Military Events in Syria and Iraq Thread #4

[Schmelzer]

I was a few days offline, so here a summary for several days.

The main news from 14. was the liberation of Mayadeen. Given that the attack on Mayadeen has been done by moving through the desert, there remained a lot of villages on the Euphrat river encircled. So, after liberating Mayadeen, the Syrian army has started to clear this pocket. It seems they are finishing this job now. The remaining place, Muhassan, seems to have been left by Daesh, so that it remains to clear and demine it.

There is also quite good progress in Deir Ezzor itself. The villages on the Eastern side of the Euphrat near Deir Ezzor have been liberated completely, so that the remaining Daesh forces are encircled now completely. And several quarters have been liberated, the remaining pocket split into two parts.

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

LOL. Those who believe into Russian racial supremacy do not use "fascist" as a bad word, but name themselves fascists.

... 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.

I distinguish liberals (those who support classical liberalism) from those who name themselves liberals today in America because these are very different political movements. Once two very different things use the same name, one has to decide whose pretense is more justified. I have a clear preference here for the classical liberals. Without such a conflict, I would accept without hesitation the decision of the American left-wing totalitarians to name themselves liberals. Nazi politics had enough in common with socialist politics, the conflict between them is not bigger than it was, say, between Russian and Chinese variants of communism

That's a lie, actually - your careful removal of context allowed you to pretend to another meaning, and pretend to respond, and thereby slander.

Wow, careful removal of context. Your context are the usual bad words, nothing worth to preserve, because there was nothing given to support the bad words. So, what I have extracted was the only information about the book you have given. That you name the book bullshit is not information, but predictable given your known behavior and its political direction.

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.

Of course I will not learn to accept your Party line without good arguments. And, unfortunately, you have none. The totalitarian methods of argumentation I was able to study on your example in the denier thread. I have to thank you for this, I was not aware before that American liberals are already so much totalitarian as this thread has shown me they are.

Who's telling you about Syria?

A main source are some Russian (Russian speaking) military forums. Some twitters which have appeared reliable, Al Masdar, as a quite new source https://muraselon.com/en/ . If you ignore propaganda-prone claims about bombed hospitals and so, and restrict yourself to the news one cannot fake without being identified as unreliable after a short time, it is quite easy to find reliable sources.

 

[Yazata]

The battle for the Syrian city of Raqqah, Islamic State's former capital, is nearing an end. Some reports say that the fighting is over, other reports say that a small handful of fanatics are still holding out in a few locations, including a sports stadium and several large buildings. (Reminds me of the last days of the Battle of Berlin and the room by room battle for the Reichstag.) There may be some pockets in residential areas.

Apparently a few days ago many of the ISIS fighters reached an agreement with the SDF allowing them to flee. About 300 others decided to remain in Raqqah and fight to the death for martyrdom. They have been, and may still be, defending well dug in fortified positions that have been the subject of many air strikes. The last black Islamic State flag has been torn down.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/17/us-military-says-is-capital-raqqa-90-percent-freed.html

https://www.voanews.com/a/islamic-state-raqqa-/4073621.html

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2...d-defeated-syrian-capital-raqqa/#.WeZaLCJSzrc

 

[iceaura]

LOL. Those who believe into Russian racial supremacy do not use "fascist" as a bad word, but name themselves fascists.

Conveniently for you, since that's the only way you can recognize fascism.
But irrelevant here. You suckered for "liberal fascist" as found in American corporate authoritarian propaganda. You even fell for Jonah Goldberg's book - that would be embarrassing, for an American intellectual. That's Dittohead level "thinking".

I distinguish liberals (those who support classical liberalism) from those who name themselves liberals today in America because these are very different political movements. Once two very different things use the same name, one has to decide whose pretense is more justified.

You are not able to make such assessments, because you know too little about American politics. (You may be equally ignorant and misinformed about "classical" liberalism, as indicated by your post about "liberal fascism", but your ignorance of American politics suffices regardless).
For example, it's quite silly - childishly naive - to base political analyses on how people name themselves or each other in American politics - where the corporate authoritarians use names as branding and marketing tools rather than informative labels, and change them strategically from time to time. If (as in your case) you're getting your idea of how people name themselves from Republican Party campaign materials, you have crossed from naive into ridiculous.

Of course I will not learn to accept your Party line without good arguments.

Or with them. You forget your history here, your behavior when presented with arguments.
Meanwhile, you have yet to acknowledge or comprehend my line - you couldn't "accept" it if you wanted to.
And so you will continue to refer to it as a Party line, despite being unable to either paraphrase the Line or identify the Party, because that comfortable illusion allows you to ignore your gullibility for agitprop from American fascists and marketing from authoritarian corporate interests.

The totalitarian methods of argumentation I was able to study on your example in the denier thread. I have to thank you for this, I was not aware before that American liberals are already so much totalitarian as this thread has shown me they are.

You know actually less than nothing about domestic American politics, because in your ignorance you have committed yourself to the Republican Party Line worldview - which is consistently and purposefully misinformed (less then zero information) by corporate funded professional marketing organizations based in the US. In consequence, you are unable to classify "methods of argument" from an American, or assign labels to them.

A main source are some Russian (Russian speaking) military forums. Some twitters which have appeared reliable, Al Masdar, as a quite new source https://muraselon.com/en/ . If you ignore propaganda-prone claims about bombed hospitals and so, and restrict yourself to the news one cannot fake without being identified as unreliable after a short time, it is quite easy to find reliable sources

The question for us is whether you are making the same clueless and propaganda-addled mistakes in evaluating your sources regarding Syria as you make in evaluating sources about domestic American politics.
And here we have to sort of guess our way around.
On the one hand, we can get some idea of how to accept or adjust your Syrian claims from your occasional descriptions of American foreign policy that bear on its familiar domestic roots, and this speaks in your favor generally; that Clinton was repeatedly far too quick and eager to send the military, including in Syria, and aligned her State Department with the forces of corporate expansion and hegemony including its military support, is not the total bullshit you post about US politics - for example. Neither is your recognition of American complicity with Sunni Islamic violence, in places. You clearly are much better informed about matters on your side of the ocean.
On the other hand, your inability to recognize and acknowledge fascism, your naive assessments of figures such as Putin and Assad, and the like, raises questions.
But the maps work.

 

[Schmelzer]

Conveniently for you, since that's the only way you can recognize fascism.

Given that I do not use it as a Holy Word to name the Ultimate Evil, I can restrict myself to this use without losing anything. There are other political directions I reject too, and I can reject them without naming them fascism.

Cheap insults for having a positive opinion about "liberal fascism" without any content about what's wrong with the book disposed.

For example, it's quite silly - childishly naive - to base political analyses on how people name themselves or each other in American politics - where the corporate authoritarians use names as branding and marketing tools rather than informative labels, and change them strategically from time to time.

This is one of the reasons why I have not accepted that American "liberals" name themselves liberals. This is simply a branding and marketing name for totalitarism. The decision to name fascists only those who identify themselves openly with fascist movements is simply a decision not to participate in name-calling of everything right-wing as "fascist" (which, surprisingly, does not name the openly fascist Bandera supporters in the Ukraine, because they were puppets of Obama).

A lot of "you know nothing" (without any presentations of facts I don't know) disposed.

On the other hand, your inability to recognize and acknowledge fascism, your naive assessments of figures such as Putin and Assad, and the like, raises questions.

Assad is simply the least evil for Syria, in comparison with everything else on the Syrian political market. And Putin is what Russia needed to survive as a state, and to revive as a powerful enough state, strong enough to endanger, together with China, the US world rule. Neither Russia nor China would be places for me to live now, even if I have a strong cultural bound with Russia. But the multipolar world is much preferable for me than the US-ruled unipolar world. This is my reason to support Putin.

