Military Events in Syria and Iraq Thread #4

[iceaura]

Wars are never nice (except maybe for some US bomber pilots or drone operators with sadistic streaks), civil wars are even worse, and refugees are common in all wars.

The Kosovo refugees were largely from ethnic cleansing by the Serbs.

If you have identified sources which lie consistently and in an organized way, do you start to check everything they write?

I check - at least casually - anything I am going to explicitly claim I know for sure is a lie, in public. Even if it's from something like Putin's or Trump's PR team, it might not be completely dishonest. Meanwhile, that wasn't the issue.

I have given the evidence that how the Western media presented all this was a big lie. If there are some remains of truth hidden among these lies I remain uncertain.

Nobody was arguing that the Western media presentation was accurate enough to satisfy a believer in Putin's PR releases.

You suggest here that I use some type of reasoning which I certainly don't use.

It is your most frequently employed "type of reasoning". For example, it's the exact and explicit argument you used to deny even the possibility that Assad launched chemical weapons against Syrians a few months ago. It's the exact and explicit argument you used to deny climate change and Jim Crow.
Here it is again, a couple of sentences later:

They have lied, so they found the real evidence is not strong enough to justify a war

And therefore the attempts at ethnic cleansing of Kosovo by the Serbs did not happen?
Soon you will again be denying Assad's atrocities and Putin's complicity or agenda in Syria on the grounds that Western propaganda is full of lies - while posting Western propaganda you haven't noticed is lies.

The maps.

 

[Schmelzer]

Daesh seems yet strong enough to launch some counterattacks. So, today they have attacked the road Palmyra-Deir Ezzor, near Al Shola. It was necessary to close the road for some time, because of the nearby fighting, but the attack finally failed. No interesting new maps found.

The Kosovo refugees were largely from ethnic cleansing by the Serbs.

Of course, you forget about the refugees of the NATO war, and the ethnic cleansing by the Albanians.

Nobody was arguing that the Western media presentation was accurate enough to satisfy a believer in Putin's PR releases.

Fine. And I'm not arguing that what I think happened in Kosovo is accurate enough to satisfy believers in NATO PR releases.
An attempt to justify the following defamation:

You keep saying stuff that happened or seems to have happened or might well have happened cannot have happened because in your ignorance you don't find it plausible, or you can't see it, or it doesn't make sense to you, or you are "uncertain"

For example, it's the exact and explicit argument you used to deny even the possibility that Assad launched chemical weapons against Syrians a few months ago.

No. Find the difference. I have made a standard evaluation of the motive of the accused, Assad. The conclusion was that he would have been extremely stupid to do this. Which makes the theory that he has done it implausible. This is all. I do not "deny even the possibility" of whatever. It is, of course, possible that Assad has done it, or that Obama has done it, or that Merkel has done it, or Putin, or iceaura.

It's the exact and explicit argument you used to deny climate change and Jim Crow.

Both denials are anyway only your fantasy. And the same holds here too. I evaluate the plausibility, and this is sufficient. There is no necessity for me to "deny even the possibility" of whatever propaganda shit you claim.

Here it is again, a couple of sentences later:

They have lied, so they found the real evidence is not strong enough to justify a war

And therefore the attempts at ethnic cleansing of Kosovo by the Serbs did not happen?

I don't know for certain. But it is quite implausible. The evidence in favor of the theory of ethnic cleansing is too distorted by propaganda lies to be reliable.

Soon you will again be denying Assad's atrocities and Putin's complicity or agenda in Syria on the grounds that Western propaganda is full of lies - while posting Western propaganda you haven't noticed is lies.

Not on the ground that Western propaganda is full of lies. This is simply a fact which I have to take into account by evaluating the reliability of the presented evidence. Of course, I will post what I think is the reality - and this includes, of course, all the claims where I make errors in my evaluation. These errors may be believing some Western propaganda lies. Because I do not automatically reject everything written by Western media, but do this following strategies which I have explained already several times. So I will trust the weather prediction even from a NATO propaganda source.

 

[iceaura]

Of course, you forget about the refugees of the NATO war, and the ethnic cleansing by the Albanians.

No, I did not.

I have made a standard evaluation of the motive of the accused, Assad. The conclusion was that he would have been extremely stupid to do this.

