Military Events in Syria and Iraq Thread #4

[iceaura]

Here is an example of a primitive falsification from your side. I did not say that "Ukraine" ruled. I did say that at that time an Ukrainian (Breshnew) ruled.

So you didn't mean that as a counter to observation of central Russian-based hegemony, but instead merely posted it as a side comment of no relevance.
Ok.

This slightly changed later, with time also a few Russians reached leading positions, but the Soviet Union was never ruled by a Russian elite suppressing other nationalities.

The other "Republic" (joke name?) members of the Union were subservient by coincidence, then, and the central power of the State located in Moscow for convenience of the Georgians and Ukrainians and Latvians and Czechoslovakians and Romanians and Lithuanians - and eventually the Khazaks, Afghans, Tuvans, Mongols, how many time zones and degrees of latitude are we up to? All voluntarily enjoying the coincidental convenience of being governed from Moscow and its special policies.
Got it.

Given that the Ukraine was one of the main agrarian regions, this was especially harmful for the Ukrainian population.

"Agrarian reform" - yah, u betcha. From Moscow, of course, like everything else.
To go along with other special little events that especially harmed - by sheer coincidence - other politically strong places, rivals to central Moscow power. Non-Russian places, always, as it turned out. By chance.

First, this was an annexation only in the Western propaganda. The legitimate government of the Crimea (in Kiew, there was no longer any legitimate government after the coup) decided to separate, and then, after a referendum, to join Russia

And you think you are posting to idiots, who will believe anything. Or maybe you actually believe that? - I suppose it's possible.

"Putin's choice of US president" is a funny joke, but not more. Live with the fact that it was the American population which elected Trump

He was your choice as well as Putin's (your political preferences and viewpoints always align with Putin's), and has behaved exactly as predicted by the people who told you why you were wrong. Have you learned anything about fascism, especially its propaganda, from the experience? Can you see it coming, now?

Because now you have Trump with the US military in Syria, jostling with Putin and Assad - whoever gets the ring, Western fascism seems to be gaining another foothold in the Middle East, to go with Israel's slide into apartheid et al. Unless you think Islamic jihad has a ghost of a chance?

The new meme in the Russian blogosphere is that the US becomes a new Ukraine.

With a large, capable, and very well funded military, don't forget. Fascism in Ukraine was safe to rob of its planned booty - Trump's military less so.
And it's aimed at you - if there's any truth to your online persona.

This is after they start to fight Confederate monuments, similar to the Ukraine damaging Lenin monuments

Similar how - they are statues?
You guys still have learned absolutely nothing about slavery in the US, apparently. Or the Civil War. That's ok, it's not your history - but backing Trump because he weakens the US and is (therefore! not a joke!) less of a warmonger than Clinton is not even the silliest, stupidest, most blindly ignorant mistake you have made and will make in consequence.

And the Syrians are just the ones paying the price today, with double bombing from the US even as it loses influence and Assad/Putin despotism gains leverage. Tomorrow, it will be somebody else. Check out Trump's proposed military budget.

 

[Schmelzer]

News of the day: The Syrian army is fighting inside Mayadin. The airport of Mayadin has already been taken. The road Sukhna - Deir Ezzor is again under full control of the Syrian army.

The other "Republic" (joke name?) members of the Union were subservient by coincidence, then, and the central power of the State located in Moscow for convenience of the Georgians and Ukrainians and Latvians and Czechoslovakians and Romanians and Lithuanians - and eventually the Khazaks, Afghans, Tuvans, Mongols, how many time zones and degrees of latitude are we up to? All voluntarily enjoying the coincidental convenience of being governed from Moscow and its special policies.
Got it.

No, all they (including the Russians) enslaved by a communist regime. Which was internationalist, aimed for world rule, and was in no way pro-Russian.

"Agrarian reform" - yah, u betcha. From Moscow, of course, like everything else.

Yes, collectivization. The peasants were forced to join collective, Party-ruled community, Kolchos, which owned everything from the land to the cattle. Officially "volitional". Those who did not join were identifies as evil class enemies and send to Siberia to die. And all this everywhere, not only in the Ukraine. You don't know even elementary facts about Soviet history? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union

To go along with other special little events that especially harmed - by sheer coincidence - other politically strong places, rivals to central Moscow power. Non-Russian places, always, as it turned out. By chance.

You have quite strange opinion about where Russians live. And the famine was simply in essentially all important agrarian regions of the Soviet Union.

And you think you are posting to idiots, who will believe anything.

Reading your answer, I indeed come to the conclusion that I'm posting to at least one idiot. Who has no idea about Soviet history.

He was your choice as well as Putin's (your political preferences and viewpoints always align with Putin's), and has behaved exactly as predicted by the people who told you why you were wrong. Have you learned anything about fascism, especially its propaganda, from the experience? Can you see it coming, now?

Fascism is already there. Liberal fascism. No need to wait for it coming. Before 9/11 one could have some doubt about it, but what happened after this was already pure fascism. Under Bush as well as Obama.

Because now you have Trump with the US military in Syria, jostling with Putin and Assad - whoever gets the ring, Western fascism seems to be gaining another foothold in the Middle East, to go with Israel's slide into apartheid et al. Unless you think Islamic jihad has a ghost of a chance?

Hm. You hope for a chance for Islamic jihad to prevent fascism?

With a large, capable, and very well funded military, don't forget. Fascism in Ukraine was safe to rob of its planned booty - Trump's military less so.
And it's aimed at you - if there's any truth to your online persona.

Those who are considered to be the followers of the Ukrainian example are not the pro-Trump guys, but those who fight against Confederate memorials.

Similar how - they are statues?

If you don't see the similarity, your choice. I have simply given you some information about how some Russian bloggers actually evaluate the situation in the US.

... but backing Trump because he weakens the US and is (therefore! not a joke!) less of a warmonger than Clinton is not even the silliest, stupidest, most blindly ignorant mistake you have made and will make in consequence.

Its not a joke, it is simply your fantasy, as usual. Trump is less of a warmonger than Clinton, fine. This impression was created by what both have said in the election campaign, and how Clinton has commented Trump's attack against the Syrian airbase. It is completely independent from the question that Trump's victory weakens the US, because the Clintonoids are quite powerful and do everything to sabotage Trump's presidency. Which may be, probably, good for the world too.

And the Syrians are just the ones paying the price today, with double bombing from the US even as it loses influence and Assad/Putin despotism gains leverage. Tomorrow, it will be somebody else. Check out Trump's proposed military budget.

Your name ISIS "the Syrians"? Because actually the US bombs in Syria the ISIS territory and nothing else. Looks like I should change my naming conventions. So, if no clarification follows, the following naming conventions will be used in the Syrian thread:
1. ) Al Qaida, Al Nusra, Hatesh or whatever will be the actual name of this terrorist organization remains "joepistole's friends"
2.) ISIS, or Daesh, will be named "iceaura's friends".