 

[Yazata]

It appears that the Islamic State capital of Raqqah has well and truly fallen to the SDF. The last ISIS holdouts in a few buildings have been killed. The sports stadium (which was being used as a fortress) is taken.

 

[iceaura]

Given that I do not use it as a Holy Word to name the Ultimate Evil, I can restrict myself to this use without losing anything.

The exact opposite is the case.
Because you insist on using it only as a Holy Word to name the Ultimate Evil, and because you support such usage and promulgate it (by people like Jonah Goldberg - who names his Ultimate Evils "fascist" even when they are Leftists such as Stalin or leftwing American liberals), you have lost the ability to recognize and discuss actual fascism when it is in front of your face.
As Orwell predicted: you have lost your ability to think coherently, and see what's in front of you.
Example: You thought Trump was more likely than Clinton to reduce US military interventions, and cut back on the US foreign military presence.

The decision to name fascists only those who identify themselves openly with fascist movements is simply a decision not to participate in name-calling of everything right-wing as "fascist" (which, surprisingly, does not name the openly fascist Bandera supporters in the Ukraine, because they were puppets of Obama).

No. That's clearly not the decision you made.
Your actual issue is with the obvious fascism of people you favor, such as Putin, Trump, and Assad, over others who are not (quite) fascist you do not favor, such as Clinton and Obama and American liberals and even American leftists.
That is why you have to insist that "liberals" in the US - by which you mean anyone Fox News labels liberal - do not name the fascist Bandera supporters fascist. That is silly - those few Americans paying attention to such complications do label them fascist.

Assad is simply the least evil for Syria, in comparison with everything else on the Syrian political market. And Putin is what Russia needed to survive as a state, and to revive as a powerful enough state, strong enough to endanger, together with China, the US world rule.

Which is exactly the reason, the most common and most important reason, people have traditionally supported most fascist regimes in the past. And when fascism turns on them, they are surprised - they didn't see it coming.
I agreed with you about Assad, btw, remember? But not Putin. That's a mistake. He's fascist, see.

It appears that the Islamic State capital of Raqqah has well and truly fallen to the SDF.

And American air support for Iranian-trained and Iran-allied Shiite soldiers was a key factor.
https://www.juancole.com/2017/10/ended-trump-muslims.html

 

[Schmelzer]

The exact opposite is the case.

Maybe, but this was the impression created by your writings about fascism. 99% of them repetitions of "you don't see fascism", in such a flood of irrelevancy some bits of real information may be easily lost. And this continues in this post too:

Because you insist on using it only as a Holy Word to name the Ultimate Evil, and because you support such usage and promulgate it (by people like Jonah Goldberg - who names his Ultimate Evils "fascist" even when they are Leftists such as Stalin or leftwing American liberals), you have lost the ability to recognize and discuss actual fascism when it is in front of your face.

Why do you think I support this usage? It differs from my own. I find a lot of books interesting because they contain interesting information, not because I support everything written there.
As Orwell predicted: you have lost your ability to think coherently, and see what's in front of you.

Example: You thought Trump was more likely than Clinton to reduce US military interventions, and cut back on the US foreign military presence.

The point being? He has not yet started his own war, and the closest thing he has done to starting a war was commented by Clinton that she would have, at that point, really started a war.

No. That's clearly not the decision you made.
Your actual issue is with the obvious fascism of people you favor, such as Putin, Trump, and Assad, over others who are not (quite) fascist you do not favor, such as Clinton and Obama and American liberals and even American leftists.

That was a misguided attempt of a partial compromise with your position that Trump is fascist. With this extension of the meaning of fascism, I could have named Trump fascist too. It has not appeared to be helpful, so I returned to my former choice to name fascists those who openly identify themselves with openly fascist movements.

That is why you have to insist that "liberals" in the US - by which you mean anyone Fox News labels liberal - do not name the fascist Bandera supporters fascist. That is silly - those few Americans paying attention to such complications do label them fascist.

The pro-American German mainstream media quite consistently deny that fascism rules there. Whenever I have seen something from US media about this, it was similar. Some admit that there are some few radicals or so, but these are presented as irrelevant exceptions, the ruling Ukrainian forces are presented as pro-European patriots or so.

Which is exactly the reason, the most common and most important reason, people have traditionally supported most fascist regimes in the past. And when fascism turns on them, they are surprised - they didn't see it coming.

Such things happen, mass movements which allow to win elections are usually based on lies. The point being? One should not support those you name (for unknown, unclear reasons) fascists?

And American air support for Iranian-trained and Iran-allied Shiite soldiers was a key factor.

The Iraq army was created and trained by the US. Then came ISIS and they run away. A few years were necessary to rebuild them. Given that the Iraq population is mainly Shia, and the ISIS based on the Sunni population, there is no real choice for the US. If they refuse to support the army, which is mainly Shia, they can start open support for ISIS or open support for Kurdish separatism, or completely leave Iraq. The Iran support is directed more toward various Shia militia, which are quite strong in Iraq. These militia are not supported in any way by the US afaik.

In Raqqa and Syria general, support for Shia by US does not exist completely. The Syrian Kurds are mainly Sunni, even if there are a lot of different religions among them, and the Arab parts of SDF are Sunni too.
The actual US policy is completely unclear and confused. Officially there was no support for the Kurdish referendum, inofficially a lot. Now they do (up to now) nothing to support the Kurds, and the Iraq army takes control of the most important parts, like the oil-rich Kirkuk and the Syrian border, without the US doing anything.

Looks like the conflict between Trump and the Clintonoids, with Trump caring only (at least he claims so) about destroying ISIS, while the deep state has changed its support from ISIS to the Kurds, but they cannot do that much if the Army is controlled by Trump and they have only CIA or so. If correct, this would support my thesis that the inner US conflict weakens the US outside. With Clinton in power, one could have expected even open military support for the Kurdish separation. But this is only rough speculation from my side.

There was an incident between Syria and Israel, with the Israeli version that Syria has attacked an Israel plane flying over Lebanon, of course, without success, and Israel has retaliated and destroyed some Syrian air defense battery. The Syrian version that the Israel plane was over Syrian territory, and hit, and that there was some attack by Israel. At the same time, some Israeli F35 somewhere was hit by a bird and severely damaged. Some Russian commentators see some connection. Some satellite picture from the battery claimed to be damaged was published which showed nothing. It was speculated that this action was somehow related with the visit of the Russian MoD in Israel.

 

[iceaura]

Maybe, but this was the impression created by your writings about fascism

Your alleged impressions of my posting, implausible as they are in the face my actual posts, have nothing to do with your claims about your own posting, which are exactly wrong - self deception of a remarkable transparency and visibility. You made this claim: "Given that I do not use it as a Holy Word to name the Ultimate Evil, I can restrict myself to this use without losing anything." not more than a couple of paragraphs after defending Goldberg's term "liberal fascism" at length, for example - a demonstration of the usage and the loss at once.

The pro-American German mainstream media quite consistently deny that fascism rules there. Whenever I have seen something from US media about this, it was similar

What you claimed was that American liberals and Leftists refuse to identify the Ukrainian fascists as fascists. That was a false claim, further illustrating your well-established unfamiliarity with American politics. Then you back it by offering something you saw on American mainstream media - comedy.
You keep posting what you have seen and not seen as evidence of reality in the US. It is an indictment of your eyesight.

Why do you think I support this usage? It differs from my own. I find a lot of books interesting because they contain interesting information, not because I support everything written there.

I described your own usage, not your "support" of anything. For example, everything in Goldberg's ridiculous book was in that usage, and depended on accepting that usage as meaningful - you found that bs "interesting information". You even cited the book as support for your Holy Word of Ultimate Evil usage of "liberal fascism".