You made a naively presumptuous guesswork evaluation of the various motives of the despot Assad, overlooking the obvious at hand, yes. (You have a blind spot for fascism.) But you denied the event itself based on your evaluation of Western propaganda - the same reasoning that had you denying Putin was rocketing some Kurds and other non-"terrorists".

This is all. I do not "deny even the possibility" of whatever.

You did in fact mock even the well-supported suggestion that Assad might have done it - that he had motive and means and opportunity, and that it fit his pattern of behavior.

I evaluate the plausibility, and this is sufficient.

Exactly. You "evaluate the plausibility" just as described above, and that is sufficient for you. That's not a defamation - it's a description.
Here you are again, posting your criteria for evaluating plausibility:

The evidence in favor of the theory of ethnic cleansing is too distorted by propaganda lies to be reliable.

So because Western propaganda was full of lies, Serbian ethnic cleansing is "implausible".

Not on the ground that Western propaganda is full of lies.

On that ground. Explicitly. Like this:

This is simply a fact which I have to take into account by evaluating the reliability of the presented evidence.

And the way you evaluate the reliability of the presented evidence is described above - not by comparing the evidence to information you possess about the physical reality involved, but by its association with media reports you have already determined to be propaganda.

Ethnic cleansing by the Serbs in Kosovo, for example, was an obvious likelihood going in, the default expectation given their declared agenda, history, and recent behavior. They had motive, opportunity, character, and apparent intention. So when tens of thousands of targeted ethnics with horror stories have piled up on the borders trying to flee the country, what should the default assumption be?

Maps. They enjoy evaluation according to physical evidence and information.

 

[Schmelzer]

Not many news from Syria. An Al Qaida attack yesterday has had some success, one village has been taken, today the news is that the village has been taken back by the Syrian army. A Daesh attack against the T2 pumping station and airbase with several suicide attacks, without success. So, the most interesting point seems to be that the Iraq army has now been given green light to attack Daesh also in Syria by Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar Al-‘Abadi. https://mobile.almasdarnews.com/art...roops-green-light-attack-isis-syria-mayadeen/

You made a naively presumptuous guesswork evaluation of the various motives of the despot Assad, overlooking the obvious at hand, yes. (You have a blind spot for fascism.) But you denied the event itself based on your evaluation of Western propaganda - the same reasoning that had you denying Putin was rocketing some Kurds and other non-"terrorists".

Stop lying about my argumentation.

It becomes boring, whatever you claim about me is a lie, a defamation, a distortion, at best a misinterpretation.

You did in fact mock even the well-supported suggestion that Assad might have done it - that he had motive and means and opportunity, and that it fit his pattern of behavior.

But not based on the argument that "the NATO press has claimed it, therefore it is wrong" or so, but based on a simple common sense interpretation of Assad's motives, as well as those of his enemies. This "cui bono" has nothing to do with the evaluation of Western propaganda. It is additional evidence for Western propaganda lying yet another time, thus, a side effect. But the base is the cui bono argument.

Of course, you don't accept the cui bono argument, based on you quasi-religious picture of evil fascists, which do even completely stupid things simply because it is evil or so, and blame me for not following this nonsensical religion,

Exactly. You "evaluate the plausibility" just as described above, and that is sufficient for you. That's not a defamation - it's a description.

The defamation was that I make, based on such plausible reasoning, stupid conclusions that some things cannot have happened or so. So, you add some stupid exaggeration of my argumentation to make me look stupid.

Here you are again, posting your criteria for evaluating plausibility:

The evidence in favor of the theory of ethnic cleansing is too distorted by propaganda lies to be reliable.

So because Western propaganda was full of lies, Serbian ethnic cleansing is "implausible".

No. The argument you quoted was not about plausibility, it was about the reliability of the reports.

It was combined with a statement about what I think, namely: "I don't know for certain. But it is quite implausible." But these two parts are not connected by any indication that one follows from the other, like a "because" or so. Learn to read, instead of inventing your own (always unfavorable for me) ideas about my argumentation.

And the way you evaluate the reliability of the presented evidence is described above - not by comparing the evidence to the information you possess about the physical reality involved, but by its association with media reports you have already determined to be propaganda.

