to hold their positions up to the elections, are no longer paid now and therefore leave their positions without much fighting. Speculations, but who knows.

They were almost exactly the tactics you described as "subtle" when they were Putin's.

No.

What difference does their "legality" make?

Of course, for the empire it makes no difference, "legality" exists only in scare quotes.

I find it bemusing that you think the US one is invisible, though.

I don't think so. I have clarified that I think that some official figures are also among them, as well as some Think Tanks, and these are sources not completely invisible. But it is also not as open as you suggest:

The deep state of the US is not a mysterious, hidden entity. However "plausible" it may seem to you that the US would support a Kurdish State, it in fact does not and never has. The minority of noisy intellectuals in the US who occasionally try to bend US policy toward greater support for a Kurdish State have had no influence as yet. (One of the reasons the US has been so meagre and limited in its backing of the Kurds is the threat of abetting a Kurdish State).

The danger of support for the Kurdish state is open conflict with Turkey. Which one wants to prevent yet.

Meanwhile, that was not my source, merely one example. Putin has also bombed Kurds in Aleppo, Hasaka (sp?), and other places.

No. Fine that you distance yourself from that dubious "bombing Kurds in Jabal Akrad" example. In Hasaka, it was the Syrian airforce which was answering Kurdish attacks against Hasaka. In Aleppo, there was no conflict between Kurds and Syrian forces. So, please links to support for this fantasy.

He is accused of greenlighting the Turkish bombing of Kurds as well (important because Russia controls the airspace involved). He protects some, he bombs some, divide and conquer.

The restriction to a quite mild diplomatic reaction against the Euphrat shield operation was, indeed, wildly considered as the Russian answer to Hasaka. (And the American acceptance of Euphrat shield was a serious slap in the face of the Hasaka Kurds, which have thought America would support them). But this was not "bombing some Kurds". And, in fact, there was Russian diplomatic pressure on Turkey which stopped the Turkish attacks on the Afrin Kurds.

 

[Schmelzer]

Here is a photo proof how the Russians distinguish between moderate rebels and terrorists. For moderate rebels they use special, moderate rockets:

"умеренная" means "moderate". The moderate rockets differ from usual rockets in the same way as moderate rebels from terrorists: By how they are colored.

 

[iceaura]

"They were almost exactly the tactics you described as "subtle" when they were Putin's."
No.

Yes.

But this was not "bombing some Kurds"

No. The bombing of some Kurds was "bombing some Kurds".

"What difference does their "legality" make?"
Of course, for the empire it makes no difference, "legality" exists only in scare quotes.

You missed the point: what difference does it make to their resemblance to Putin's actions? A spurious, strongman contrived "legality" is not much of a difference in the actions themselves (as Putin has demonstrated repeatedly, Ukraine flagrantly).

The danger of support for the Kurdish state is open conflict with Turkey. Which one wants to prevent yet.

Whatever the reason, the fact remains: no support for a Kurdish State from the US, deep or shallow or any. Never has been any. Instead, opposition.

No. Fine that you distance yourself from that dubious "bombing Kurds in Jabal Akrad" example.

Try to read: No, I don't. I regard it as pretty well established - certainly you have offered nothing by way of counterevidence. You tell me there's no Kurds there, I find every demographic study (including your link) disagrees. You tell me it was Syrian, not Russian, bombers, eyewitness accounts say they were Russian - and dropping Russian bombs, in any event.

So: different treatment for different Kurds, by Putin - divide and conquer. Standard.