 

[iceaura]

Fascism is already there. Liberal fascism.

No such thing exists. Your blind spot for fascism, again.

No need to wait for it coming. Before 9/11 one could have some doubt about it, but what happened after this was already pure fascism. Under Bush as well as Obama.

What happened after 9/11 was not "liberal", and not done by liberals. It was opposed by liberals, and liberals tried to prevent it.
And of course not "pure" fascism. It hasn't taken complete power even yet, with its Party in nominal control of most of the Federal government.
Note: if you actually recognize W's fascism, which seems unlikely since you don't recognize Putin's, how could you miss Trump's? Why do you confuse Obama's ideology with fascism?

You don't see fascism, you don't recognize it, you don't know what it looks like in the US and probably in Russia either, is the obvious explanation. And that's how you came to describe Trump as less of a threat of war than Clinton.

Those who are considered to be the followers of the Ukrainian example are not the pro-Trump guys, but those who fight against Confederate memorials.

That's what I was laughing at, yes. But I don't mean to make fun of them - bloggers say silly things about Russia in the US, too.

If you don't see the similarity, your choice. I have simply given you some information about how some Russian bloggers actually evaluate the situation in the US.

And I informed you of how silly such an "evaluation" is, based as it obviously must be in complete ignorance of American racial politics and the American Civil War.
An interesting question, btw: whether these "bloggers" actually maintain their ignorance in the face of threatening information, the way you do. Is this a self-reinforcing group of guys like you, the way such ignorance based circle-jerks get set up in the US? Because in the US these kinds of things are deliberately instigated and supported by marketing pros hired by plutocrats - propaganda operations. And the necessary plutocrats and oligarch wannabes are thick on the ground in Russia these days.

"... but backing Trump because he weakens the US and is (therefore! not a joke!) less of a warmonger than Clinton is not even the silliest, stupidest, most blindly ignorant mistake you have made and will make in consequence."
Its not a joke, it is simply your fantasy, as usual

It was your explicit claim - you regarded the likely weakening of the US by Trump as a point in his favor over Clinton, diminishing the US military threat and likely to lead to less warmongering. A weaker US was in your interest, you claimed, as less warlike and dangerous. I mocked you for that foolishness at the time, remember? You never see fascism coming, I pointed out.

And now your explicit claims of the past look like other people's fantasies, to you.

Trump is less of a warmonger than Clinton, fine. This impression was created

That was not an "impression" - that was your repeatedly defended contention. And it was a very stupid, ignorant contention, which you supported on one hand by posting the silliest, least credible, hick-targeted Hillaryhate agitprop the American corporate rightwing marketing pros produced, and on the other by posting the most naive, gullible, goofy-ass description of Trump I have ever run across (as a rational businessman and ideologically isolationist conservative who would pull back America's military and reduce "globalization").

Hm. You hope for a chance for Islamic jihad to prevent fascism? - -
- - -
Your name ISIS "the Syrians"?

No. Why do you post such transparently silly attacks on anyone who disparages Putin or Assad in Syria?

Because actually the US bombs in Syria the ISIS territory and nothing else.

Are we supposed to assume you are a moron, who doesn't know who lives in "ISIS territory" - and also has forgotten his very own contentions regarding Trump's bombing campaigns?
Or are we instead forced to recognize that you are simply a liar and propagandist for Putin's regime, and nothing you post - including your informative maps and actual observation, the accurate stuff you know something about, the value of your contributions to such threads as this one - is even intended to be reality-based discussion?

 

[Schmelzer]

What happened after 9/11 was not "liberal", and not done by liberals. It was opposed by liberals, and liberals tried to prevent it.

The president was, some time, not a democrat. So what? That does not mean that there was no democrat support for this. And Obama changed nothing. The fascism remained.

Note: if you actually recognize W's fascism, which seems unlikely since you don't recognize Putin's, how could you miss Trump's? Why do you confuse Obama's ideology with fascism? You don't see fascism, you don't recognize it,

First, I have never said Trump is not fascist. The only non-fascist guy who has participated in election campaigns during the last years was Ron Paul. And I know that whatever iceaura's preferred politicians do is not fascism. Even if they do exactly the same as what iceaura names fascism. And to "know" fascism - in the obvious meaning of following iceaura's definition of fascism, namely that what do those she don't like - is trivial. I see no reason to follow this. The economic system is that of fascism - everywhere, in the US, in Europe, in Russia, in China.

And I informed you of how silly such an "evaluation" is, based as it obviously must be in complete ignorance of American racial politics and the American Civil War.

You may not know about this, but those who make fun of the Ukrainian fight against Lenin statues are not communists. As well as those who make fun of the American liberal fascists fighting Confederate memorials they are not racists. Such fighting against monuments is typical for fascism as well as communism, a well-known indication. It is obligatory part of totalitarian rewriting of history.

An interesting question, btw: whether these "bloggers" actually maintain their ignorance in the face of threatening information,

Of course, the US going completely insane, similar to the Ukraine, is threatening information. And they recognize this very well.

It was your explicit claim - you regarded the likely weakening of the US by Trump as a point in his favor over Clinton, diminishing the US military threat and likely to lead to less warmongering. A weaker US was in your interest, you claimed, as less warlike and dangerous. I mocked you for that foolishness at the time, remember?

You mingle two things: becoming weaker and becoming less warmongering. Let's play the usual: Once it was my explicit claim, quote me. With link. Then I will explain you the differences. But, of course, you will not quote me.

That was not an "impression" - that was your repeatedly defended contention.

LOL. Of course, I will defend even weak impressions, once you don't propose any good counterarguments. But the whole line of my argumentation was that we have a known dangerous warmonger against an unknown. At to pick the unknown is a good gues to pick the less evil. Nothing more. I was well aware - and this was supported later by the bombing of the Syrian airbase - that Trump has an easy way to make peace with the Clintonoids - namely to start the war they wanted himself. He has tried this out bombing that airbase, and got the full support of all the US media, and here too. So, he knows about this possibility, and will probably use it if necessary. We will see. But at least at that moment he has not done it. There is, yet, peace, even if there is occupation of Syrian territory, attacks against Syrian forces, and almost open cooperation with Daesh and al Qaeda against Assad.

No. Why do you post such transparently silly attacks on anyone who disparages Putin or Assad in Syria?

Your formulations were the base. Remember:

Western fascism seems to be gaining another foothold in the Middle East, to go with Israel's slide into apartheid et al. Unless you think Islamic jihad has a ghost of a chance?

Let's try to interpret this. Western fascism is, as far as I understand, evil, not? The question is posed if some force has a ghost of a chance. A chance to prevent this evil, not?

And the Syrians are just the ones paying the price today, with double bombing from the US even as it loses influence and Assad/Putin despotism gains leverage.

The actual situation is that those who are bombed by both sides are ISIS. So, it looks like you present ISIS as the side of "the Syrians".