Goldberg is a paid propagandist for American fascism. You are a gullible sucker, unable even to resist the newspeak vocabulary.

That was a misguided attempt of a partial compromise with your position that Trump is fascist.

No, it wasn't. It was you, posting your actual assessment: that every candidate in the American presidential campaign of 2016 was fascist, along with Obama, except for Ron Paul.

The Iran support is directed more toward various Shia militia, which are quite strong in Iraq. These militia are not supported in any way by the US afaik.

They are armed in part by the US, circuitously, and received air support in the recent taking of Raqqa among other times. This guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khedery
wrote this a couple of years ago: https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/19/irans-shiite-militias-are-running-amok-in-iraq/ Which claims much greater and longer term support than this latest campaign only.

The actual US policy is completely unclear and confused.

Yep. And Trump is not going bring clarity.

Looks like the conflict between Trump and the Clintonoids, with Trump caring only (at least he claims so) about destroying ISIS, while the deep state has changed its support from ISIS to the Kurds, but they cannot do that much if the Army is controlled by Trump and they have only CIA or so.

It looks nothing like that. Your presumptions about the "deep state" are incoherent, because you have yet to recognize the fascist nature of Trump's administration and the Republican Party domination of Congress for decades now (you honestly think a "deep state" in the US would not include the Pentagon, the major military contractors, the big oil companies, etc?)
Trump has little idea who ISIS is, or who the Kurds are, or what's going on in the US Army, or what's going on in the CIA. He "controls" none of that stuff. He's been in office nine months, after a life without any relevant experience or contacts with the military, and is still building his base of support - handicapped by his Russian involvements, which nobody in the US military trusts or should, and his own ineptitude (he does not impress military commanders or corporate executives - it's hard to put together a band of brothers when nobody trusts you). But he is succeeding, apparently.

Now they do (up to now) nothing to support the Kurds, and the Iraq army takes control of the most important parts, like the oil-rich Kirkuk and the Syrian border, without the US doing anything.

Try this out, as long as you are roughly speculating: hypothetically, some of the honchos in the US military and the oil/industrial complex have come to realize - and maybe always knew - that alliance with Iran is a long term necessity and the main goal of the US in the region. They were never backing ISIS overall - that was a side effect of some stuff they got cornered into by the mistake of alliance with the perfumed princes of Saudi Arabia, and the badly miscalculated emergency tactic under W of bribing Iraq's Sunni fundies to lay off for a while for domestic American political reasons. They like the Iranians better than they like the Sunnis they have to deal with (other than the Kurds), and Iran has oil. Plus, Iran can handle Sunni jihadists.

Sound plausible? A factor?

 

[Schmelzer]

Your alleged impressions of my posting, implausible as they are in the face my actual posts, have nothing to do with your claims about your own posting, which are exactly wrong - self deception of a remarkable transparency and visibility. You made this claim: "Given that I do not use it as a Holy Word to name the Ultimate Evil, I can restrict myself to this use without losing anything." not more than a couple of paragraphs after defending Goldberg's term "liberal fascism" at length, for example - a demonstration of the usage and the loss at once.

LOL. I can, of course, find his use of "liberal fascism" a nice pun, without the necessity to identify with it. In the wide meaning of fascism, where Trump is fascist, it would be an appropriate use. The book remains a good book even if I go back to use the more restricted meaning of fascism.

What you claimed was that American liberals and Leftists refuse to identify the Ukrainian fascists as fascists. That was a false claim, further illustrating your well-established unfamiliarity with American politics. Then you back it by offering something you saw on American mainstream media - comedy.

You think I should care about some small leftist sects with no media power behind them, which possibly have a different opinion? Sorry, I couldn't care less about them. But, ok, if you want something different than mass media, take this:

The fact is you have absolutely NO evidence to support your assertions Ukrainians are Nazis while by implication denying Russia isn't.

So, what I have seen in the mass media is quite consistent with what I have seen in this forum.

You even cited the book as support for your Holy Word of Ultimate Evil usage of "liberal fascism".

Of course, once I decided to switch to a wider use of "fascism" which would include Trump as fascist, I would have to include the liberal variant too, and Goldberg provided the evidence for this. So why not use it?

Goldberg is a paid propagandist for American fascism. You are a gullible sucker, unable even to resist the newspeak vocabulary.

LOL, the ultimate argument. Paid or not paid, he has done a good job. You not.

No, it wasn't. It was you, posting your actual assessment: that every candidate in the American presidential campaign of 2016 was fascist, along with Obama, except for Ron Paul.

Yes, this was a necessity if I wanted to use a notion of fascism which remains somehow meaningful (that means, not simply a bad word), and, on the other hand, includes Trump. I had to include all those which made even more warmongering during the election campaign.

They are armed in part by the US, circuitously, and received air support in the recent taking of Raqqa among other times.

Iraqi Shia militias in Raqqa? That's new to me. Taking Mosul, ok, but not Raqqa. There are Shia militias in Syria too, but as part of SDF? Some Kurdish Shia faction?

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/19/irans-shiite-militias-are-running-amok-in-iraq/ Which claims much greater and longer term support than this latest campaign only.

The question of support for Shia was the problem for the US from the start. That Bush Sen. has allowed Saddam Hussein to remain in power had a reason. Namely understanding that a democratic election in Iraq empowers Shia, and therefore Iran.

Yep. And Trump is not going bring clarity.

Of course. Once the problem with clarity is that there is yet a power fight in the US, Trump cannot bring clarity without winning this fight. With Clinton, there would be more clarity, namely war.

It looks nothing like that. Your presumptions about the "deep state" are incoherent, because you have yet to recognize the fascist nature of Trump's administration and the Republican Party domination of Congress for decades now (you honestly think a "deep state" in the US would not include the Pentagon, the major military contractors, the big oil companies, etc?)

No. Of course they are factions too. The problem with the deep state is that by its very nature it remains hidden which parts have how much power. What would be easy in a normal state of law - look into the constitution which organization has which powers, and look at who rules them - is impossible from outside if a deep state rules. What we can do is not much. A straightforward algorithm would be, say:

1.) to list the people which have some sort of power positions. That's easy. But not more than a list of candidates for deep state power.
2.) Look at what happens in reality, compare what is the claimed aim of the candidates of list (1). This is sort of negative list: If candidate X wants A, but what happens is $\lnot A$, X is hardly a big player in the deep state. Sometimes one can identify in this way the real powers. But would, say, some political bureau of some committee of some party - the power center of the Soviet Union - even appear among the candidates in list (1)?

Try this out, as long as you are roughly speculating: hypothetically, some of the honchos in the US military and the oil/industrial complex have come to realize - and maybe always knew - that alliance with Iran is a long term necessity and the main goal of the US in the region. They were never backing ISIS overall - that was a side effect of some stuff they got cornered into by the mistake of alliance with the perfumed princes of Saudi Arabia, and the badly miscalculated emergency tactic under W of bribing Iraq's Sunni fundies to lay off for a while for domestic American political reasons. They like the Iranians better than they like the Sunnis they have to deal with (other than the Kurds), and Iran has oil. Plus, Iran can handle Sunni jihadists.

Sound plausible? A factor?

If one would look at the situation from a rational point of view, an alliance with Iran makes, of course, sense. Fighting at the same time Russia, Iran and China, forcing them into a big Eurasian alliance, is plain stupidity, given that the unipolar world is disappearing. This was the main foreign policy error of Obama, Trump wanted to stop this stupidity and try to ally with Russia against Iran and China, which had no real chance of success but was at least worth to try, but the Clintonoids have been successful at preventing this, at least up to now. A strategic alliance with Iran directed against Russia and China would not work, Iran would not support this, and even if it would, it would not be a game changer against a Russia-China alliance. But beyond such zero sum alliance thinking, to normalize the relations with Iran makes a lot of sense.

