Military Events in Syria and Iraq Thread #4

[CptBork]

Where are big differences of what we consider as benefits and downsides between us. Some of them are simply the results of different interests. Quite objectively, the chaos of American foreign politics decreases the political influence of Washington in the world. Former allies will no longer rely on Washington's promises, and establish connections with other, more reliable players (SA and Kurds may be examples). Other allies see aspects of US foreign policy which are obviously harmful for themselves - like the actions directed against Northstream II, which have to (even openly declared) aim to sell more expensive US gas to Europe, so they have to fight US influence in their countries simply to defend their own economic interests. South Korea has now an increasing survival interest to get rid of the actual US policy.

I thought you were going to complain about McDonald's, Walmart, The Beatles, and Donald Trump threatening to shred old alliances. But apparently your only concerns regarding America's "unreliability" as an ally involve the way it pressures German companies to stop trading with oil and gas companies based in your homeland. I feel for you, you must have family back home in Russia being held hostage by the KGB or something, otherwise I'm sure you'd have at least one little thing less than flattering to say about Putin, other than the usual complaints about him not attacking NATO.

 

[Schmelzer]

It's not praise.

"My view is accurate" is not praise? LOL. And, again, "my view is accurate" does not contain any nontrivial information at all, you are known to repeat such self-praise all the time, and with no additional evidence to support it. It is as cheap and lacking any information as your constant attacks against me, or what is, in your fantasy, my opinion.

You actually reject descriptions of Trump that are almost entirely negative, on the grounds that there have to be significant and visible positive aspects of his Presidency. WTF?

As explained in detail, I'm an enemy of the US-ruled unipolar world order, and what Trump is doing is damaging this world order. For you, this may be entirely negative. For me, this aspect is positive.

Historically, the threat of war is increased when diplomatic communications between armed and hostile powers are cut off, treaties are repudiated, and threats are made in public. Trump's behavior and policies have increased the threat of war, of all kinds with anyone.

Full agreement about "diplomatic communications" in general and in history. But "diplomatic communication" has been seriously damaged by the US since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and replaced by something very different from "diplomatic communication". The "diplomatic communication" of Kerry time (even if it was a little bit better than during Clinton time) was not worth to be named that way. The US has been characterized "недоговороспособный" (it is impossible to make contracts with them) already in Kerry time, after repeated cases of arrangements and agreements which the US did not fulfill at all. So, there is nothing positive in the "diplomatic communication" of the US which Trump was able to damage.

You don't know jack shit about Obama's "aims" in Cuba, because you don't know the domestic US political circumstances.

Which is, as usual, not supported by any evidence. But, in fact, the personal aims of Obama do not even matter. What matters is that the US embassy in every state where it exists is, first of all, the place where a color revolution will be organized if Washington decides that they want a regime change. All the other time, it is a place for organization of influence, by support of various NGOs (Northamerican Government Organizations), pro-American politicians and so on. All this beyond the classical job of embassies as the center of espionage (which US embassies share with all other embassies all over the world.

 

[iceaura]

As explained in detail, I'm an enemy of the US-ruled unipolar world order,

And oblivious to the reality of fascism - of any polarity - along with overlooking the role of multinational corporations in the establishment of this "world order" you imagine the "US" to desire.

and what Trump is doing is damaging this world order

He's damaging US cultural and governmental influence and diplomatic relations - the effect on the US based multinationals and their military backing is less clear.

But "diplomatic communication" has been seriously damaged by the US since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and replaced by something very different from "diplomatic communication". The "diplomatic communication" of Kerry time (even if it was a little bit better than during Clinton time) was not worth to be named that way.

Note the propaganda skip

- the actual years during and after the Soviet collapse, when the neo-cons of Reagan's administration (the first foothold of the Trump Republican ascendancy) did that damage to US diplomacy and did set out to enforce their horrible childish dream of US overlordship using the bad tools of anti-Soviet dirty wars, did forget or blow off the lessons of Vietnam and Cuba and Indonesia and so forth, did set US foreign policy on its current footing of betrayal alternating with corporate-convenient fuckup, and so forth,

you skip. The Soviets collapsed, and next thing we hear from you there's Clinton or Kerry somehow operating without good diplomatic means, connections, or ends. Somehow. That's an elision of about thirty years, covering the exact interval in which the current disaster in Iraq and Syria was set up.

And that's how you conceal the damage Trump can do and is doing by restoring the means and ends of W&Cheney - by just never mentioning W&Cheney.