Are we supposed to assume you are a moron, who doesn't know who lives in "ISIS territory" - and also has forgotten his very own contentions regarding Trump's bombing campaigns?

No. The possibility for an explanation along these lines is what have motivated me to ask questions, you know, these things marked with a ? sign. That the US (not Trump - this is shared, and tradition already from WW II) fight their wars by bombing civilians is well-known. Note also that this point explains only the second quote - where you mingle "the Syrians" with Daesh. The meaning of the "chance" for "Islamic jihad" fighting evil American and Russian fascism remains unexplained.

 

[iceaura]

First, I have never said Trump is not fascist.

You said he was an unknown. He wasn't. He was and is a fascist demagogue, and the nominee of the now entirely fascist Republican Party.

The president was, some time, not a democrat. So what? That does not mean that there was no democrat support for this

You changed to "Democrat" instead of "liberal", for no visible reason except to dodge the issue of your error about US liberals - deliberate dishonesty, or ignorance on parade again?

And Obama changed nothing. The fascism remained.

Obama was not fascist. You said he was, you were wrong. Obama is a center-right largely conservative and mildly authoritarian politician.

Of course, the US going completely insane, similar to the Ukraine, is threatening information.

Like you in your ignorance they have the insanity completely backwards (anti-parallel with Ukraine), and they seem to think it's a new development - which means they are clueless, basically, about US history and politics.
There is no information in such confused misapprehensions, and certainly the observation that the US harbors serious insanity is not threatening news to anyone like me.

But the whole line of my argumentation was that we have a known dangerous warmonger against an unknown

And that whole line of argument is utter bollocks, which was explained to you several times in simple, easy to comprehend English.
Once again: as I have pointed out to you several times now, if Republican Donald Trump is an "unknown" to you we have direct proof that you cannot identify fascism, recognize it in real life, or see it coming. You have a blind spot. (Putin is then an unknown to you as well, btw - for the same reason).

You mingle two things: becoming weaker and becoming less warmongering

No, I referred to you claiming several things - military threat, "globalization", warmongering, travel freedom, etc - would change for the better if the US were weakened, and therefore you were undisturbed by fears of Trump damaging the US and its governance. That was you not recognizing fascism again.

The possibility for an explanation along these lines is what have motivated me to ask questions, you know, these things marked with a ? sign

No, it wasn't. Those were Fox News style questions, bad faith postings designed to make invalid assertions by reframing issues while avoiding accountability. They had no honest motive.
Like this one:

Let's try to interpret this. Western fascism is, as far as I understand, evil, not? The question is posed if some force has a ghost of a chance. A chance to prevent this evil, not?

This is how you are identified as a dishonest poster, full of shit. You post stuff like that.

Back to the maps, no more bs, right ho?

 

[iceaura]

These two get their own little box:
First:

Nothing more. I was well aware - and this was supported later by the bombing of the Syrian airbase - that Trump has an easy way to make peace with the Clintonoids - namely to start the war they wanted himself. He has tried this out bombing that airbase, and got the full support of all the US media, and here too. So, he knows about this possibility, and will probably use it if necessary. We will see. But at least at that moment he has not done it.

Not done what?
Trump doubled the tonnage of bombs being dropped on Syria starting his first week in office and continuing now. He also expanded the authority of the military to bomb elsewhere (Yemen, Pakistan, etc) on its own recognizance, and countermanded Obama's revocation of the authority of the CIA to bomb and rocket people (from W's launching of this rolling depravity). Then he set about trashing the State Department ("Clintonoids") and boosting the War departments (Republican, i.e. fascist, allies).
So your "analysis" there remains - as pointed out to you often before - wrongheaded and ignorant, about Clinton and Trump both.

the second:

"And I informed you of how silly such an "evaluation" is, based as it obviously must be in complete ignorance of American racial politics and the American Civil War."
You may not know about this, but those who make fun of the Ukrainian fight against Lenin statues are not communists. As well as those who make fun of the American liberal fascists fighting Confederate memorials they are not racists. Such fighting against monuments is typical for fascism as well as communism, a well-known indication. It is obligatory part of totalitarian rewriting of history.

I have no interest in whether those silly bloggers think they are communists or not - whatever they are, they are like you ignorant of American racial politics and history. (You never addressed the nature of that ignorance - is it, as similar bandarlog circles are in the US, oligarch funded? Is it defended, as yours is, rigidly and via propaganda techniques?)

There is no such thing as a liberal fascist. It's a contradiction in terms. English is not your language - get a dictionary or something.

The monuments involved, in the US, are part of a successful totalitarian rewriting of history that has taken a century to begin to throw off. They are not like statues of Lenin in Ukraine, they are like statues in Leningrad celebrating the heroism and military skills of Field Marshal Georg von Küchler, or statues of Amon Goeth in Plaszow, celebrating his firm resolve and dedication to his cause even in defeat.

They could have been historical and informative, in other words, if done differently, but they were not and are not. They are coverups, revisions, lies about the past.

You have it backwards, see?

Now, back to Syrian maps, about which you are not, apparently, ignorant - we have learned to allow for your vocabulary and agenda in description, and glean information.

 

[Schmelzer]

You said he was an unknown. He wasn't. He was and is a fascist demagogue, and the nominee of the now entirely fascist Republican Party.

He was known to other people, so what? For me, he was unknown. I had no reliable sources who claimed to be able to predict what he will do. You are certainly not reliable.

You changed to "Democrat" instead of "liberal", for no visible reason except to dodge the issue of your error about US liberals - deliberate dishonesty, or ignorance on parade again?

I changed it because presidents can be classified by being republican or democrat. As well as others in official power. The US liberals are typical fascists, in my opinion. And it does not matter at all if you name disagreement with you dishonesty or however you like, antiiceaurism would do the job too.

Obama was not fascist. You said he was, you were wrong. Obama is a center-right largely conservative and mildly authoritarian politician.

Maybe. I'm not a specialist in distinguishing sorts of fascism.

And that whole line of argument is utter bollocks, which was explained to you several times in simple, easy to comprehend English.

Your repetitions of "I'm right, you are wrong" are easy to understand, but they are not arguments.

No, I referred to you claiming several things - military threat, "globalization", warmongering, travel freedom, etc - would change for the better if the US were weakened, and therefore you were undisturbed by fears of Trump damaging the US and its governance. That was you not recognizing fascism again.

And I continue to think that the world is actually better than it would have been with Clinton. Yesterday, for example, I have read an article in the German newspaper ZEIT about the Ukraine. It was written in quite neutral tone, so neutral that the same text could have appeared in some Russian paper too. This was unimaginable in Obama time, and would have remained unimaginable with Clinton.

Back to the maps, no more bs, right ho?