I cannot completely exclude that some faction of the deep state would support this. But I have never seen even a hint of support for such a policy, except for Obama's nuclear deal itself.

 

[iceaura]

The problem with the deep state is that by its very nature it remains hidden which parts have how much power.

Your basic problem with the deep state in the US is that you don't know much of anything about the shallow one. That's how you can imagine a conflict between some powerful deep state that is the real government, and a guy you imagine controls "the army", who has Exxon and Goldman Sachs sitting in his cabinet. The President, the military/industrial complex, big oil, and Wall Street, as one faction, with the real power - the "deep state" - as the other?

You think I should care about some small leftist sects with no media power behind them, which possibly have a different opinion?

If you are going to refer to them and make claims about what they do and don't do, yes. You made claims about how US liberals label Ukrainian fascists - those claims were false.

LOL. I can, of course, find his use of "liberal fascism" a nice pun, without the necessity to identify with it

You can't backtrack your endorsement of Goldberg's book, or your personal use of "liberal fascism", or your many other repostings of Goldbergian bs. You suckered for American fascist propaganda, Republican media stuff, and posted it on this forum, yet again.

Yes, this was a necessity if I wanted to use a notion of fascism which remains somehow meaningful (that means, not simply a bad word), and, on the other hand, includes Trump. I had to include all those which made even more warmongering during the election campaign.

So five rounds later you still post that inverted bs? That's the the same Orwellian inversion that had you claiming, out of the blue, that I (not you) was the one who used "fascist" to label every rightwing politician in the US. That's because you actually took Goldberg's book and similar sources as information - about Americans like me, in this case - and it overruled the many months of the evidence of your own eyes right here.
And why hadn't I done that? Because unlike you I have not had my vocabulary (and therefore eyesight) Orwell-trashed by American fascist propaganda, and so unlike you when a genuinely fascist orange demagogue balloons up out of the Republican menagerie and launches a banana republic takeover, I can see him do it, tell him apart from others, and evaluate his prospects accordingly. I'm certainly not fool enough to evaluate his war threat by believing what he says, for example, as you comically were.

So, what I have seen in the mass media is quite consistent with what I have seen in this forum.

LOL your eyesight. You've said what you see in my posts, remember? So we know from your "seeing".
Meanwhile: Why are you answering about "mass media" when the objection was to your false claim about American liberals?

In the wide meaning of fascism, where Trump is fascist, it would be an appropriate use. The book remains a good book even if I go back to use the more restricted meaning of fascism.

Trump is a classic, standard, fascist demagogue in every respect but one (his lack of a base in the military prior to taking power). There is no "restricted" meaning to go back to that excludes him."Liberal fascism" is an oxymoron. Goldberg's book is American fascist propaganda, which is why he was paid to write it and how it came to be published and publicized and so widely "sold". It was written to mislead and to help destroy the meaning of "fascism" in American political discourse, and it misled you and destroyed the meaning of "fascism" in your analyses. And it's a lot harder to see what you can't name.

Of course. Once the problem with clarity is that there is yet a power fight in the US, Trump cannot bring clarity without winning this fight. With Clinton, there would be more clarity, namely war.

Oh silly.
You were simply wrong about Trump being less of a war threat. You can see that now, as he expands (allows the expansion of) the US military involvements and related atrocities beyond the limits Obama established, and as he turns his belligerence to foreign affairs from being frustrated domestically (exactly as predicted, if you recall, by me here and many others in America, many months ago).

Iraqi Shia militias in Raqqa? That's new to me.

I posted the link. Not in Raqqa - in the campaign to retake Raqqa.

I cannot completely exclude that some faction of the deep state would support this. But I have never seen even a hint of support for such a policy, except for Obama's nuclear deal itself.

And the exact events you were puzzling over and trying to make sense of in this thread, of course, as directly referenced. You've seen them.

 

[Schmelzer]

Your basic problem with the deep state in the US is that you don't know much of anything about the shallow one. That's how you can imagine a conflict between some powerful deep state that is the real government, and a guy you imagine controls "the army", who has Exxon and Goldman Sachs sitting in his cabinet. The President, the military/industrial complex, big oil, and Wall Street, as one faction, with the real power - the "deep state" - as the other?

You seem to have misunderstood my position almost completely. Try to reread to find an answer to your question.

If you are going to refer to them and make claims about what they do and don't do, yes. You made claims about how US liberals label Ukrainian fascists - those claims were false.
...
Why are you answering about "mass media" when the objection was to your false claim about American liberals?
...
You can't backtrack your endorsement of Goldberg's book, or your personal use of "liberal fascism", or your many other repostings of Goldbergian bs.

When I make claims about US liberals, then about those who have media power. Which are also those attacked by Goldberg, not? Maybe my claims are false, but you have not shown any evidence for this, even if providing it would be simple, with some links to those liberal US mass media describing Ukrainian fascism as fascism.

And, of course, once you don't present anything objective against Goldberg, he remains a reliable source. Hateful cries without arguments about the content by those attacked in a book are the best evidence for the quality of the attack, so that you make propaganda for the book without recognizing this. In a totalitarian background this works, in an uncensored discussion not. And your "you are a sucker of that propaganda" works for teenies with inferiority complex, not for adults who have seen enough propaganda during their life.

Its you who has yet to learn how to make propaganda outside the totalitarian environment where everybody is ready to suck the Big Brother.

That's because you actually took Goldberg's book and similar sources as information - about Americans like me, in this case - and it overruled the many months of the evidence of your own eyes right here.

Goldberg attacked you personally? You are such a big guy among those attacked by Goldberg that your behavior could tell me something about him being wrong? Megalomania?
In fact, I have seen and recognized some mild namecalling against Clinton too. It is quite irrelevant for me, sort of peoples front of Judea against Judeas peoples front or so typical for the left that one should not take too seriously.
Care about your own behaviour - once you write too much primitive namecalling without information, you have to expect that the information which you may have written too gets lost in the stream of cheap namecalling. The remarkable contributions I have remembered from the last months were your behavior in the denier thread, which were a presentation of totalitarian discussion methods. Quite different from, say, the Civil War or the child labor discussion where you have contributed interesting content.

Trump is a classic, standard, fascist demagogue in every respect but one (his lack of a base in the military prior to taking power). There is no "restricted" meaning to go back to that excludes him.

First, there is, namely the open support of fascist traditions. Standing ovations for a speech which ends with "Heil Hitler" in its Ukrainian version, as done by the whole Congress after Poroshenko's speech, would be a point but may be not considered sufficient.
Then, demagogy was used by fascists, but is used by many other politicians too. Thus, it is too unspecific to distinguish fascism.

You were simply wrong about Trump being less of a war threat. You can see that now, as he expands (allows the expansion of) the US military involvements and related atrocities beyond the limits Obama established, and as he turns his belligerence to foreign affairs from being frustrated domestically (exactly as predicted, if you recall, by me here and many others in America, many months ago).

I'm wrong because you have said so? When he starts a war, this would be serious evidence. When he extends "bombing ISIS on sunday" to "bombing ISIS the whole weekend", this is not serious. Don't forget that those who heavily supported the most warlike actions of Trump like the Syrian airbase bombing were the liberal media. (So, if you name these actions fascist, to add fuel to naming them liberal fascist media.) So, even if they finally succeed with Trump starting a war, why would this be evidence that he is more warlike than those who have been directly supported by these pro-war media in the election campaign?