So, there is nothing positive in the "diplomatic communication" of the US which Trump was able to damage.

Apparently there is, even after W&Co - according to everybody else's diplomats. And of course the defunding and depopulation of the State Department, coupled with restoration of CIA paramilitary operations and sharply increased Pentagon funding, is perfectly clear.

"You don't know jack shit about Obama's "aims" in Cuba, because you don't know the domestic US political circumstances."
Which is, as usual, not supported by any evidence.

Beg to differ - few things on this forum have been as thoroughly documented as your ignorance of US domestic politics.

What matters is that the US embassy in every state where it exists is, first of all, the place where a color revolution will be organized if Washington decides that they want a regime change.

That's not how the US did regime change in Iraq or Afghanistan, eh?

All the other time, it is a place for organization of influence, by support of various NGOs (Northamerican Government Organizations), pro-American politicians and so on. All this beyond the classical job of embassies as the center of espionage (which US embassies share with all other embassies all over the world.

Nevertheless, cutting back on them globally while boosting the role of the military and the CIA in their place threatens war. With anybody and everybody.

Which brings us to Syria, its roots in post WWII imperialism, oil and pipelines, climate change and Russian expansion into the Middle East.

 

[Schmelzer]

Good news from Syria: First, Saqer island in Deir Ezzor has been taken from Daesh. There has been a lot of progress during the last days too, as a result, Saqer island was essentially encircled and no longer defensible, so that it was essentially given up. The origin of this was the liberation, during the last days, of al Sina and the industrial region West of Saqer island.

Then, there has been more (and more reliable) information about T2 being taken by the Syrian army. This would be the most important point on the way to Al Bukamal from the West. What remains are a few desert villages not really worth to be named.

And there are also some interesting news about the Meng airbase North of Aleppo, which has been under Kurdish control, but close to the pro-Turkish gangs, has been given now to the Russian army.

And oblivious to the reality of fascism - of any polarity - along with overlooking the role of multinational corporations in the establishment of world order.

Which is, as usual for your claims about what I think, a lie. The role of some corporations in the unipolar world order is easy to see.

He's damaging US government influence and diplomatic relations - the effect on the US based multinationals and their military backing is less clear.

The multinationals would have liked Obama's TPP and TTIP projects, so there is a visible effect here too.

Note the propaganda skip
The Soviets collapsed, and next thing we hear there's Clinton or Kerry somehow operating without good diplomatic means, connections, or ends. Somehow. That's about thirty years, and covers the exact interval in which the current disaster in Iraq and Syria was set up.

Skip? I have covered the whole period, that means all of them (Bush I + II as well as Clinton) in ""diplomatic communication" has been seriously damaged by the US since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and replaced by something very different from "diplomatic communication"". Looks like you require that W needs some special mentioning? I mentioned Kerry because one could reasonably argue that he was an improvement in comparison with Hillary.

Beg to differ - few things on this forum have been as thoroughly documented as your ignorance of US domestic politics.

Only if one counts your "you are stupid" cries as "documentation".

That's not how the US did regime change in Iraq or Afghanistan, eh?

Indeed, they have also classical methods, like primitive war, and more brutal and dirty methods, like support of terrorist organizations. The point being? This does not make what the US embassies do "diplomacy".

Nevertheless, cutting back on them globally while boosting the role of the military and the CIA in their place threatens war.

Who was the last US president who did not threaten war?

Which brings us to Syria, its roots in post WWII imperialism, oil and pipelines, climate change and Russian expansion into the Middle East.

You whine about the poor Daesh and Al Qaida bombed by evil Russians or what?

 

[iceaura]

Which is, as usual for your claims about what I think, a lie.

I'm making claims about what you post here, as your claims and assertions and reasoning. To make claims about what you "think", in your secret personal world off line, I would have to assume honesty and sincerity and forthright posting - I don't.

Skip? I have covered the whole period,

You did not. You went straight from Soviet collapse to Kerry and Clinton.

Looks like you require that W needs some special mentioning?

And Reagan. Yes. It's your topic, you brought it up. Since W and Reagan were primarily responsible for the worst of what you deplore, and both Clinton and Kerry were responsible for moderations and curbings of it, mentioning Kerry and Clinton instead of them is innuendo and falsehood.

The multinationals would have liked Obama's TPP and TTIP projects, so there is a visible effect here too.

So? They still like them (they aren't going anywhere). That does not change Trump's behavior.