Ok. If you stop posting bs, I do not have to quote bs. There are not much new maps to post. Maybe this one:

It is the situation around the ISIS capital Mayadeen. One can see that, despite the quite heavy and large scale counteroffensive against the Palmyra - Deir Ezzor road, which shows that Daesh is not yet completely powerless, the Tiger forces are not afraid of attacking Mayadeen based on a quite thin connection with the main forces in Deir Ezzor, not even clearing the villages along the Euphrat. The opinion about this is that, first, the attack has left Daesh without any big reserves, second, the road through the desert is easy to protect, and gives anyway fire control over the Euphrat valley, and third, the Daesh attack seems more serious than it is, given that the forces left to protect the highway are not at all elite forces, but, nonetheless, did not even run away.

Trump doubled the tonnage of bombs being dropped on Syria starting his first week in office and continuing now. He also expanded the authority of the military to bomb elsewhere (Yemen, Pakistan, etc) on its own recognizance, and countermanded Obama's revocation of the authority of the CIA to bomb and rocket people (from W's launching of this rolling depravity). Then he set about trashing the State Department ("Clintonoids") and boosting the War departments (Republican, i.e. fascist, allies).

But there is serious evidence that the financial and other support for the terrorists on the ground has seriously decreased. There were even reports that some groups, after no longer receiving US money, have switched sides and made peace with the Syrian army. "Doubling" sounds serious, but is not. Because the US bombing under Obama was quite irrelevant. Daesh was bombed only when they attacked the Kurds, else they were not bombed at all. Al Qaida was not bombed at all, they were "moderate rebels".

There is no such thing as a liberal fascist. It's a contradiction in terms. English is not your language - get a dictionary or something.

LOL. Google gives 372.000 hits, starting with a Wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Fascism I have read the book and liked it.

we have learned to allow for your vocabulary and agenda in description, and glean information.

That's easy. Unfortunately, in your postings there is not much information to glean.

 

[iceaura]

But there is serious evidence that the financial and other support for the terrorists on the ground has seriously decreased.

US money going into bombs, military contracting, and domestic corruption rather than the losers actually fighting - that's plausible. That's hard on the bombed civilians, the Syrians themselves, but nobody's too worried about them.
Meanwhile, are you sure you want to completely reverse your earlier contention that the US has been stepping up its bribery and corrupt dealings with Syrian "terrorists" recently? You do recall asserting that, right?

He was known to other people, so what? For me, he was unknown.

But Clinton was known. Exactly. And you posted the silliest descriptions of him (and her) I've heard from an adult - straight off the Trump campaign bio and the least dignified of the Trump sycophants, pointing to stuff Trump said as evidence.

You have a blind spot for fascism - you literally cannot see it, right in front of your face.

I changed it because presidents can be classified by being republican or democrat.

No, you didn't. That is not possible - the post you were replying to wasn't about Presidents, and wasn't about Party affiliation. It was about your assertion that liberals in the US generally and significantly supported W's fascist policies after 9/11.

Maybe. I'm not a specialist in distinguishing sorts of fascism.

You are unable to identify fascism. You do not recognize it when it's in front of you, and you mislabel nonfascists as fascists frequently. You even posted, as identifying fascism, corporate capitalism itself - the economic system under fascism - that's how lost you are: you're a math guy getting confused about the direction of implication in a simple argument.

LOL. Google gives 372.000 hits, starting with a Wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Fascism I have read the book and liked it.

Propaganda exists, therefore you believe it? Comedy.
Now you are swallowing the output of paid professional American propagandists hired by the corporate authoritarians themselves, even the joke level stuff like Goldberg's, without even a pause for reflection.

There is an organized, well-financed, long-running fascist propaganda operation in the US to destroy the meanings of political terms - liberal, socialist, leftwing, rightwing, conservative, all the terms used to reason about and publicly discuss political issues. Of all those targeted words, "fascist" is outranked only by "liberal" as a priority for destruction - for obvious reasons. This is a standard strategy of incoming totalitarians - Orwell is not the only alarmist or explicator of this common situation.

To repeat: As so often noted, you are completely vulnerable to American rightwing corporate propaganda - gullible as a baby guppy. You have no operating bullshit detector at all, and the pros play you for a fool. This is why you thought Trump was an "unknown" at the same time as you referred to him as a rational businessman and ideological isolationist, and why you fell for the silliest and crudest of Hillaryhate videos, and why you are unable to comprehend the basics of American racial politics. Your only hope is to avoid it - and even for that you would have to identify it. So not much hope.

I can hand you a couple of tips. Here's one: liberal fascism is an oxymoron. So is leftwing fascism, and so is socialist fascism. Fascism is authoritarian and reactionary, not liberal; rightwing not leftwing; capitalist not socialist.
The people who try to sell those idiocies as clever insight are lying con artists taking advantage of gullible ignorance, swindling people who have no real idea what "liberal" means (by deliberate design and thirty years of propaganda) and think "fascism" is another synonym (like "socialism") for "bad" or "government". Anyone who tries to sell you that swindle or uses those terms you should simply avoid - you cannot evaluate their stuff, and if you pay attention to anything they say or write or worst of all video, you will be swindled.

And you know, on some level, I'm right about that - don't you.

 

[sculptor]

ice mentioned slavery
I suspect that few people understand the transition from indentured servitude to slavery.
for a primer, see John Punch
and then see
Anthony Johnson ( a black Angolan) and the Casor suit
Casor was the first person who had committed no crime but was sentenced to a lifetime of slavery.

 

[Schmelzer]

Meanwhile, are you sure you want to completely reverse your earlier contention that the US has been stepping up its bribery and corrupt dealings with Syrian "terrorists" recently? You do recall asserting that, right?

No, I don't recall that. The Russian MoD attacks that cooperation in a much more open way now. This does not mean that there is really more of it. A point was that the cooperation with ISIS became more obvious, more visible, once the US decided to recolor the black regions into yellow by officially "liberating" them but in reality simply changing flags.

No, you didn't. That is not possible - the post you were replying to wasn't about Presidents, and wasn't about Party affiliation. It was about your assertion that liberals in the US generally and significantly supported W's fascist policies after 9/11.

The big differences between liberals and democrats may be important for you, for me it is the question about different sorts of [self-censored]. So, I'm sloppy about this. Anyway, Hillary Clinton was, as you probably know, one of the main heroes of "liberal fascism".

... and you mislabel nonfascists as fascists frequently. You even posted, as identifying fascism, corporate capitalism itself - the economic system under fascism - that's how lost you are:

Fascism as you use it is nothing but a bad word for everything right-wing. Is it possible to extract something which is common to the known fascist movements? Yes, it is. Corporatism, as the economic system of fascism, is an example. It gives not much, given that this is the economic system of the modern world. There are some common things in the political part too. But these are not the parts you care about. And, given your style of discussion, it makes no sense to discuss them with you. Learn to behave in a polite way, then maybe. Not in this form.

As so often noted, you are completely vulnerable to American rightwing corporate propaganda - gullible as a baby guppy.