Note also that the danger is not Trump starting a war - every US president starts a few of them, Obama two, but you don't name the all fascist. The danger I have named was the danger of war with Russia.

I posted the link. Not in Raqqa - in the campaign to retake Raqqa.

The link was about Iraq. The campaign to take Raqqa (not to retake, the Kurds have never controlled it) is in Syria. Iraqi Shia are actually fighting Iraqi Kurds (Peshmerga), and there is also a big difference between Syrian Kurds (YPG) and Iraqi Kurds. So this is about support for quite different forces, which share only that they are against Daesh, and in the case of SDF even this is openly questioned.

 

[iceaura]

I'm wrong because you have said so?

No, you were wrong because you didn't recognize a fascist demagogue when you saw one, and you suckered for the silliest of rightwing authoritarian propaganda feeds about Clinton. And those two facts are directly related - you have no defenses against American fascist agitprop. You get hypnotized or something.

When he starts a war, this would be serious evidence. When he extends "bombing ISIS on sunday" to "bombing ISIS the whole weekend", this is not serious.

When he doubles the bombing and reinstates the CIA drone killings and shifts hundreds of billions of dollars to the military and spreads belligerent rhetoric all over the place he is creating a greater risk as well as a wider war.That's serious. And he is going to get even more frustrated domestically - Presidents have much more scope and control in foreign policy than domestic.

Note also that the danger is not Trump starting a war - every US president starts a few of them, Obama two, but you don't name the all fascist.

Several US Presidents have not started any wars (Nixon, say). And nobody is naming anyone "fascist" because they start wars - you have your direction of implication backwards again, something you seem to do about half the time when responding to my posts.
Like this:

So, even if they finally succeed with Trump starting a war, why would this be evidence that he is more warlike

It wouldn't. So?
Trump's fascism means he is more likely than most others to launch military violence, and more reliant on it, for all kinds of reasons - that's something that people who can recognize fascism know about it.

Don't forget that those who heavily supported the most warlike actions of Trump like the Syrian airbase bombing were the liberal media

That wasn't Trump's most warlike action, or even close.
Meanwhile, you punch out another number in the American wingnut buzzword bingo card - "the liberal media".
No. It was not a liberal faction or subset of the media, doing that.
Ascribing things to the "liberal media" is a shibboleth of Republican campaign rhetoric. The tactic of repeating that term was invented and promulgated to hypnotize the shit-for-brains voting base of the Republican Party, reframe their worldview, and thereby prevent them from registering certain factual realities in their conscious minds.
And it works on you like a charm. There is apparently nothing you will not accept and believe if you get it from the propaganda feed of the American corporate authoritarian media operations.
Just look at this:

And, of course, once you don't present anything objective against Goldberg, he remains a reliable source.

So by your own public claim Jonah Goldberg is your idea of a reliable source unless and until somebody convincingly explains to you, carefully and objectively and at great trouble, why he isn't ( and you choose to pay attention this time ).
Because you can't see for yourself what's wrong with that asshat - you have no clue, at all. You read that book, and you come away thinking and saying - in public - that it's a reliable source. "Objectively". Faced with prime examples of overt American fascist agitprop, idiotic bs with an obvious agenda bought and paid for by the worst of American corporate authoritarians (check out the publishing history), you might as well be a baby sunfish looking at its first worm.
And you claim I'm the one defaming you? Dude - - - -

The danger I have named was the danger of war with Russia.

And the danger I have named - Trump's fascism bringing greater US reliance on military violence with consequent evils and risks - was not.

The link was about Iraq.

The other link, Juan Cole's. Pah, I muddled the two paragraphs. Stand corrected. Plead lack of sleep.

Back to the point: US air support for Shiite and Iranian allied militia, offered as among the speculative possible indications of maybe a possibility of rapprochement with Iran - America's obviously indicated ally in the region, if reason were to prevail.
There's your deep state, if any. Note that it isn't running things. It's limited to influence.

 

[iceaura]

The remarkable contributions I have remembered from the last months were your behavior in the denier thread, which were a presentation of totalitarian discussion methods.

No, they weren't.
You were once again trying to argue backwards, from a perception of bias in media and rhetoric to the reality you concluded must exist to produce it, the whole built on some fantasy of totalitarians threatening you based on your climate change denial (you even got the direction of threat wrong). Dingbat stuff, and a defining characteristic of the absurd denial as opposed to disagreement over matters at issue, unpopular or minority opinion, etc. I simply pointed this out.

Goldberg attacked you personally? You are such a big guy among those attacked by Goldberg that your behavior could tell me something about him being wrong? Megalomania?

Deliberate dishonesty from you? Of course it's also consistent with your inability to read with comprehension in general, but - -
At any rate: No. You did, here, - not Goldberg, but you - using Goldberg's framing of people like me in the US, which you suckered for. The key point was that Goldberg's framing - your claim - was obviously and flatly contradicted by all of my months of posting here. You bought into Goldberg's nonsense, with the reality posted directly in front of you.

You asserted that I used "fascist" as a label for all rightwing US politicians (and media? unclear), anyone I didn't like, and so it merely meant "bad" when I used it. That was 1) false, obviously - I've been correcting your usage, arguing relevant points on exactly those grounds, etc - and 2) something you got from Goldberg and similar US agitprop guys.

It's an example of what your lack of defenses against American propaganda sets you up for.

When I make claims about US liberals, then about those who have media power. Which are also those attacked by Goldberg, not?

Nope. Goldberg is full of shit, attacking phantoms of his own invention, writing so as to destroy analysis itself; and when you follow his lead you become unable to target your attacks - you are setting at shadows, as the turtlers say.

Meanwhile, Trump is still expanding and intensifying US military operations in general, including in Syria and Iraq, and simultaneously treating Iran with public belligerence - while his CIA director has spoken out in his defense, questioning the significance of his ties with Russia.

 

[Schmelzer]

No, you were wrong because you didn't recognize a fascist demagogue when you saw one, and you suckered for the silliest of rightwing authoritarian propaganda feeds about Clinton. And those two facts are directly related - you have no defenses against American fascist agitprop. You get hypnotized or something.

And you think this repetition of your fantasies about me is an argument? Really?

When he doubles the bombing and reinstates the CIA drone killings and shifts hundreds of billions of dollars to the military and spreads belligerent rhetoric all over the place he is creating a greater risk as well as a wider war. That's serious.

But there is evidence that he has been able to reduce the financial support for the terrorists. A serious enough reduction that some groups have, after this, accepted peace with the Syrian side. This is part of what I have hoped for. That he supports, on the one hand, classical military, but reduces, on the other hand, the illegal warfare by supporting terrorists, color revolutions, and other illegal regime change operations. This is a shift toward a revival of classical international law, as it existed in the past, before the world became unipolar. Not that there were no such illegal operations in that past, there were, a lot of them. But they were not the main method of politics. This was a recent development, which started with the destruction of Yugoslavia.

Several US Presidents have not started any wars (Nixon, say).

Ok, add "recent".

And nobody is naming anyone "fascist" because they start wars

You have yet to give your definition of fascism.

Trump's fascism means he is more likely than most others to launch military violence, and more reliant on it, for all kinds of reasons - that's something that people who can recognize fascism know about it.

So there is good reason to name all those Anti-Trumpers who have been openly happy ("today he became US president" or so) about his bombing the Syrian airbase, and wanted even more of this than Trump, fascists? Not?

Meanwhile, you punch out another number in the American wingnut buzzword bingo card - "the liberal media".
No. It was not a liberal faction or subset of the media, doing that.