Indeed, they have also classical methods, like primitive war, and more brutal and dirty methods, like support of terrorist organizations. The point being? This does not make what the US embassies do "diplomacy".

Some of what they do is diplomacy - for example in Russia, in Korea, in China, in Japan, in Mexico, almost all of it is standard diplomatic stuff. Much less of what the military and CIA do is diplomacy, anywhere. When resources and focus are shifted from embassies and diplomats to military forces and CIA paramilitary operations, the threat of war becomes greater.

Who was the last US president who did not threaten war?

And that is why I don't assume honesty and sincerity in your posting.
btw: The last US President who shifted focus and comparative resources from State to the military and the CIA was W, in preparation for invading Iraq.

You whine about the poor Daesh and Al Qaida bombed by evil Russians or what?

And another illustration.
The nobility of the Russians once again bombing where pipelines are in play of course inspires visions of a world free of US government tyranny - but not even Russians seem to able to manage these wars. They go bad, on the Putins and the Bushes alike. The question becomes: with Iran and Israel right there and a fascist demagogue in the White House, how bad will this one go?

 

[Schmelzer]

I'm making claims about what you post here, as your claims and assertions and reasoning.

You don't. I have repeatedly ask you to support your defamations and lies by quotes, but you continue to post your defamations without any supporting quotes, because you have none. So, please stop "making claims about what I post here" without explicit quotes with links, because they are usually defamantions and lies.

You did not. You went straight from Soviet collapse to Kerry and Clinton.

I have no reason to mention the whole list of US presidents. The sentence ""diplomatic communication" has been seriously damaged by the US since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and replaced by something very different from "diplomatic communication"" covers the whole period in sufficient detail.

And Reagan.

No problem.

both Clinton and Kerry were responsible for moderations and curbings of it, mentioning Kerry and Clinton instead of them is innuendo and falsehood.

LOL, the Belgrad bomber Clinton as a moderator. Or do you mean the terrorist supporter in Libya and Syria Clinton?

They still like them (they aren't going anywhere).

They may like them, but TTIP is dead, and TPP is without US and probably dead too, not?

Some of what they do is diplomacy - for example in Russia, in Korea, in China, in Japan, in Mexico, almost all of it is standard diplomatic stuff. Much less of what the military and CIA do is diplomacy, anywhere.

Some formalities of what US embassies do, of course, remember diplomacy. And of course the US military and the CIA don't do any diplomacy, this is not their job. I have never claimed they do diplomacy. My point was that the US has essentially no diplomacy worth to be named "diplomacy". Thus, the shift from "diplomacy" to military is de facto one from color revolutions to classical military. That means, away from forms of organizing regime change which are illegal according to international law to things which every state is allowed to have (a military).

The nobility of the Russians once again bombing where pipelines are in play of course inspires visions of a world free of US government tyranny - but not even Russians seem to able to manage these wars.

Your "bombing where pipelines are in play" should be "bombing where US-paid terrorists are in play". And the Russians managed, up to now, these US-paid terrorists quite nicely.

 

[iceaura]

LOL, the Belgrad bomber Clinton as a moderator. Or do you mean the terrorist supporter in Libya and Syria Clinton?

Either one. Compared to the likes of W and Trump, moderate in their use of military force and CIA black ops.

They may like them, but TTIP is dead, and TPP is without US and probably dead too, not?

No, it's not.

I have no reason to mention the whole list of US presidents.

You have every reason to mention the ones directly and primarily responsible for the stuff you are at that moment deploring, rather than others not responsible. And this is especially the case when you are attempting to compare the next President in that line - the line of those primarily responsible, the Republican Party in the US - with those others not responsible.

The sentence ""diplomatic communication" has been seriously damaged by the US since the collapse of the Soviet Union,

Especially by Reagan, W, and now Trump. So?

My point was that the US has essentially no diplomacy worth to be named "diplomacy".

That is a false claim, so far (Trump hasn't had time to wreck everything Obama rebuilt from W, even, let alone the bureaucratic holdover from before Reagan) - and an irrelevant one. Trump's actions remain, overt and threatening exactly as predicted: he's a fascist demagogue, and when a fascist demagogue shifts money and support away from the State Department and toward the Pentagon and CIA what is threatened and expected to come next - the way to bet - is obvious.
To anyone who can see fascism coming.

Meanwhile, Syria remains and awaits - also Afghanistan, various in Africa, Iraq, and so forth. Oil, coltan, water, climate change, pipelines pipelines pipelines.