First of all, this is your type of reasoning. It is you who has some list of evil sites like your beloved Breitbart, where you don't compare what is written there with anything else but reject it. You can do it, I cannot? Then, no, this is not what I do. I'm used to extracting information from propaganda sources. So, I'm ready to extract the weather prediction from CNN, or, more serious, to extract even from SOHR information about actual front lines in Syria.

Moreover, I make comparisons with the facts I possess. For example, I read in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbs_of_Croatia (which is a source usually distorted in pro-Western direction)

In 1995 an estimated 200,000 Serbs fled Croatia as a result of the Croatian military's Operation Storm.[3] As a result of these and other events, the Serb population within the present-day borders of Croatia has fallen from about 550,000 (17.3% of the population) in 1900 to about 185,000 (4.4% of the population) in 2011.[4][5]

Based on this, I accept that there was some ethnic cleansing during the civil war, done by the Croats (in fascist tradition) against Serbs, at least during the operation in the Krajina.

Ethnic cleansing by the Serbs in Kosovo, for example, was an obvious likelihood going in, the default expectation given their declared agenda, history, and recent behavior. They had motive, opportunity, character, and apparent intention. So when tens of thousands of targeted ethnics with horror stories have piled up on the borders trying to flee the country, what should the default assumption be?

If one would think like you, one would probably make your assumption. But I don't think so. I see the Serbs were, at that time, yet in communist traditions, which are internationalist. And this is the tradition of Tito - who's father was Croat, and mother Slovene. There was, of course, also a quite strong Serbian nationalism, in particular also a revival of the Serbian fascist movement (Chetniks). But Milosevic plainly denied even to be a nationalist.

That a "low level lawyer" and "secondary guy" acting on their own got that list of men into one room in Trump Tower in the middle of Trump's campaign to talk trivia about adopted babies is not something anyone with common sense in this world is going to believe, ok? That's why Junior there - and everybody else involved - concealed the meeting and lied about it afterwards.

All of the lobbying in the US has been by people connected to Putin's government.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/16/heres-memo-kremlin-lawyer-took-to-meeting-donald-trump-jr/ which is probably a
low-level Kremlin propaganda paper writes:

According to her talking points, obtained by Foreign Policy, Veselnitskaya made the case that the American businessman Bill Browder perpetrated a massive scheme of tax fraud against the Russian state and then launched a global campaign claiming that his companies had in fact been defrauded by Russian officials - and that they had killed the lawyer Sergei Magnitsky in order to cover it up.
When Trump Jr. and Veselnitskaya met in June 2016, each appeared to think the meeting was about something different. Trump Jr. thought he was getting damaging information on Clinton, possibly from the Russian government, and Veselnitskaya believed she was being given an opportunity to make her case for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act.

Veselnitskaya has orchestrated a yearslong lobbying campaign against the Magnitsky Act, and former American intelligence officials argue that she could not have done so without at least tacit approval from the Kremlin.

But if Veselnitskaya was dispatched to New York to suss out whether Trump operatives were receptive to help from the Kremlin, she would arguably have been an odd choice. Veselnitskaya remains far from Putin’s inner circle and does not speak English.

Emphasis mine.

 

[iceaura]

Stop lying about my argumentation.

I'm not.

But not based on the argument that "the NATO press has claimed it, therefore it is wrong" or so, but based on a simple common sense interpretation of Assad's motives, as well as those of his enemies

Your "common sense" interpretation of Assad's motives, and those of his enemies, you derived exactly as described - by rejecting and denying aspects of reality you associated with Western propaganda. It therefore conflicted directly with common sense based on Assad's behavior in office, physical situation, and record of governance, by excluding obvious possibilities and motives common to strongmen of his kind and circumstances.

It was combined with a statement about what I think, namely: "I don't know for certain. But it is quite implausible." But these two parts are not connected by any indication that one follows from the other, like a "because" or so.

You derived your assessment of plausibility by rejecting things associated (in your view) with Western propaganda.

Based on this, I accept that there was some ethnic cleansing during the civil war, done by the Croats (in fascist tradition) against Serbs, at least during the operation in the Krajina.

Seems likely, yep.