I have recognized this already in my communist childhood that I'm very gullible to any western propaganda. Later I recognized that this was simply common sense and receptiveness to arguments, and that it preserved me from being a victim of communist propaganda forever, but allowed me, essentially without having access to any criticism of communism, to get rid of this.
So, what I recommend you: Use my "gullibility to propaganda" using the same methods as these "propagandists" use. Which look, in my gullible mind, like arguments, instead of being classified as cheap ad hominem.

Cheap ad hominem disposed.

And you know, on some level, I'm right about that - don't you.

I know you are wrong about this. But, given your style of argumentation, it is impossible to discuss such things with you.

the silliest and crudest of Hillaryhate videos

If one needs nothing but to extract some parts from interviews with Hillary herself, made with her full knowledge and agreement, to produce crude and silly Hillaryhate videos, bad luck for Hillary.

In comparison, Lavrov was once caught making a short not very diplomatic remark (дебилы, блядь) when the micro was not completely off. It became a meme and made him much more popular.

 

[iceaura]

"Meanwhile, are you sure you want to completely reverse your earlier contention that the US has been stepping up its bribery and corrupt dealings with Syrian "terrorists" recently? You do recall asserting that, right?"
No, I don't recall that.

I do. And I will continue to remember these things. That's what makes a libertarian lefty, in the US - a memory.

The big differences between liberals and democrats may be important for you, for me it is the question about different sorts of [self-censored]. So, I'm sloppy about this.

So is the difference between "presidents" and "liberals", which you likewise overlooked somehow, in the same post. More "sloppiness"? The difference between presidents and liberals not a concern?
Yes, physical reality - the plain facts - guide my reasoning and posting. When I post about a falsehood you have claimed about "liberals", and you answer about "democrats" and "presidents", you are avoiding that plain reality, deflecting for some reason. And when your "sloppiness" is as consistently and directly significant and invariably convenient for your deflections and bullshit as we see here, I don't believe that is coincidence.

Is it possible to extract something which is common to the known fascist movements? Yes, it is. Corporatism, as the economic system of fascism, is an example

Corporate capitalism, you mean. "Corporatism" is not an economic system, any more than "hierarchy" or "industrialism" is.
Meanwhile, "extracting" the characteristic economic system of fascism (corporate capitalism) and insisting on it has been my approach and posting, repeated many, many times on this forum.
Your posting is the reverse - that "corporatism" implies fascism, rather than the (correct) fascism implying "corporatism". That's how you end up with bollocks and absurdities like leftist and liberal "fascism". It's a stupid mistake, for a math guy - not something you would ordinarily do. Why do you think you have fallen into confusion at such a simple, basic level? Is your complete alignment with the silliest and most Orwellian of American fascist propaganda a coincidence, do you think?

If one needs nothing but to extract some parts from interviews with Hillary herself, made with her full knowledge and agreement, to produce crude and silly Hillaryhate videos, bad luck for Hillary.

And you can't even see what's happened to you when it's pointed out. You have lots of American company - the American propaganda operations are the best in the world.
So you are either a gullible victim, like the American Trump voters, or an agenda purveyor - a conscious agent of the American fascist propaganda operations. I think you actually suckered for that - I vote victim.

Fascism as you use it is nothing but a bad word for everything right-wing.

That's bizarrely false - hard to give you credit for honest foolishness there. How could you possibly have come up with that one?

But we have a source for your goofiness ready to hand - that's what Goldberg and that propaganda operation says about Americans like me. And you believe what guys like Goldberg write, even in the face of what's on the screen in front of you. My actual posting is irrelevant, you don't even register its content, in the presence of Goldberg et al's framing.

It's also, btw, the standard, perfectly familiar employment of the presumptive accusation as employed by American fascist propagandists, especially visible in the 2016 campaign. (It's they who want to destroy the meaning of words like "fascism") You are a conduit for that Orwellian swill, here. You have no bullshit filter. You simply repeat the lines, the accusations, the framing, the entire Republican campaign schtick, no matter how ridiculous, like some kind of parrot.

The reality of my posting is exact and blatant and explicit opposite of your claim, of course. I have spent a good share of my posts here, especially with the wingnut propagandists like you, dozens of postings in many threads, pointing out that some rightwing governance you have bullshit labeled "fascism" (or even leftwing - you guys are badly lost) is nothing of the kind. Right to your face. Over and over.
So we see that this use of "fascism" to mean "bad" is how you (and Goldberg, and Fox News, and the American rightwing mass media) use the word "fascism", not me - including, for example, your labeling of the rightwing Obama, Clinton, and every American candidate for President in 2016 except Ron Paul, "fascist". Do you remember that - or has that drifted into the memory hole as well?

Your maps remember stuff. Concentrate on them, forget American politics - you know better what you are talking about in Syria.

 

[Schmelzer]

I do. And I will continue to remember these things.

Fine, no problem. But if you remember such things, please with quotes. Else they will be named lies.

So is the difference between "presidents" and "liberals", which you likewise overlooked somehow, in the same post.

May be I have overlooked something, but actually I'm unable to make sense of this sentence.

When I post about a falsehood you have claimed about "liberals", and you answer about "democrats" and "presidents", you are avoiding that plain reality, deflecting for some reason.

For the quite simple reason that I'm to lazy to find out who at which time really ruled. For the president, this is easy, in many other power centers the situation is different, one would have to google. It is quite common that the president is one party and the power in the Congress is the other, so that every important political decision is essentially bipartisan. My opinion about the US is quite clear, it is essentially fascist after 9/11, which was a sort of Reichtstagsbrand, and this fascism is bipartisan. Liberal fascism as well as conservative fascism. Both combinations are oxymorons from point of view of the historical meaning of the word "fascism", which was both antiliberal and revolutionary, anti-conservative (as Mussolini, as Hitler). But that the next fascism will come in some anti-fascist disguise was predicted long ago. In Europe, actually the main fascist movement is green, and the modern storm troopers are named Antifa.

That this is my position you should have already understood. That the result is sloppiness about the sorts of shit is a natural consequence.

Corporate capitalism, you mean. "Corporatism" is not an economic system, any more than "hierarchy" or "industrialism" is.

I couldn't care less how you name it. There is also the Leninist word imperialism as well as the 68er Stamokap (state-monopolist capitalism) available. But I will continue to name it corporatism. Because this is the established name for the economic system of fascism. Live with it.

Your posting is the reverse - that "corporatism" implies fascism, rather than the (correct) fascism implying "corporatism".

This is not my posting but, as usual, your fantasy. To clarify my position: There was a big difference in the past between communism and fascism, which was the economic system. Corporatism (or capitalism if you like) vs. complete state ownership. Once the economic model of communism is as dead as possible, and the alternative to both - a free market - is non-existent, corporatism is the economic system which actually rules, everywhere. From a Marxist point, this decides everything. This was, essentially, Stalin's point of naming social democrats "social fascists". But I'm not a Marxist. So, I think corporatism is compatible with a lot of different things.