Your "bombing where pipelines are in play" should be "bombing where US-paid terrorists are in play".

That would mislead in both directions. And in Syria, of course, the deception is relevant - Assad's enemies are not all terrorists, the terrorist ones not all US paid.

 

[Schmelzer]

Either one. Compared to the likes of W and Trump, moderate in their use of military force and CIA black ops.

What they tried to care about was informational warfare. And on a front of informational warfare torture does not look nice. And that murdering with drones looks also not nice on that front is something Obama needed some time to learn. Before this, he broke all killing records of W with drones.

And live with the fact that the bombing of Belgrad was the most catastrophic for the US. Ok, they got their military base with criminal natives around named "Kosovo". But they turned the Russians into enemies. Also with the fact that a "success" of US diplomacy - the UN resolution which has created a no-fly zone, which was then used simply as a bombing zone - was in fact a failure, because the world has learned this lesson of how the US uses UN resolutions. It is part of why I say there is no US diplomacy worth to be named "diplomacy" left to destroy.

You have every reason to mention the ones directly and primarily responsible for the stuff you are at that moment deploring, rather than others not responsible.

But I don't think so. I see both parties as equally responsible, equally criminal, equally aggressive. The republicans favoring classical means of aggression (military), the democrats "modern" means of aggression in open conflict with international law (color revolutions, terrorists as proxies).

Especially by Reagan, W, and now Trump. So?

No, not especially Reagan. In Reagan time, the US diplomacy was quite successful. And they have signed a lot of very good (for the US) contracts with the Soviet Union. One can, of course, argue that he laid the base for the main error of US politics - to interpret the situation as a victory in a war and to handle the loser like a loser, and thinking the US is now the world leader and can do what they like without caring about the interests of others, instead of developing a new, peaceful world order. But even this initial error I would more attribute to Bush I. After this, all presidents made things even worse.

And in Syria, of course, the deception is relevant - Assad's enemies are not all terrorists, the terrorist ones not all US paid.

The enemies of Assad who are not terrorists play no military role. And most of them have, essentially, no support from the US, because they are small unknown to US "diplomacy" local militias. Ok, some are paid not directly by the US, but by US allies, in particular SA, Qatar, Turkey. If the US diplomacy would have seriously objected, they would have stopped them. So, I see no reason not to classify them as US paid too. At least paid with full US support of this.

 

[iceaura]

What they tried to care about was informational warfare. And on a front of informational warfare torture does not look nice. And that murdering with drones looks also not nice on that front is something Obama needed some time to learn. Before this, he broke all killing records of W with drones.

W didn't kill as many people with drones largely because he didn't have them until very late in his tenure - they're new tech. Obama took the drones away from the CIA immediately, and moderated their use in general - brought it into the realm of military violence rather than black ops.

The republicans favoring classical means of aggression (military), the democrats "modern" means of aggression in open conflict with international law (color revolutions, terrorists as proxies).

You keep posting that silly description, as if Republicans had foresworn that bad terrorist stuff Dems favor.

As pointed out to you already, several times, the Reps do both: All the bad stuff the Dems do, in your list there? The Reps on average favor and do just as much of it if not more. That's on top of, not instead of, the "classical" means of aggression. The Republicans do both, and more of each.
W, for example, started arming and financing some of the Sunni militia now in Syria during his invasion of Iraq, during the military war there - he was bribing them to stand down, paying them to fight the Iranians, etc. Trump, for example, immediately restored the CIA drone strikes and related black ops that Obama had ended - that was one of his first acts as President. That doesn't mean he isn't also more likely to launch "classical"military aggression - he will do both, without a second thought. He's already shifting money and resources away from diplomacy, to pay for it.

But I don't think so. I see both parties as equally responsible, equally criminal, equally aggressive

And I see posts like that as proof of your ignorance and gullibility - that's the bullshit Republican Party Line, straight from Fox News or Jonah Goldberg.

No, not especially Reagan. In Reagan time, the US diplomacy was quite successful.

Especially Reagan - he started a lot of the bad stuff you don't like, and expanded what he inherited.
Under Reagan's administration the US dramatically increased financing of terrorists, expanded CIA paramilitary operations worldwide, expanded use of black ops and violence rather than "classical" diplomacy, devoted money and effort to creating phony "revolutions" and civil violence, and so forth. All that stuff you say you don't like when the Dems do it? Reagan did more of it. He kind of started some of it, at least mainstreaming certain fringe operations.