I see the Serbs were, at that time, yet in communist traditions, which are internationalist. And this is the tradition of Tito - who's father was Croat, and mother Slovene. There was, of course, also a quite strong Serbian nationalism, in particular also a revival of the Serbian fascist movement (Chetniks). But Milosevic plainly denied even to be a nationalist.

You have also presented, as evidence on this forum, Trump's denials and claims - somewhat comically, to an American familiar with his type. And Putin's. That's the flip side of your rejections and denials - gullibility.
At least this time you have actually registered the existence of lots of Serbian ethnic identity and hostility toward the Croats, even a movement you label "fascist" (apparently on arcane grounds of it being "nationalist"). Now if the implications of Milosevic's being the leader and strongman of that ethnic identity and well-armed hostility toward the Croats, as an essential and significant factor in his gaining power, sink in - - - - -

It is you who has some list of evil sites like your beloved Breitbart, where you don't compare what is written there with anything else but reject it.

I don't do that, and never have. You are projecting, and believing what you type. Here, for example, is bullshit from Breitbart containing lots of information I do not reject on the basis of this association: http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/...inton-state-department-link-trump-jr-meeting/

Emphasis mine.

You are posting irrelevancies and deflections about Veselnitskaya. Why?

 

[Schmelzer]

Good news from Syria.

There is actually fighting inside Al Bukamal, and there are already claims that Al Bukamal is "almost liberated" and that iceaura's friends are already running away in unknown direction.

Your "common sense" interpretation of Assad's motives, and those of his enemies, you derived exactly as described - by rejecting and denying aspects of reality you associated with Western propaganda.

Of course, not. I do not consider Western propaganda as reliable, so, it happens quite often that I believe something where the Western propaganda claims something different. But this does not mean that I derive my beliefs from rejecting Western propaganda. This would be a quite stupid error - to believe something simply because it is the opposite to what Western propaganda claims.

At least this time you have actually registered the existence of lots of Serbian ethnic identity and hostility toward the Croats, even a movement you label "fascist" (apparently on arcane grounds of it being "nationalist").

No. The Chetniks explicitly put themselves into the tradition of the former Chetnik movement. This movement was not only Serbian nationalist but cooperated with Mussolini's Italy, as with Nazi Germany, as with Ustasha Croatia in their fight against the communist partisans. Even if the ideology of the Chetniks was not explicitly fascistic, and they were initially hostile against the occupation forces and initially even cooperated with the communist partisans, their ideology explicitly supported ethnic cleansing of Greater Serbia, and such things have been done during the war. And, of course, given the cooperation of the Chetniks with all fascist occupants in their fight against the communist partisans, they were named fascists by the communists.

For Serbians who wanted to switch sides toward fascism after the end of communism in Serbia would naturally use the Chetnik tradition. I follow here my original definition of fascism - explicit support of a fascist tradition. Instead, Milosevic remained in the communist tradition.

I don't do that, and never have. You are projecting, and believing what you type.

Fine if you don't do it. But you have created this impression, by crying a lot about me having used once a link to a Breitbart site. I'm certainly not projecting - I have explained several times that I use even some information from SOHR. At this time I had not even known about this site - I simply followed the links to find the original for some funny joke.

You are posting irrelevancies and deflections about Veselnitskaya. Why?

The "irrelevancies" were relevant to show that your claims (which I have quoted) are bs.

 

[iceaura]

Of course, not. I do not consider Western propaganda as reliable, so, it happens quite often that I believe something where the Western propaganda claims something different. But this does not mean that I derive my beliefs from rejecting Western propaganda.

On this forum you have derived many of your beliefs by rejecting anything associated with your view of Western propaganda. That's your most frequent line of reasoning. I listed several examples, all of which you have had pointed out to you in the past.
You also derive beliefs by uncritically accepting Western propaganda from one particular American factional source (the faction in control of the Republican Party, properly labeled "fascist") via its sponsored media operations. That's your second most frequent line of reasoning with regard to domestic American politics.

Either way, your evaluation of the propaganda is your basic point of reference - not information about physical reality, which you do not possess.

I follow here my original definition of fascism - explicit support of a fascist tradition.