Ok, name them differently. Why should I care how you like to name these media? Again, I do not care, and see no reason to care, about some minor political groups without media power. You may care, if you are, say, part of such an irrelevant group. But for me they don't matter at all. We have, btw, full agreement that what is named "liberal media" is anything but liberal, in the classical meaning of the word "liberal". I think they are owned or at least controlled by some totalitarian sect, you may think otherwise, but that they are not at all liberal is obvious.

Don't forget, I was ready to switch, partially, to some wider meaning of fascism, which could include Trump. I do not care much about names, and ready to use the names used by my opponents, at least if they are not extremely misleading.

So by your own public claim Jonah Goldberg is your idea of a reliable source unless and until somebody convincingly explains to you, carefully and objectively and at great trouble, why he isn't ( and you choose to pay attention this time ).

No, this works differently. When I have read this book, it was simply interesting. To evaluate if it is reliable is difficult. But there is, nonetheless, a quite simple method. Look at what the other side says. If the book is unreliable, they will find the weak points and present them all the time to everybody, to discredit him. If they simply use bad words, there is a good chance that the presented facts are reliable. So, it is essentially your reaction which makes the book reliable.

Back to the point: US air support for Shiite and Iranian allied militia, offered as among the speculative possible indications of maybe a possibility of rapprochement with Iran - America's obviously indicated ally in the region, if reason were to prevail. There's your deep state, if any. Note that it isn't running things. It's limited to influence.

The article made, indeed, an interesting point in this direction. If there is something behind this, that would be more support for Pepe Escobar's "Empire of chaos" characterization of the US - supporting almost everywhere now all sides of all civil wars, simply to create chaos in Eurasia, because this will weaken Eurasia as a whole.

The alternative would be that there is even more conflict inside the deep state, and already a much longer time than it became obvious with Trump. Essentially during the last Obama time, the conflict between state department and Pentagon was already so frustrating for diplomacy that the US reached in the Russian view a status of "impossibility to make contracts", simply because the US military never made what Kerry agreed about to do in the name of the US.

 

[iceaura]

No, this works differently. When I have read this book, it was simply interesting. To evaluate if it is reliable is difficult.

No: to evaluate if it is reliable is dead easy. Read it. Pay attention to it. Compare it with physical reality. It's argument is incoherent, its facts are bullshit irrelevancies, its thesis laughable once untangled from its verbiage. It's an embarrassing thing to ever have taken seriously - like an Ayn Rand novel, or Behe's "Darwin's Black Box". That is all obvious.

It's a work of propaganda, put out by one of the cadre of professionals paid by the fascist corporate faction of the American Right to promulgate the standard Big Lies familiar to any American intellectual for decades now. The most prominent One in that book is that other people, especially anyone Goldberg calls a "liberal" - not Goldberg, not his financial backers, not his associated political faction, none of them of course - are the real fascists, or just as fascist, or just as bad, or whatever, right now. In fact, the word "fascist"doesn't mean anything any more, because everybody's equivalently bad (but especially the liberals) and both sides are just namecalling (but especially the liberals).

So when you see anybody use the word "fascist" they are just namecalling and liberals, and liberals are the true fascists, and there are no genuine corporate fascists in America, and "fascist" doesn't mean anything anyway - it's just a word liberals use to call people names.

Briefly: Pay no attention to the people behind this book.

But instead of catching on immediately, you actually bought into that. You suckered.

But there is, nonetheless, a quite simple method. Look at what the other side says.

Since even if you try (which you refuse to do) you cannot identify the "other side", or comprehend what it says, within the framing you have inveterately adopted from the book itself, that method will not work for you.
To identify and comprehend the "other side", you would have to set aside the framing of the book - and if you ever did that, you would be on the "other side" yourself.

So, it is essentially your reaction which makes the book reliable.

Exactly the reasoning that led you to climate change denial, and Jim Crow denial, and so forth - you keep trying to assess reality by reasoning backwards from your perceptions of media, without basic information.

We have, btw, full agreement that what is named "liberal media" is anything but liberal, in the classical meaning of the word "liberal".

The point is that the media you referred to - the faction within the media that lead in celebrating Trump's singular and contrived bombing of something partly Russian - is not liberal in any meaningful sense of the word "liberal". They were largely a conservative, corporate controlled, rightwing, reactionary faction of the media. The liberal faction of the media - which does exist, although less prominently - did not lead in celebrating Trump's bombing. Your claim was in error - wrong.

The alternative would be that there is even more conflict inside the deep state, and already a much longer time than it became obvious with Trump. Essentially during the last Obama time, the conflict between state department and Pentagon was already so frustrating for diplomacy that the US reached in the Russian view a status of "impossibility to make contracts", simply because the US military never made what Kerry agreed about to do in the name of the US.

Again, the obvious point: You don't know enough about the shallow State to talk about any deep State stuff, in the US. Trump is in significant conflict with the shallow State, for example, which is not set up to be convenient for fascist governance, and that is where a lot of his "obvious" trouble comes from. He - not a committee of his cabinet, or a cadre of generals in the field - is supposed to be setting policy in Syria and for the military overall (to bring it around to the thread).

 

[Schmelzer]

You did, here, - not Goldberg, but you - using Goldberg's framing of people like me in the US, which you suckered for. The key point was that Goldberg's framing - your claim - was obviously and flatly contradicted by all of my months of posting here. You bought into Goldberg's nonsense, with the reality posted directly in front of you.

I don't care neither about you personally, nor about your particular sect. What I care about are the political relevant players. Those attacked by Goldberg (which was, in particular, Hillary). Live with this.

And you have yet to present a consistent definition of fascism, which would clarify that it is not a variant of "I don't like him very much". And, given that you have not yet done it, but instead repeat your mantra about by inability to recognize it, it does not look like there is one.

Goldberg is full of shit, attacking phantoms of his own invention, writing so as to destroy analysis itself; and when you follow his lead you become unable to target your attacks - you are setting at shadows, as the turtlers say.

Another 12 points plus for Goldberg's reputation, a lot of bad words without a single fact, as to be expected from those attacked in a reputable book.

No: to evaluate if it is reliable is dead easy. Read it. Pay attention to it. Compare it with physical reality. It's argument is incoherent, its facts are bullshit irrelevancies, its thesis laughable once untangled from its verbiage. It's an embarrassing thing to ever have taken seriously - like an Ayn Rand novel, or Behe's "Darwin's Black Box". That is all obvious.

Any facts? No. Another 6 points for Goldberg's reputation.

So when you see anybody use the word "fascist" they are just namecalling and liberals, and liberals are the true fascists, and there are no genuine corporate fascists in America, and "fascist" doesn't mean anything anyway - it's just a word liberals use to call people names.

This is not how the book worked. It has given a lot of interesting facts about the history of real fascism, of the ideas which have been proposed, and identified these ideas on the left too. So, it was very specific about the meaning of the word "fascism".

Briefly: Pay no attention to the people behind this book.

And this is what I have never done and will never do. Follow ad hominem arguments. And not even about the author, but "those behind". If the author has arguments, I will not ignore them because of ad hominem.

Since even if you try (which you refuse to do) you cannot identify the "other side", or comprehend what it says, within the framing you have inveterately adopted from the book itself, that method will not work for you.
To identify and comprehend the "other side", you would have to set aside the framing of the book - and if you ever did that, you would be on the "other side" yourself.

I would have to accept the Party Line about Goldberg. Which, indeed, I do not plan.

Exactly the reasoning that led you to climate change denial, and Jim Crow denial, and so forth - you keep trying to assess reality by reasoning backwards from your perceptions of media, without basic information.

You had all the time of the world to present your "basic information", but not done it.