As explained in detail, I'm an enemy of the US-ruled unipolar world order, and what Trump is doing is damaging this world order.

And exactly there is where you
1) miss the reality of the "unipolar" world order that is actually threatening you - which is not the US government "ruling" the world, a fanciful notion with no basis in (say) Chinese views on the matter and a sharply limited future, but rather the "unipole" of corporate capitalist elites in multinational collusion, a prospect that Trump is (as yet) not damaging at all.
2) forget your assertions of the past, in which your greatest fear was large scale war - especially between nuclear powers - a possibility that Trump is abetting and increasingly risking.

The enemies of Assad who are not terrorists play no military role.

That's not true.
You just call them terrorists, if Russia is helping Assad attack them.

 

[Schmelzer]

You keep posting that silly description, as if Republicans had foresworn that bad terrorist stuff Dems favor.

That I claim that there is some tendency does not mean that I think it is more than a tendency. Clinton bombing Belgrad was classical military, the bombing of Libya too. So, reps do both, and dems do both too.

And exactly there is where you
1) miss the reality of the "unipolar" world order that is actually threatening you - which is not the US government "ruling" the world, a fanciful notion with no basis in (say) Chinese views on the matter and a sharply limited future, but rather the "unipole" of corporate capitalist elites in multinational collusion, a prospect that Trump is (as yet) not damaging at all.
2) forget your assertions of the past, in which your greatest fear was large scale war - especially between nuclear powers - a possibility that Trump is abetting and increasingly risking.

1.) Big corporations without a state supporting them are nothing but firms greater than the optimal scale (which depends on actual technologies), which would have a hard job to survive on a free market. Moreover, they tend to fight each other and do not define a political unity, except in Marxist fantasies about class interests of the bourgeoisie. It is their ability to control states (especially big, corrupt democratic states) using their "lobbies" which makes them problematic.
2.) I do not see yet a greater danger of nuclear war with Russia created by Trump. If you think about NK, this is not the nuclear war dangerous for mankind. Ok, the Clintonoids have been successful preventing a detente with Russia. But the relation is nonetheless better than it would have been with Clinton.

You just call them terrorists, if Russia is helping Assad attack them.

Lawrow has asked Kerry many times to present a list of the formations which are not terrorists. Without success. Kerry was aware that this list, if made public, could have been easily used to discredit the US. And if it would really contain only organizations which are not terrorist, the Russians would have an easy game too. They would simply say "ok, we do not bomb them", and continue to bomb all those accepted by the US as terrorists. And this would be completely sufficient to make sure that Assad wins the war.

 

[sculptor]

PMC Wagner ?

 

[iceaura]

That I claim that there is some tendency does not mean that I think it is more than a tendency.

The fifth or sixth repetition: When you set it up as Dems favor one approach, Reps the other, the two equivalently aggressive and violent each in their own way etc, you were wrong. That claim of yours was a falsehood, and like essentially all your falsehoods concerning US domestic politics it was a current Republican Party Line. You post Republican Party media bs

The Reps favor both, more than the Dems. Trump is a higher risk of war, and a higher probability of CIA black ops and terrorist financing also, simply because he is - like Reagan and W - Republican and fascist.

1.) Big corporations without a state supporting them are nothing but firms greater than the optimal scale (which depends on actual technologies), which would have a hard job to survive on a free market. Moreover, they tend to fight each other and do not define a political unity,

Free markets aren't involved, and of course they fight each other - that doesn't mean they won't cooperate in stepping on you. Look at the banana republics in South America - they'd help each other kill journalists and trade union organizers even when their armies were shooting each other.

2.) I do not see yet a greater danger of nuclear war with Russia created by Trump.

You and your eyesight.
At least you don't pretend you can actually see any of these "Clintonoids"

Lawrow has asked Kerry many times to present a list of the formations which are not terrorists. Without success. Kerry was aware that this list, if made public, could have been easily used to discredit the US

So? Nobody is claiming the US has been doing right or making sense here. That does not mean Trump won't make things worse, especially focused as he has been so far on restoring W's levels of military and CIA and cutting back on diplomacy.

 

[Schmelzer]

The most interesting news yesterday was some progress in Deir Ezzor. The map of the remaining parts held by Daesh in Deir Ezzor:

Many other maps show the Eastern bank of the Euphrat already completely liberated, this source shows some parts of the Eastern bank around the bridge yet under Daesh control, but there is agreement about complete encirclement by the Syrian army.