That wasn't your criterion. Your criterion was self-labeling, propaganda, not actual support explicit or otherwise. That was an example of your reasoning from propaganda rather than physical reality.
And although that's not a workable definition of any ideology, it's particularly idiotic with regard to fascism - fascists commonly and characteristically and classically use such labels to mislead and conceal, and that's a characteristic feature of fascist power seizing.

For Serbians who wanted to switch sides toward fascism after the end of communism in Serbia would naturally use the Chetnik tradition. I follow here my original definition of fascism - explicit support of a fascist tradition. Instead, Milosevic remained in the communist tradition.

Milosevic was the chosen strongman and militaristic leader of Serbs you have labeled fascist, as well as others, and the ethnic cleansing they perpetrated furthered his program for Serbian domination of an expanded Serbian nation. What "tradition" that was in, whether he and his incoming governance were fascist or not, is irrelevant to a discussion of the Serbian ethnic cleansing - your blind spot may be in play here again, or may not, I don't know.

This would be a quite stupid error - to believe something simply because it is the opposite to what Western propaganda claims.

Yes, it would be. Now take a look at your reasoning about climate change, Jim Crow, Trump's agenda, Clinton's policies, Putin's Ukraine annexation, and whether Assad would use chemical weapons on Syrian citizens.

Fine if you don't do it. But you have created this impression,

No, I haven't. That's from something you typed. You are believing what you type, again.
Pretty soon you will be claiming I have created the impression of favoring the Sunni jihadists in Syria - another four or five typings of "iceaura's friends" should do it for you.
That's a standard brainwashing technique, btw - have the target write, over and over again, what you want them to believe. It works.

The "irrelevancies" were relevant to show that your claims (which I have quoted) are bs.

They have nothing to do with my claims, quoted or otherwise.

Meanwhile: as events progress toward Assad success and even victory, is Putin going to get what he wants out of this, in Syria? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Schmelzer]

The liberation of Al Bukamal is now official https://mobile.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-last-isis-stronghold-syria-liberated-syrian-army/

This is of some strategic importance for the Iran, because it now has control over a much better Syria/Iraq border crossing, securing a land connection from Iran to Lebanon not controlled by US allies. The other important border crossing at Al Tanf is yet occupied by the US army.

On this forum you have derived many of your beliefs by rejecting anything associated with your view of Western propaganda.

Quote a single one, liar. Rejecting counterarguments as Western propaganda is not the same as deriving something. Stop lying, learn elementary logic, and learn how to interpret texts written by people who know elementary logic.

You also derive beliefs by uncritically accepting Western propaganda from one particular American factional source (the faction in control of the Republican Party, properly labeled "fascist") via its sponsored media operations.

And, even more general, I derive nothing at all in politics. Derivations are part of mathematics and physics. All one can do in politics is plausible reasoning. So, stop lying that I derive something in political discussions.

Either way, your evaluation of the propaganda is your basic point of reference - not information about physical reality, which you do not possess.

As if you would possess it. We all have only sources which claim to give information about physical reality, and we all have to evaluate if they are distorted by propaganda. That you don't do it - and least this claim suggests this - is your problem, and characterizes you as a cheap propaganda victim.

That wasn't your criterion. Your criterion was self-labeling, propaganda, not actual support explicit or otherwise.

That is already nitpicking. My definition is precise enough, in comparison with your, which you have not even given yet. But it remains nonetheless vague. Moreover, they are not named Chetniks by others but name themselves Chetniks, so self-labeling is there, and the only question is if it is appropriate to name the original Chetnik movement fascist. The facts I have given (self-naming of the Chetniks today, the military cooperation of the Chetniks in WW II with all fascist armies present in Yugoslavia fighting communist partisans, are about reality.

And although that's not a workable definition of any ideology, it's particularly idiotic with regard to fascism - fascists commonly and characteristically and classically use such labels to mislead and conceal, and that's a characteristic feature of fascist power seizing.

Feel free to present a better, more reasonable definition. You have not yet. So, actually, it remains what can be seen from your use of the notion, namely what you don't like them very much.