The point is that the media you referred to - the faction within the media that lead in celebrating Trump's singular and contrived bombing of something partly Russian - is not liberal in any meaningful sense of the word "liberal". They were largely a conservative, corporate controlled, rightwing, reactionary faction of the media. The liberal faction of the media - which does exist, although less prominently - did not lead in celebrating Trump's bombing. Your claim was in error - wrong.

I fully agree with you that what is named "liberal media" are fascist media - in the wide sense - even if they present themselves as anti-fascists. I'm not aware about any important American media which would be liberal in the classical meaning of the word. Maybe I'm wrong about the media covering of the airbase attack - I was quite shocked by the 180 degree turn of some former Anti-Trump media, and have not cared if they all followed this line or only a few. Feel free to name the other side. With link to what they have written about the attack on the Syrian airbase. As well as the media worth to be named "liberal" in the original meaning of the word. I will take a look at them if they are not behind a paywall.

 

[iceaura]

I don't care neither about you personally, nor about your particular sect. - .

Nobody said you did. That was you, being stupid again.
The topic here was your consistently false claims, which always match American rightwing professional agitprop such as Goldberg's book, and which you repeat even with the counterevidence directly in front of your face, posted in pixels.

What I care about are the political relevant players. Those attacked by Goldberg (which was, in particular, Hillary). Live with this

I not only live with it, I've been repeatedly pointing at it and mocking you for your assessments of these people - people you care about without ever seeming to know anything about.
In this case: You made silly false claims about liberals in the US, because you suckered for agitprop framing such as Goldberg's book. You said they did not label Ukrainian fascists "fascist", because in Goldberg's world - which you have internalized - they don't. You said they lead the celebration of Trump's one bombing assault on a Russian target, because somebody did and Goldberg et al told you those were the liberals and their media. You said I labeled all rightwing politicians I didn't like "fascist", because that's what Goldberg says liberals do, in his book - and my posts are right here, dozens of them, right in front of you, specifically and overtly not doing that, refusing to do that, criticizing you when you do it.

Right in front of your face.

And this is what I have never done and will never do. Follow ad hominem arguments.

That is exactly what you did. The book said to ignore the reality of the book, and you did exactly that. You bought that message from that book. (There's no ad hominem argument in any of this, of course - but that's a quibble compared with your major brain glitch)

And not even about the author, but "those behind". If the author has arguments, I will not ignore them because of ad hominem

And so we see you were - as claimed - unable to comprehend even a simple book review from the "other side". The simplest things go right by, and you cannot see what's in front of you. You have no idea what I'm even posting about. (I didn't expect you to recognize the Wizard of Oz reference, but it was just extra).

Any facts? No. Another 6 points for Goldberg's reputation.

Actually, a list of facts. Like before. A simple, accurate description of Goldberg's book, which you can verify by reading it critically - and it's right there.
But that isn't relevant - your argument has nothing to do with facts.

Another 12 points plus for Goldberg's reputation, a lot of bad words without a single fact, as to be expected from those attacked in a reputable book.

And somehow bad words from someone you yourself label an unreliable source lends credibility to Goldberg's sillyass book, by your presumption. Comedy.
If I said Goldberg was Jewish and seven feet tall, would you add points to the notion that he was Catholic and a dwarf?

Notice this is exactly the kind of "reasoning" I've been pointing to, as repeatedly leading you into absurdity. Exactly. You reason backwards, from perceived media to presumed reality, beginning with incomprehension and ending in bizarre delusion, and then insisting on the delusion. That's how you ended up denying climate change, and Jim Crow - exactly that way. You refuse to base your analysis on the reality of the book itself, right in front of you.

I would have to accept the Party Line about Goldberg. Which, indeed, I do not plan.

And since you got that stupidity about "Party Line" from Goldberg and his fellow media operatives, and you suckered for it, the circle has closed on you - you've pulled up the ladder on your little fort, trapped yourself, and are more or less permanently unable to identify the other side, or comprehend what it says.

You had all the time of the world to present your "basic information", but not done it.

That's not true, and it's irrelevant - that you believe rightwing American agitprop by default is exactly my point. When faced with professional American propaganda, you need adult supervision even for the Goldberg-level stuff.

I fully agree with you that what is named "liberal media" are fascist media

That would be disagreeing with me. I don't use "fascist" for ordinary conservative, rightwing, authoritarian, corporate dominated stuff, remember? Goldberg's world of liberals is a delusion - really, no kidding. He's not an honest or sensible writer, and his professional undertaking is the Big Lie.

And not being able to see things like that is how you missed Trump and much of the rest of the Republican Party, and came to be pretzeled up in Syria and Iraq. You have even been trying to account for Trump's belligerence and expansion of military violence by imagining some kind of deep State influence on him - that's how badly you missed seeing that guy coming.
He's going to be a loose cannon in Syria, Iraq, and Iran, and not only by running his mouth - actual cannons, modern kinds, will be involved.

 

[Schmelzer]

Qaratejn liberated from ISIS. During the time of the last ISIS offensive against the Palmyra-Deir Ezzor highway, there was also an attack against Qaratejn, supported by some local sleeper cells. They had already taken surrounding mountains. The Syrian army has, at that time, not done much, Qaratein was quite isolated and not a danger to anything else. Then, the surrounding heights have been taken one by one, and now finally the whole town.

There was some progress of the Syrian army near the Golan heights (occupied by Israel). As usual in such cases, the Israelis claimed that something hit the occupied territories, and they retaliated, of course against the Syrian army in support for Al Qaida. With Israeli airforce in support, Al Qaida was able to revert the gains of the Syrian army.

I not only live with it, I've been repeatedly pointing at it and mocking you for your assessments of these people - people you care about without ever seeming to know anything about.

Maybe I don't know much about them, but you don't tell me anything new about them. So, if you know something about them or not remains hidden.

In this case: You made silly false claims about liberals in the US, because you suckered for agitprop framing such as Goldberg's book. You said they did not label Ukrainian fascists "fascist", because in Goldberg's world - which you have internalized - they don't.

Goldberg has not made any claims about this, his book is from 2008, the Bandera fascist took power 2013. I said that because I have read enough of these media. Ok, most of it their German offshots, but whenever I have seen the American versions, they were not different.

You said they lead the celebration of Trump's one bombing assault on a Russian target, because somebody did and Goldberg et al told you those were the liberals and their media.

No, because I never talked about some Trump bombing on some Russian target. The target was a Syrian airbase, not a Russian.

You said I labeled all rightwing politicians I didn't like "fascist", because that's what Goldberg says liberals do, in his book - and my posts are right here, dozens of them, right in front of you, specifically and overtly not doing that, refusing to do that, criticizing you when you do it.

You have yet to give a reasonable definition of fascism where Trump appears fascist but Hitlery not. Until you give them, the only visible criterion is that you don't like those you name fascist very much.

Actually, a list of facts. Like before. A simple, accurate description of Goldberg's book, which you can verify by reading it critically - and it's right there.

You mingle description with bad words with facts.

And somehow bad words from someone you yourself label an unreliable source lends credibility to Goldberg's sillyass book, by your presumption. Comedy.

You don't get the simple point that there are bad words supported by arguments about the content, which decrease reputation, and bad words without arguments, which increase reputation, because they are evidence that there are no counterarguments against the content? And you also don't get the point that reliability does not matter if there is talk about arguments, which one can evaluate by themselves, and not about facts, which are not that easy to check?

That's not true, and it's irrelevant - that you believe rightwing American agitprop by default is exactly my point. When faced with professional American propaganda, you need adult supervision even for the Goldberg-level stuff.

LOL. Learn at least that good parents explain their children something, instead of crying all the time "you are stupid". Here it is not dangerous, you make only a fool of yourself, but your children (if you have some) would be seriously endangered by such behavior.