And you believe what guys like Goldberg write, even in the face of what's on the screen in front of you.

There is nothing in front of me in any conflict with the main theses of Goldberg. The obvious and trivial point that you don't like it is not a contradiction which matters. I have always liked before Arendt's totalitarism theory, and Goldberg was simply a nice collection of facts of history, namely that many of those things which today are considered obviously fascist had a lot of support in the past from the left. I was also not aware about the socialist origins of Mussolini. Was there anything in your postings in conflict with these historical facts? I don't remember, feel free to help my memory with some links.

My actual posting is irrelevant, you don't even register its content, in the presence of Goldberg et al's framing.

There is not much connection between my framing of you as a totalitarian Party soldier - which was based on your discussion techniques here - and anything Goldberg wrote. A book more relevant to your behavior is Scruton, Fools, Frauds and Firebrands.

The reality of my posting is exact and blatant and explicit opposite of your claim, of course. I have spent a good share of my posts here, especially with the wingnut propagandists like you, dozens of postings in many threads, pointing out that some rightwing governance you have bullshit labeled "fascism" (or even leftwing - you guys are badly lost) is nothing of the kind. Right to your face. Over and over.

That you don't like it, and repeat it many many times, does not make it an argument.

So we see that this use of "fascism" to mean "bad" is how you (and Goldberg, and Fox News, and the American rightwing mass media) use the word "fascism", not me - including, for example, your labeling of the rightwing Obama, Clinton, and every American candidate for President in 2016 except Ron Paul, "fascist". Do you remember that - or has that drifted into the memory hole as well?

Of course, I do not like fascists. So, fascists are a subset of bad in my use of the word too.

But, in fact, naming all but Ron Paul fascist was, in fact, a concession to you. In the past, my use of fascism was restricted to openly self-declared fascist movements. Like the Bandera-fascist movement which rules in the Ukraine. You cried all the time "Trump is fascist". Ok, I can accept this, and agree with you about Trump being fascist. Not that incorrect, if one uses a wider sense of fascism, which includes also movements which are inherently fascist, but refuse to support fascism openly. But in this case I will cover them all. Inclusive the Green movements in Europe, and inclusive liberal fascism in America.

And even this would not include simply every right-wing political force, like AfD in Germany, which is simply conservative but in the left-wing propaganda named fascist. Jihadism is also not included. I may have sometimes sloppily used "islamofascism" too, but it is nonsense. However nonsensical the interpretation, but it is conceptually a revival of the Islamic traditions, which includes an independent court system of Sharia courts, which decides based on their interpretation of the Koran teachings and islamic tradition, and not the political will of, say, some Al Bagdadi.

 

[iceaura]

Fine, no problem. But if you remember such things, please with quotes. Else they will be named lies.

You "naming" things has no basis in reality. You're being played for a fool by professional propagandists familiar to Americans like myself from many years of inundation. All of your "naming" of my posts is from them.

May be I have overlooked something, but actually I'm unable to make sense of this sentence.

In which case you didn't understand any of the rest of the post either. But that was obvious anyway - it's the goal of the propagandists that hold you in thrall.
Try this: Read your reply to my correction of your ignorant and false claims about liberal support for W&Cheney's behavior after 9/11. Find the words "president" and "democrat", and cross them out as mistaken and irrelevant. Then reread what's left.

There is nothing in front of me in any conflict with the main theses of Goldberg

Nonsense. Of course there is. My consistent and precisely restricted use of terms like "fascist" and "socialist" and "left" is one obvious example, undeniably right in front of you without doubt, that's easy to reference. All you have to do is read in good faith. If you don't want to do that, consider that according to Goldberg the Republican administration's response to 9/11 in the US was not fascist - contrary to your claims and mine both.

There is not much connection between my framing of you as a totalitarian Party soldier - which was based on your discussion techniques here - and anything Goldberg wrote

Your framing of all American politics is straight from the American fascist agitprop, and has almost nothing to do with my posting. That's why you make these silly mistakes - they are lies and slanders and bullshit you got from that source. They are the Republican Party Line, and you're posting it.

Of course, I do not like fascists. So, fascists are a subset of bad in my use of the word too.

When you try to pretend you didn't post what you posted, you are lying.
This is what you posted:

Fascism as you use it is nothing but a bad word for everything right-wing.

Explicitly not subsets, but "everything right-wing". That was your goofy, bizarre, inexplicable contention, which has one source - and my posts are not that source.

But, in fact, naming all but Ron Paul fascist was, in fact, a concession to you

No, it wasn't. That was you once again naming as "fascists" ordinary conservative rightwing authoritarian politicians, after I had repeatedly corrected you.

In the past, my use of fascism was restricted to openly self-declared fascist movements.

Which would be silly when talking about American politics - the propagandists in America are far more sophisticated than that.

For the quite simple reason that I'm to lazy to find out who at which time really ruled

That has nothing to do with it, except to once again support my repeated observation that you seem to be posting silly bs because you are willfully ignorant. You lack information, and you refuse to accept it - you defend your ignorance.
You made a false claim about liberals in the US after 9/11. That false claim is perfectly aligned with, identical to, the deliberate falsehoods and slanders standard in American fascist propaganda feeds. So are almost all your other falsehoods, slanders, and bullshit framings.
Like this one:

Inclusive the Green movements in Europe, and inclusive liberal fascism in America.

There is no such thing as "liberal fascism". It's an oxymoron. It makes no sense, and deprives both "liberal" and "fascist" of their meaning. So ask yourself - who benefits from destroying the usefulness and meaning of political terms like that? Cui bono?
Clue: That illiterate stupidity is now being intensively marketed and promoted by fascist propaganda operations in the US, as an Orwellian tactic designed to prevent their political movement from being identified and described in the public discourse (which would engender almost universal opposition and make seizing power all but impossible).

The goal is to produce a lot of this kind of gibberish in the public discussion, a cloud of bullshit screening the seizure of power.

My opinion about the US is quite clear, it is essentially fascist after 9/11, which was a sort of Reichtstagsbrand, and this fascism is bipartisan. Liberal fascism as well as conservative fascism. Both combinations are oxymorons from point of view of the historical meaning of the word "fascism", which was both antiliberal and revolutionary, anti-conservative (as Mussolini, as Hitler). But that the next fascism will come in some anti-fascist disguise was predicted long ago.

Notice the nature of bullshit - there are facts in there, such as the noticeable intensification of the US movement toward fascist governance in the wake of 9/11, and the contribution of some members of the Democratic Party to this degradation (not most of them, of course - it was Republican Party based and run and powered, not "bipartisan" - but enough to count). But this factual content is used to deceive, to grease the skids, to set up the money play: drawn by this plausibly biased and not ludicrous observation, we are slid into intellectual batshit: the word "fascism" is presented as having had a "historical meaning" which has been changed in some unspecified way at some unspecified time, and that change of meaning has apparently changed the reality of fascism itself - so that what were once oxymoronic combinations of mutually contradictory terms are now presented as describing a new reality.
It's as if alleged changes in the meaning of "round" and "square", or misuse of those terms by some people, had produced a reality in which round squares existed.