Milosevic was the chosen strongman and militaristic leader of Serbs you have labeled fascist,

No, he was not. Instead, they won victories in post-Milosevic "democratic" Serbia, without the West bothering about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chetniks#Serbia writes:

In Serbia there has been a revival of Chetnik nationalism.[200][201] Since the early 1990s, the SPO has annually held the "Ravna Gora Parliament"[202] and in 2005 it was organized with state funding for the first time.[203] Croatian president Stjepan Mesić later canceled a planned visit to Serbia as it coincided with the gathering.[204] People who attend the Parliament wear Chetnik iconography and T-shirts with the image of Mihailović[205] or of Mladić,[202] who is on trial at the ICTY on charges of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.[206] The SRS headed by Nikolić, still in favor of a Greater Serbia and rooted in the Chetnik movement,[207] won the 2003 elections with 27.7 percent and gained 82 seats of the 250 available.[201] In 2005, Patriarch Pavle of the Serbian Orthodox Church backed the SRS.[190] It later won the 2007 elections with 28.7 percent of the vote.[201]

Yes, it would be. Now take a look at your reasoning about climate change, Jim Crow, Trump's agenda, Clinton's policies, Putin's Ukraine annexation, and whether Assad would use chemical weapons on Syrian citizens.

Found nothing. If you find a quote, give it.

Pretty soon you will be claiming I have created the impression of favoring the Sunni jihadists in Syria - another four or five typings of "iceaura's friends" should do it for you.

I will stop naming Daesh "iceaura's friends" immediately after you give a clear statement that you support, in the fight between Assad and Daesh, the Syrian army.

Meanwhile: as events progress toward Assad success and even victory, is Putin going to get what he wants out of this, in Syria? Inquiring minds want to know.

Let's see.
Aim 1: Destruction of international terrorist forces, in particular, those from Russian-speaking countries, which would, if IS would become an established state (as it looked like), sooner or later attack Russia. Got.
Aim 2: Peace in Syria. Not yet.
Aim 3: Showing Russian ability to support states attacked by US-paid terrorists, so that they can survive. Got.
Aim 4: Real war experience for parts of the Russian army, in a war scenario which can be expected to be typical for US-supported terrorist wars. Got. (While the actual number of planes in Syria was quite small, there was a lot of rotation, so that now essentially all Russian pilots have real war experience.)
Aim 5: Testing modern Russian military equipment. Got.
Aim 6: Increasing arms sales of arms which appeared successful on the Syrian battlefield. Got.
Aim 7: Strengthening the Russian political influence and the SCO cooperation. Got.
Aim 8: Improving and securing naval infrastructure in the Mediterranean Sea. Got.

 

[iceaura]

"Milosevic was the chosen strongman and militaristic leader of Serbs you have labeled fascist,"
No, he was not.

Yes, he was. For example, from your wiki link:

After Serbian President Slobodan Milošević's assumption of power in 1989 various Chetnik groups made a "comeback"[148] and his regime "made a decisive contribution to launching the Chetnik insurrection in 1990–1992 and to funding it thereafter".[149] -
----
During the Yugoslav Wars, many Serb paramilitaries styled themselves as Chetniks.[148] The SRS's military wing was known as "Chetniks" and received weaponry from the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) and Serbian police.[162] Šešelj personally helped arm Serbs in Croatia[162]and recruited volunteers in Serbia and Montenegro, sending 5,000 men to Croatia and up to 30,000 to Bosnia and Herzegovina.[163]According to Šešelj "the Chetniks never acted outside the umbrella of the Yugoslav People's Army and the Serbian police".[162]
- - -
Milošević and Radovan Karadžić, the president of the self-proclaimed Republika Srpska, used the subordinate Chetnik forces of Šešelj and Ražnatović as part of their plan to expel non-Serbs and form a Greater Serbia through the use of ethnic cleansing, terror, and demoralization.[173]

That is already nitpicking. My definition is precise enough, in comparison with your, which you have not even given yet. But it remains nonetheless vague. Moreover, they are not named Chetniks by others but name themselves Chetniks, so self-labeling is there, and the only question is if it is appropriate to name the original Chetnik movement fascist.

You have never given a definition of fascism, or even a list of characteristic field marks and essential features such as I have given you (starting with corporate capitalism as its economic system).
So we see that lacking any serious definition or even description, you have again accepted self-labeling and self-reporting as a go/nogo criterion, which in the case of fascism especially is a joke - just about the silliest criterion imaginable for the classification of political movements so characteristically dependent on false labeling in their propaganda.