The fifth or sixth repetition: When you set it up as Dems favor one approach, Reps the other, the two equivalently aggressive and violent each in their own way etc, you were wrong.

And the 100. or so repetition: If you claim I'm wrong this is not evidence that I'm wrong.

So? Nobody is claiming the US has been doing right or making sense here. That does not mean Trump won't make things worse, especially focused as he has been so far on restoring W's levels of military and CIA and cutting back on diplomacy.

So. And it means that my claim that "the enemies of Assad who are not terrorists play no military role" is correct, because else it would have been not a problem for Kerry to give a list of the non-terrorist organizations supported by the US and to restrict the support to these.

This point was in no way intended to say something about Trump. But, if you like it or not, the fact is that at least in part (and this seems to be the part Trump is able to control) of the financial support for the terrorists has been cut. Which made things better.

 

[CptBork]

And the 100. or so repetition: If you claim I'm wrong this is not evidence that I'm wrong.

And yet you seem to think that if you call anyone who disagrees with the Kremlin a CIA-paid terrorist and repeat the claim 100+ times or so, it suddenly becomes true. Classic Russian cognitive dissonance at its finest.

 

[Schmelzer]

And yet you seem to think that if you call anyone who disagrees with the Kremlin a CIA-paid terrorist and repeat the claim 100+ times or so, it suddenly becomes true. Classic Russian cognitive dissonance at its finest.

LOL. You disagree with the Kremlin, not? Have I named you a CIA-paid terrorist? Give the link, I may have forgotten about this. I think you are simply a poor propaganda victim. But, even more, I don't even care if you are or not. If you would be, instead, a CIA-paid propagandist, so what? It would strongly suggest that the CIA is inefficient, once it pays for such low quality propaganda as your posts.

 

[CptBork]

LOL. You disagree with the Kremlin, not? Have I named you a CIA-paid terrorist? Give the link, I may have forgotten about this.

If I had a gun and were serving in the Ukrainian army, that's exactly what you'd call me.

 

[iceaura]

And the 100. or so repetition: If you claim I'm wrong this is not evidence that I'm wrong

It is evidence that when you pretend I said something different, about "tendencies" or whatever, you know better - you've seen the actual claim, describing specifically your error and where you go wrong, many times.
Like this: "When you set it up as Dems favor one approach, Reps the other, the two equivalently aggressive and violent each in their own way etc, you were wrong."

So. And it means that my claim that "the enemies of Assad who are not terrorists play no military role" is correct, because else it would have been not a problem for Kerry to give a list of the non-terrorist organizations supported by the US and to restrict the support to these.

Your claim is bs, covering up your use of "terrorist" to describe all active opposition to Assad - it doesn't matter who the the US supports or will admit supporting, you are still using "terrorist" to describe any and all active, military opposition to Assad.

But, if you like it or not, the fact is that at least in part (and this seems to be the part Trump is able to control) of the financial support for the terrorists has been cut. Which made things better.

Trump is not able to control that part, because Trump has no idea who is or is not a terrorist in Syria. What Trump knows is who Putin wants the US to quit supporting. And not supporting them makes things better for Putin, in Syria.

 

[Schmelzer]

The most interesting news is that the Syrian army advances West of Itriya against Hatesh (Al Qaida).

The small Daesh enclave was created by a group of Daesh which has successfully broken out of the Aqerbat pocket and been able to reach Idlib. Instead of simply changing colors and becoming Hatesh, they decided to create their own enclave and started to fight Hatesh which ruled there. Hatesh responded, and there was some serious infight between them, with Hatesh whining about Russian and Syrian airforce supporting Daesh in this infight (which makes sense - in such an infight between two terrorist gangs it is reasonable to support the weaker side). Whatever, after Hatesh being close to a victory over Daesh, both have been weakened by this infight, and now the Syrian army is attacking both and was quite successful taking some villages.

It is evidence that when you pretend I said something different, about "tendencies" or whatever, you know better - you've seen the actual claim, describing specifically your error and where you go wrong, many times.
Like this: "When you set it up as Dems favor one approach, Reps the other, the two equivalently aggressive and violent each in their own way etc, you were wrong."