 

[Schmelzer]

You "naming" things has no basis in reality.

Once you are unable to support your fantasies about what I have written with quotes, naming them lies has a base in reality.

My consistent and precisely restricted use of terms like "fascist" and "socialist" and "left" is one obvious example, undeniably right in front of you without doubt, that's easy to reference.

Your naming may be consistent, but it is irrelevant. You are not an instance which defines the correct use of these terms. Moreover, I do not care that much about words, I care about content. Goldberg has presented a lot of it. You have presented nothing.

If you don't want to do that, consider that according to Goldberg the Republican administration's response to 9/11 in the US was not fascist - contrary to your claims and mine both.

The point being? As if this would matter.

There is no such thing as "liberal fascism". It's an oxymoron. It makes no sense, and deprives both "liberal" and "fascist" of their meaning. So ask yourself - who benefits from destroying the usefulness and meaning of political terms like that? Cui bono?

The time when "liberal" had a meaning are anyway long gone. You remember the discussions we had about European vs. American meaning of liberal? Even the so-called liberal parties in Europe have not much to do with the original liberal ideas you can read in, say, Mill On Liberty. American liberalism has already nothing to do with it, with support for racists and sexist quotas instead of equality before the law and fight against politically incorrect speech.

Fascism is even more useless. I may have been wrong attributing to you that everything right-wing is fascism, this is simply what is the common use of the word here in Germany. So, the AfD, which is simply a little bit more conservative than Merkel's CDU (which is, essentially, a social democratic party, at least the program is indistinguishable from the social-democratic one) is permanently defamed as fascist.

For me, such words are not a political weapon for defamation, simply because defamation is not what I want to do. Words are useful if they have a well-defined meaning. They may be simply names, even misleading as names (like "inflation" or "color" in physics). In math it is even easier, one has to define the words one is using explicitly, and all established words have a precise definition. If you want to name something new, define it and use a yet unused word or phrase for this. Then, there are some words useful for classification. Say, names used in biology.

There was such a useful meaning initially as for "liberal" in the time of Mill, as for "fascist" in the time of Mussolini, as classifications of political movements in different countries which had a lot in common, and used these labels to name themselves to underscore their connection. It no longer exists. Too many people use these terms in too many different meanings.

"Liberal fascism" is, of course, an oxymoron, and an intentional use of an oxymoron. A rhetorical, polemical use. It tells that those who name themselves in America "liberal" have, quite objectively, much more in common as in their actual politics, as in their traditions, with fascism, than they would like to admit. And Goldberg has made a good job, found a lot of fascist ideas in the left-wing tradition. But this is the content of the book - and not what you care about. Else, you would argue, say, that he has quoted all those left-wing writers with fascist ideas out of context or so.

Fascism has no usefulness today, beyond its use for defamation of the political enemy.

 

[iceaura]

'If you don't want to do that, consider that according to Goldberg the Republican administration's response to 9/11 in the US was not fascist - contrary to your claims and mine both."
The point being? As if this would matter.

That your claim to have nothing in front of you conflicting with Goldberg's major theses was silly, and your acceptance of his writings is proof of your extreme vulnerability to American fascist agitprop.

Moreover, I do not care that much about words, I care about content. Goldberg has presented a lot of it.

You ignore content, rigidly refuse to adjust your vocabulary in the light of information, and accept even the most idiotic of nonsense if it comes from the American fascist propaganda operations

"Liberal fascism" is, of course, an oxymoron, and an intentional use of an oxymoron. A rhetorical, polemical use.

And you suckered for it. You who claim to have read Orwell.

And Goldberg has made a good job, found a lot of fascist ideas in the left-wing tradition. But this is the content of the book - and not what you care about.

Half of that false, and all of it bullshit - accurate only by chance, and present only to deceive. You ignored that, believing yourself immune to such crude deception.

There was such a useful meaning initially as for "liberal" in the time of Mill, as for "fascist" in the time of Mussolini, as classifications of political movements in different countries which had a lot in common, and used these labels to name themselves to underscore their connection. It no longer exists. Too many people use these terms in too many different meanings.

Not "too many people", but the media operations of a certain political faction engaging in propaganda - the people who do that, like Jonah Goldberg, are a distinct group with an agenda. And here you are a conduit for their product - like a sewer pipe.

Fascism has no usefulness today, beyond its use for defamation of the political enemy.

That's the Party Line of the American fascist movement. That's a major part of its propaganda schtick, in a nutshell.
That's why you can't see them coming.

But we can allow for that, when you are posting on topics about which you have information - like Syria.

 

[Schmelzer]

The Syrian army has reached in Deir Ezzor the most important bridge - from the Eastern side.

That your claim to have nothing in front of you conflicting with Goldberg's major theses was silly, and your acceptance of his writings is proof of your extreme vulnerability to American fascist agitprop.

Goldberg has not named the Republican administration's response to 9/11 in the US fascist. I have not too, at that time. That I have named it now fascist, was a kind of compromise with you, as explained: This would be the necessary consequence of following you naming Trump fascist, as you insist. This is irrelevant naming. Do you have any conflict about the content?

You ignore content, rigidly refuse to adjust your vocabulary in the light of information, and accept even the most idiotic of nonsense if it comes from the American fascist propaganda operations

I see not much reason to adjust vocabulary. This is not content for me, but simply arbitrary names. For you, this may be content, because your politics is name-calling, and it is important for your defamation operations.

And you suckered for it. You who claim to have read Orwell.

What is Orwellian is your use of "denier". "Liberal fascism" is something very different.

Half of that false, and all of it bullshit - accurate only by chance, and present only to deceive. You ignored that, believing yourself immune to such crude deception.

Feel free to present examples. Of course, I did not check the quotes, so if they were fake, or out of context, I would be deceived. I have assigned a probability to this - quite low, given that quotes can easily be checked, and will be by his political enemies, so if he is not stupid, he would be accurate. Even the negative reviews which made it into the Wiki do not make such claims. Moreover, the harm if being deceived is quite low, nothing serious depends on this. This is how I work - I do not dream about some immunity. But I make expectations about the plausibility of being deceived and the harm caused by this.

 

[iceaura]

Goldberg has not named the Republican administration's response to 9/11 in the US fascist. I have not too, at that time. That I have named it now fascist, was a kind of compromise with you,

Bullshit.

This would be the necessary consequence of following you naming Trump fascist, as you insist.

You have apparently forgotten not only how long and how often you have been referring to US post-9/11 policies as fascist (dozens of times over months, possibly years), but even your earlier elaboration in this thread of why and for what reasons you labeled the US post-9/11 "fascist" (when you were asserting "liberal" support): you referred to key German events in the conversion to fascism as similar, for example. Nothing to do with Trump, and nothing to do with my posting.
I don't forget, see?