Found nothing. If you find a quote, give it.

You found several. You even found previous responses to that demand.

We all have only sources which claim to give information about physical reality, and we all have to evaluate if they are distorted by propaganda.

That doesn't help you - it's in your evaluations that you go haywire. You seem to think you don't need information to evaluate propaganda, and that leaves you vulnerable to - for example - even the crudest of American political campaign nonsense.
Other people have memories, physical reference points, records of physical circumstances and events, a record of inferences and predictions and how they panned out, and visible arguments that do not rest on the unexamined features of propaganda past and present. A historical record, a long familiarity, and a large body of current observations from several different kinds of sources, makes for a different kind of argument. Try it sometime. Try it with climate change.

Feel free to present a better, more reasonable definition. You have not yet. So, actually, it remains what can be seen from your use of the notion, namely what you don't like them very much.

Another repeated trolling of yours, dealt with in the past (at length) by straighforward argument - such as listing specific examples of liked and disliked folks accurately and differently labeled (including a few you claimed I labeled fascist that I had specifically and explicitly labeled not fascist, demonstrating your inability to either describe my labeling or recognize fascism yourself) - as if it were an honest comment.

It isn't. It wasn't then, either.

Notice, for example, that I have not labeled Milosevic a fascist. That's because I don't know whether he was one, despite disliking his regime and ethnic cleansing and so forth very much. I merely pointed out he was the strongman militaristic leader of groups you had labeled fascist, which is simply a matter of historical record - as you have linked.

I will stop naming Daesh "iceaura's friends" immediately after you give a clear statement that you support, in the fight between Assad and Daesh, the Syrian army.

Unfortunately, you will learn nothing from having posted that. You could learn a lot, about the bubble you've blown for yourself here.
1) I have posted that opinion of mine at least seven times. I have even specifically agreed with you, at least twice, pointing directly to my agreement with you at the time, in the dubious and much regretted assessment that Assad was probably - as far as I could tell - the best current option for Syria in the wake of the Iraq Occupation by the US, despite the nature of his governance (which unlike you I acknowledge). That's best realistic option over all, I agreed, never mind over the worst option of Daesh - better than an attempt at Kurdish separation, for example. You can't get much clearer than that.
2) Justifying your own bs and propaganda repostings and Putin-excusing deflections by attacking other people's stances wouldn't work even if you somehow were to be correct in your attacks.

And speaking of Putin-excusing - you left out all the pipeline and economic stuff from your description of benefits for Putin in Syrian victory. They don't make the top ten?

 

[Schmelzer]

An acutal map of the situation around Al Bukamal:

It looks like for some time there is some agreement that the region East of the Euphrat will be left to the SDF. This is certainly not forever. My hypothesis is that the Syrian army will finish the Al Qaida (also known as Hatesh, or joepistole's friend) before caring about SDF. During that time, one will use diplomatic and informational pressure to see how the US will justify the occupation of Syrian territory after the end of Daesh.

Yes, he was. For example, from your wiki link:

Ok, maybe. One would have to check the referenced source - Ramet, Sabrina P. (2006). The Three Yugoslavias: State-Building and Legitimation, 1918–2005. Bloomington: Indiana University Press - if it is reliable, or if it simply copypastes NATO propaganda.

You have never given a definition of fascism, or even a list of characteristic field marks and essential features such as I have given you (starting with corporate capitalism as its economic system).

LOL. We have already clarified that corporatism is the economic system everywhere. So, Obama's regime would be fascist too.
Moreover, you lie, I have clarified often enough what I use to define fascism, namely explicit, open support for a fascist tradition, be it Mussolini or Nazi Germany or some other of the many openly fascist movements at that time.

So we see that lacking any serious definition or even description, you have again accepted self-labeling and self-reporting as a go/nogo criterion, which in the case of fascism especially is a joke - just about the silliest criterion imaginable for the classification of political movements so characteristically dependent on false labeling in their propaganda.

No, it is, instead, the definition which hardly can be misused to label non-fascists one hates as fascists. Which is what you do.