He's going to be a loose cannon in Syria, Iraq, and Iran, and not only by running his mouth - actual cannons, modern kinds, will be involved.

We will see. Actually, after running away from Kirkuk the poor Iraq Kurds whine "where are the Americans, where are the Europeans, why they don't help us?"

Of course, the US is highly unpredictable, but up to now it looks better than under Obama.

 

[iceaura]

You mingle description with bad words with facts

Your inability to distinguish "bad words" from facts, and refusal to acquire the information you need to do that, is a problem I can't solve - all I can do is point to it.

No, because I never talked about some Trump bombing on some Russian target. The target was a Syrian airbase, not a Russian.

And there you reveal one of your fundamental positions: defense of all things Putin. Whatever deflections and denials of plain reality are necessary to accomplish that, you provide.
Without Russia's presence at that airbase and alliance with Syrian forces, there are no big headlines in the US - just another US bombing. https://www.theatlantic.com/interna.../what-is-al-shayrat-military-airfield/522249/

Maybe I don't know much about them, but you don't tell me anything new about them.

Sure I do. I pointed out, for example, that Jonah Goldberg is a paid propagandist of the fascist faction of the American rightwing corporate authoritarians - that's how he makes his living. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonah_Goldberg I don't think you realized that. And you still don't, because you refuse to acknowledge the fact or the implications of it. And that's just one item in a world of such items provided to you, that you deal with by denying them.

You don't get the simple point that there are bad words supported by arguments about the content,

Your inability to follow an argument is not the same thing as no argument being present.

LOL. Learn at least that good parents explain their children something, instead of crying all the time "you are stupid".

You have now seen a fairly clear explanation of what's wrong with your reasoning here at least a dozen times, at some trouble to other people, with illustrative quotes from you and the whole shot. And they are actual quotes and posts from you - unlike you, when I put quotes around something and attribute it, it's not something I made up that misrepresents your posting.
Briefly: you argue from your perceptions of media features to conclusions about physical reality, without information. This establishes delusions of reality, which then bias your perceptions of media features. Repeat without rinse.
And by ill fortune, this closed looping was (apparently) kickstarted by professional American rightwing propaganda you failed to recognize as such. So now you're trapped in wingnut world.

Of course, the US is highly unpredictable, but up to now it looks better than under Obama.

With increased bombing, wider and more intense military involvements, the restoration of the CIA drone programs and supporting operations, the yammer battle with NK, the trends in Pakistan, the trends in Africa, and so forth - better?

None of these developments were your prior idea of the benefits to be gained from Trump. There has been no drawdown or pullback of the military, reduction of nuclear threat, or reduced US involvement in war, for example - the opposite, instead. The only benefit you mentioned visible now has been a weakening of US diplomatic influence and possibly economic leverage - and that was to be a benefit, in your view, because it was to lead to reduced threat of military violence and foreign bullying (especially nuclear based) from the US, which was just you carefully blind to US politics again.

Except for the gains made by Putin, of course. Apparently an increasingly unstable, increasingly violent, and increasingly heavily armed US under fascist governance is an improvement in your view, if Putin benefits along the way.

Including via Assad government gains in Syria.

 

[Schmelzer]

Your inability to distinguish "bad words" from facts, and refusal to acquire the information you need to do that, is a problem I can't solve - all I can do is point to it.

Your inability to distinguish bad words from facts, and refusal to present facts, is a problem I can't solve - all I can do is point to it.

And there you reveal one of your fundamental positions: defense of all things Putin.

LOL. I simply correct a trivial factual error you made.

Without Russia's presence at that airbase and alliance with Syrian forces, there are no big headlines in the US - just another US bombing. https://www.theatlantic.com/interna.../what-is-al-shayrat-military-airfield/522249/

Nonsense. Of course, attacking a purely Syrian airbase - which is an act of war against yet another state - is worth a few headlines. Russian helicopters may use Syrian airbases in the actual civil war is clear and obvious, in so far the Atlantic is formally not wrong. But this was not an attack against Russia, but against Syria, and this is also made quite clear in the article.

Sure I do. I pointed out, for example, that Jonah Goldberg is a paid propagandist of the fascist faction of the American rightwing corporate authoritarians - that's how he makes his living. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonah_Goldberg I don't think you realized that. And you still don't, because you refuse to acknowledge the fact or the implications of it. And that's just one item in a world of such items provided to you, that you deal with by denying them.

I realize this, and classify this as an ad hominem argument which is quite irrelevant for me, given that the content does not depend on some neutrality or so of the author, and, moreover, does not hide that he is right-wing. I have no reason at all to deny your ad hominems, simply because ad hominems are extremely weak arguments, and can be safely ignored.

Note: I do not reject ad hominem arguments completely - they are simply very weak. I may use them, for example, to explain why I will not read something written by some author. But I would not make a claim that this would be an argument to prove that what he has written is somehow wrong.

You have now seen a fairly clear explanation of what's wrong with your reasoning here at least a dozen times,

No. What I read all the time are fantasies about what I think, which have no base in reality and are, naturally, not supported by any links or quotes. These strawmen may be, in some sense, wrong, but this is not about me.

With increased bombing, wider and more intense military involvements, the restoration of the CIA drone programs and supporting operations, the yammer battle with NK, the trends in Pakistan, the trends in Africa, and so forth - better?

The drone program is a point, but nothing beyond Obama. NK not yet, it is only words up to now. "Trends" do not count without specifics what you mean, with links.

None of these developments were your prior idea of the benefits to be gained from Trump. There has been no drawdown or pullback of the military, reduction of nuclear threat, or reduced US involvement in war, for example - the opposite, instead. The only benefit you mentioned visible now has been a weakening of US diplomatic influence and possibly economic leverage - and that was to be a benefit, in your view, because it was to lead to reduced threat of military violence and foreign bullying (especially nuclear based) from the US, which was just you carefully blind to US politics again.

The prior idea of benefits from Trump was that he will not start a war with Russia. He has not started yet. Except for the Syrian airbase bombing, on the most dangerous battle field Trump behaves more adequate, less criminal and more in accordance with international law in comparison with Obama. Of course, the classical way of US fighting a war from Dresden and Hiroshima times - uncivilized bombing - remains uncivilized. But supporting Nazi and jihadi terrorists to destroy normal states without declaration of war is nonetheless worse. Of course, not for the citizens of the particular bombed town. But for the peace in the world as a whole, and for freedom everywhere, support of terrorists is much more dangerous. Even if only because today every non-vassal state has to care about the terrorist and color revolution danger and to prepare itself, which is impossible without some improvements in the repressive powers of the state.

Instead, simply more money for the military may not have big negative consequences. Especially if the military-industrial complex does not even build a lot of weapons, but cares more about transferring big money into their ownership with astronomical prices for scrap, so that even "corrupt" Russia with 1/10 of the budget is able to reach something comparable in strength.

US diplomacy does not exist in the classical meaning of diplomacy. It is support for color revolutions and local terrorists all over the world. So what you whine about is what I really like.

Apparently an increasingly unstable, increasingly violent, and increasingly heavily armed US under fascist governance is an improvement in your view, if Putin benefits along the way.

The main question for the survival of mankind is if the US will accept the end of the unipolar world order without starting a nuclear war. What Trump has reached until now has quite clearly weakened the instruments of the unipolar world rule.

The increasing instability inside the US has been created by the Clintonoids, so this is a problem for Trump, but not the fault of Trump. Yes, it was predictable, and predicted. And I have accepted it as less problematic for the world than a unified America ruled by warmonger Clinton. But it looks like Trump has more or less survived the attempts to overthrow him? This would be good, because if he is not endangered by the Clintonoids, he will be less inclined to start even a small war elsewhere.