I'm unable to make sense of this. There are two extreme possibilities: Either your claims about what I said or think or so are completely your fantasy, in this case I name this appropriately, defamation or lie. Or your claim about what I said is correct. In this case "you are wrong" is a statement about your position, but does not contain any argument in support of it. In this case, there is no necessity to correct something, one can dispose it without further comments, or one can remember you that this is not even an argument. Most of the real cases are something between - some elements of your claim vaguely remember what I said, but distort this - this is fighting a straw man. The main advantage a straw man gives you don't use in most of the cases, because even against a straw man your "you are wrong" is not an argument, so even the straw man can relax and does not have to defend himself against an argument. My reaction is something between - it depends on the distance between my real position if I find it necessary to correct the distortion of my position or ignore it.

Your claim is bs, covering up your use of "terrorist" to describe all active opposition to Assad - it doesn't matter who the the US supports or will admit supporting, you are still using "terrorist" to describe any and all active, military opposition to Assad.

This is, for example, a lie.

Any such active military opposition to Assad is, of course, a legitimate target for the Syrian army, and it is equally legitimate and legal for the Russians to support the Syrian army in this fight. And it does not matter at all for this point if this military opposition is secular and follows the rules of war (say, find in uniforms, with open weapons, protect civilians and so on) or if they use openly terrorist methods, murder civilians, cut the heads of children and so on. And in particular I have not named the Kurdish YPG terrorists. Even given the various accusations against them that they expel Arab population from territories they control.

If I had a gun and were serving in the Ukrainian army, that's exactly what you'd call me.

This is similar bs, I distinguish very well that there is the Ukrainian army, and there are fascist military formations. The distinction is not very trivial, given that some of these fascist gangs have been formally integrated into the Ukrainian legal structures controlled by the fascist Avakov, but they de facto remain independent, uncontrolled military formations, have a long record of robbery and murder. If they are CIA-paid can be doubted, I would say the CIA pays some influence agents, but not more, the main source of income of these gangs is robbery of the Ukraine.

Trump is not able to control that part, because Trump has no idea who is or is not a terrorist in Syria. What Trump knows is who Putin wants the US to quit supporting. And not supporting them makes things better for Putin, in Syria.

What Putin wants is that the US stops to violate international law, and international law is violated if the US supports military opposition against the legitimate government of other countries. As long as the US supports some factions which fight Daesh, instead of fighting the legitimate government, they have some excuse. But only in this case - as providing to people support against terrorists in regions where the goverment is unable to do this. This would be the same sort of justification which Russia has to support the Donbass, as providing support against the illegitimate forces which control the Ukrainian army after the coup, in a situation where the legal authority - Janukovic - is unable to provide it.

 

[iceaura]

I'm unable to make sense of this.

I do not believe that.

It's perfectly clear: for Trump reasons, because you favor fascists in general as national heads of State (they rely more on private enterprise, and government is your evil), you are trying to set up the Dems and Reps in the US as - in their modern, Reagan-era, this-generation incarnations - equivalently aggressive and violent and so forth in their management of US foreign policy.

The obvious fact that the modern Reps when in power have been launching major wars and invading foreign countries with the US military, and the Dems when in power have not, makes that look ridiculous.

So you claim an equivalent amount of disproportionate aggression and violence in the Dem's use of financed foreign terrorism and revolutions and so forth. But such a claim pretends that the Reps have not been also and more or less equivalently doing exactly that, along with their invasions and so forth. I used the words "on top of" a couple of times, so you wouldn't miss it.

And that is quite clearly wrong - from Iran/Contra to the current mess in Syria, the Dems and Reps have been prosecuting each others "Wars On Terror" and "Freedom Fighters" underground and black ops stuff without obvious Party disproportionality. The Reps seem to do that stuff about as much as the Dems do - somewhat more, if examined closely. Since 1968, when the fascist movement in the Reps succeeded in acquiring the neo-Confederate vote (white bigots and fundies), the Reps have been fully involved in "regime change" by all such means, for example.

This is, for example, a lie. {" it doesn't matter who the the US supports or will admit supporting, you are still using "terrorist" to describe any and all active, military opposition to Assad."}
Any such active military opposition to Assad is, of course, a legitimate target for the Syrian army, and it is equally legitimate and legal for the Russians to support the Syrian army in this fight

That was not the question, was it. And you know that was not the question.
The question was about your criteria for the label "terrorist" in Syria. And the answer is: anyone Assad or Russia bombs or rockets, anyone attempting to overthrow or secede from the Assad regime by force.

And in particular I have not named the Kurdish YPG terrorists

Instead, with Kurds you realize you cannot publicly name "terrorists" you deny the Russian attacks.

What Putin wants is that the US stops to violate international law, and international law is violated if the US supports military opposition against the legitimate government of other countries.