What is Orwellian is your use of "denier". "Liberal fascism" is something very different.

Nonsense.
"Denier" I seldom use (more often "denial" referring to visible behavior, or some phrase) but always accurately and consistently for its standard dictionary meaning. Perhaps you have confused your posting, in which you have very frequently deflected issues by claiming I have illegitimately labeled you a "denier", with mine?

"Liberal fascism" is classic Orwellian verbiage, newspeak exemplified (it's even new, as well as politically based and propaganda employed).

Feel free to present examples. Of course, I did not check the quotes, so if they were fake, or out of context, I would be deceived.

The entire book is the example, and you presented it not me. Accuracy of quotes is completely irrelevant - a deflection. The book is a work of bullshit: a conglomeration of facts, falsehoods, events, fantasies, truths, lies, and slanders with no purpose beyond deception, written and published and promoted as part of American fascist propaganda operations.
You suckered. You are unable to defend yourself against professional American agitprop.

I see not much reason to adjust vocabulary.

That's what I claimed, yes.

This is not content for me, but simply arbitrary names.

So: The meanings of the words you use are arbitrary, and have nothing to do with the content of your posts. But you refuse to adjust your vocabulary. Therefore you are not indifferent to which words you use, you are using those specific words for a reason, it's just that the reason has nothing to do with what they mean.
I couldn't have defamed you more pithily if I'd been trying to.

Meanwhile, why not return to some area of understanding and competence for you, somewhere you can avoid embarrassing yourself: Syria.

 

[Schmelzer]

There is news that the Syrian army controls already one half of Mayadeen.

You have apparently forgotten not only how long and how often you have been referring to US post-9/11 policies as fascist (dozens of times over months, possibly years), but even your earlier elaboration in this thread of why and for what reasons you labeled the US post-9/11 "fascist" (when you were asserting "liberal" support): you referred to key German events in the conversion to fascism as similar, for example. Nothing to do with Trump, and nothing to do with my posting.
I don't forget, see?

I don't forget too. Once I switch to a wide meaning of fascism, which no longer includes only openly self-declared fascists like those in power in the Ukraine, then the US after 9/11 is fascist. Even if I'm ready to make a compromise about "Trump is fascist", that does not mean that I accept your choice to name your most hated political enemies fascist, or whatever your criterion is. It means I use some other, more or less reasonable set of criteria. And this set of criteria has nothing to do with Trump, it should make sense independently. And, of course, this switch was not related with some particular recent posting, you named Trump fascist already during the election campaign, so that this is already a year now too.

"Denier" I seldom use

http://www.sciforums.com/search/9550570/?q=denier&o=date&c[user][0]=27090

"Liberal fascism" is classic Orwellian verbiage, newspeak exemplified (it's even new, as well as politically based and propaganda employed).

You obviously don't understand the difference between a rhetorical use of an oxymoron, which makes a serious point - namely about the affinity to fascism of those who name themselves liberals (even if they have almost nothing in common with classical liberalism), with the totalitarian use of phrases like that "Freiheit ist die Einsicht in die Notwendigkeit".

Accuracy of quotes is completely irrelevant - a deflection.

I'm not surprised.

So: The meanings of the words you use are arbitrary, and have nothing to do with the content of your posts.

Nice try. No, the use is not arbitrary. The word I use have a meaning. But this meaning is a convention. So, the meaning of a word can change, and often changes. If such things happen, I'm ready to adjust my vocabulary. So, after I had understood that "liberal" is in America some variant of a totalitarian sect, I no longer use it. Or add "classical" or "European" to make clear what I mean.

But a lone leftist freak telling me what has to be the meaning of a word according to the actual Party line is not enough evidence that it makes sense to adjust the vocabulary.

Meanwhile, why not return to some area of understanding and competence for you, somewhere you can avoid embarrassing yourself: Syria.

I have the bad habit to answer almost everything, even if I know that this is a loss of time. It is a sort of "one has to look at it, maybe there is, even if there is no reason to hope for this, some argument worth to think about".

 

[iceaura]

"Denier" I seldom use
http://www.sciforums.com/search/9550570/?q=denier&o=date&c[user][0]=27090

That's 70 posts, most in sets of three to five (one occasion, with replies etc), of what - 20, 000? - and not all of them relevant to your claim. As I said: it's a term I seldom use.
And even in these occasional uses, note they categorize behavior rather than persona (a distinction you go out of your way to avoid and erase, when misrepresenting my posts, and one you do not respect yourself).
And in each one, the word is used accurately and for its dictionary meaning, same as for the last hundred years - nothing Orwellian appears.
Unlike your use of "liberal fascism", which is a type specimen of newspeak and comically so - Orwellian to the point of laughter.
Your claim was false, obviously so.

You obviously don't understand the difference between a rhetorical use of an oxymoron, which makes a serious point - namely about the affinity to fascism of those who name themselves liberals

That's not a serious point. It's bullshit. And he didn't actually make it - he just said he did, after piling up slanders and meaningless correlations and revisions of history.
It's bullshit even before we get to the comical absurdity of basing the whole pile on those who "name themselves" liberals. A piece of goofiness that goes perfectly with your pride in accepting as fascists only those who name themselves fascists, and the common wingnut acceptance of Nazis as socialist because they named themselves Socialist.

"Accuracy of quotes is completely irrelevant - a deflection."
I'm not surprised.

That's a lie, actually - your careful removal of context allowed you to pretend to another meaning, and pretend to respond, and thereby slander.
Unless you were really being stupid, of course, and missing the original point - always the question, when dealing with rightwing American propaganda feeds: are they lying, or are they stupid?
You are not surprised? of course. Or comprehending. Or honest: the book you claimed to have read, entirely - not just a few quotes - was your contribution in the first place. Now you pretend the accuracy of a few quotes is an issue, to give yourself cover for having been so badly suckered by that bullshit book? Please.

Nice try. No, the use is not arbitrary.

You mean "yes". Exactly my point. As I pointed out: You aren't using these words for their meanings - but you are using them for a reason. There's an agenda involved.

So, after I had understood that "liberal" is in America some variant of a totalitarian sect, I no longer use it.

You've been using it, right here, in American fascist agitprop mode, and defending that use of it. Sucker.
Also the liberals in America are nothing of the kind - more rightwing propaganda standards, you have been duped by the pros (again). Will you ever learn? I think not.

One wonders whether you are as gullible in the face of other bigtime propaganda operations - seems unlikely, they aren't as good and you are much better informed elsewhere, but then you are really quite defenseless here. Who's telling you about Syria?

 

[CptBork]

Liberal fascist = anyone who doesn't respect or acknowledge Russian/white racial supremacy, depending on the geographic location where the term is invoked.