Of course. International law. As in Russia's annexation of Crimea.
I keep forgetting about Putin's high motives, in all these countries where Russian ports and petrochemical pipelines are involved.

This would be the same sort of justification which Russia has to support the Donbass, as providing support against the illegitimate forces which control the Ukrainian army after the coup, in a situation where the legal authority - Janukovic - is unable to provide it.

Russia did not stop at "support" - Putin annexed part of Ukraine. Now Russia under Putin has port and pipeline facilities they did not have before. Similar advantages await Putin through establishing a client State in Syria. Russia needs to expand to the south, and China's not having any.

Thing is: the objections to your posting here are not based in your criticism of US foreign dealings, in particular US behavior in Syria (including various US alliance with Wahabi Sunni jihadists connected with Saudi Arabia, for which any Christians among US decisionmakers will burn in hell) . It's your defenses of Putin and all things fascist in America (what is behind those morally bankrupt US Middle East dealings, say) that are at issue. You think you will gain freedom from the rise of fascism and its destruction of sound governamce - the obvious prediction is that you will not. Neither will the Syrians.

 

[Schmelzer]

... because you favor fascists in general as national heads of State (they rely more on private enterprise, and government is your evil), you are trying to set up the Dems and Reps in the US as - in their modern, Reagan-era, this-generation incarnations - equivalently aggressive and violent and so forth in their management of US foreign policy.

Another lie. I would prefer liberals - in the classical (European or your founding fathers) meaning of the word. Such a choice was not available, Ron Paul did not participate.

There are some differences between dems and reps, but they are minor, both are first of all criminals and warmongers. So, the question is only one about less evil.

The obvious fact that the modern Reps when in power have been launching major wars and invading foreign countries with the US military, and the Dems when in power have not, makes that look ridiculous.

It is you who looks ridiculous, ignoring Kosovo, Libya and Syria.

That was not the question, was it. And you know that was not the question.
The question was about your criteria for the label "terrorist" in Syria. And the answer is: anyone Assad or Russia bombs or rockets, anyone attempting to overthrow or secede from the Assad regime by force.

So you repeat your lies even after I have explicitly clarified that I don't do this.

Instead, with Kurds you realize you cannot publicly name "terrorists" you deny the Russian attacks.

And yet another lie. First of all, I could name them publicly terrorists too without problems, many separatists have been named terrorists (IRA, ETA) only based on the facts that they have used military means against the government, so this would not be even in conflict with NATO standards of identifying terrorists, not? Then, there are separatists I name terrorists, without any hesitations: The gangs in Kosovo, the Uigures in China, the Chechens like Bassajev.
Then, I see no reason to deny Russian attacks, if they happen. I remember a discussion with you about some Kurdish jihadi group or so fighting in Latakia. I have not denied that such a group will be bombed. All I have denied was that YPG has been bombed. I can tell you that there have been various reports about some Syrian or Russian bombings of SDF. They have not been acknowledged officially, the reliability of the sources was dubious, and there were no consequences. But this can change. Once ISIS will be finished, and if the Kurds do not find an agreement with the Syrian side, there will be fighting, like there has been now in Iraq.

The Syrian government has, BTW, already officially declared that it does not consider Raqqa as liberated before the Syrian government has taken control of the town.

Of course. International law. As in Russia's annexation of Crimea.
I keep forgetting about Putin's high motives, in all these countries where Russian ports and petrochemical pipelines are involved.

Yes, international law, as applied during the separation of Crimea from the Ukraine and Crimea joining Russia. Which was much more peaceful and legitimate than the NATO annexation of Kosovo.

BTW, Russia has enough own pipelines and oil, it does not need to control foreign oil.

You think you will gain freedom from the rise of fascism and its destruction of sound governamce - the obvious prediction is that you will not. Neither will the Syrians.

Another fantasy. First of all, I do not think I will gain any freedom. I would be very satisfied if I do not lose even more freedom than I have during the last 25 years. But this hope depends on the end of the US-led unipolar world, because it destroys sound governance everywhere. Directly (Germany is now much closer to former Eastern Germany than it was 1990, being a faithful ally) as indirectly (forcing non-allies to protect themselves against color revolutions and terrorist regime change, reducing freedom in the process).

Beyond the positive prediction that the world becomes multipolar, I'm quite pessimistic, in particular I would predict a world-wide economic crisis much more serious than 2008, and a lot of hopefully only local wars connected with the transformation process.