You seem to think you don't need information to evaluate propaganda, and that leaves you vulnerable to - for example - even the crudest of American political campaign nonsense.

Of course, having independent information is extremely useful to evaluate propaganda, but I have a serious school - raising up in a country where no independent information was available - where I have learned good methods to extract information from propaganda even if no independent source of information exists. And stop to present yourself as if you would be a teacher able to teach something to others. This is laughable.

1) I have posted that opinion of mine at least seven times. I have even specifically agreed with you, at least twice, pointing directly to my agreement with you at the time, in the dubious and much regretted assessment that Assad was probably - as far as I could tell - the best current option for Syria in the wake of the Iraq Occupation by the US, despite the nature of his governance (which unlike you I acknowledge). That's best realistic option over all, I agreed, never mind over the worst option of Daesh - better than an attempt at Kurdish separation, for example. You can't get much clearer than that.

Fine. So I will not use this label for Daesh in future. But don't forget that I have started to name Daesh "iceaura's friends" at some well-defined moment. So, I would recommend you to go back to this moment to identify what has caused this characterization. Simply to learn what causes such interpretations.

And speaking of Putin-excusing - you left out all the pipeline and economic stuff from your description of benefits for Putin in Syrian victory. They don't make the top ten?

I do not see such a pipeline in the top ten. Some economic reasons (5,6,8) are. The point about the pipeline was a different one: It was proposed as the explanation why SA and Qatar wanted to get rid of Assad, and Iran supported him.
One Russian pipeline (Turkstream) was even endangered by the Syrian engagement. After Turkey has shot down a Russian plane, there was a lot of speculation that this would be the end of Turkstream.

 

[iceaura]

Moreover, you lie, I have clarified often enough what I use to define fascism, namely explicit, open support for a fascist tradition,

That's a field mark, not a definition, and it begs the question of your definition. After all: If you can't recognize fascism, you can't recognize a fascist tradition either.
Furthermore, you don't actually use that criterion (you don't use it to evaluate Trump, for example). The criterion you use is self-labeling - whether the principals label themselves fascists and members of fascist groups.

"Yes, he was. For example, from your wiki link:"
Ok, maybe. One would have to check the referenced sourceRamet, Sabrina P. (2006). The Three Yugoslavias: State-Building and Legitimation, 1918–2005. Bloomington: Indiana University Press - if it is reliable, or if it simply copypastes NATO propaganda.

You are apparently unable to evaluate NATO propaganda.
Meanwhile: It's your damn link, it was supposed to provide evidence to me - the evidence from your own link isn't good enough for you?

LOL. We have already clarified that corporatism is the economic system everywhere. So, Obama's regime would be fascist too.

You obviously aren't responding to my post as written (you have omitted central terms and inverted the direction of implication, for starters - I have several times directed your attention to that basic screwup, noting that you are supposed to be a math guy, but you insist on committing it)
so the question is why not: How - or why - did you get the argument backwards? Overlook central terms?

No, it is, instead, the definition which hardly can be misused

It's not a definition. It's already been misused by you.

No, it is, instead, the definition which hardly can be misused to label non-fascists one hates as fascists.

So would simply labeling nobody a fascist - and with essentially identical results. Which is why your definition is so congenial for those who - like you - have an interest in trying to deny fascism when it's right in front of them.

Which is what you do.

In your previous attempts to provide examples, which you have wisely abandoned: you alternated claiming I label every rightwinger I don't like "fascist", which was obviously false, with claiming fascists like Trump are not fascists.

Of course, having independent information is extremely useful to evaluate propaganda, but I have a serious school - raising up in a country where no independent information was available - where I have learned good methods to extract information from propaganda even if no independent source of information exists.

Whatever they are and however you came by them, your "methods" are not good. They don't work. You keep getting fooled and making dumb mistakes. You are among the most gullible posters on this forum, when confronted with professional rightwing American propaganda. Look at the idiocy you posted on climate change, for example. Or Clinton. Or Jim Crow. Or Trump.

- So, I would recommend you to go back to this moment to identify what has caused this characterization. Simply to learn what causes such interpretations.

There's no mystery about the "causes" of your troll-posting here, and no reason to go back over all the times you have committed such follies - the next one will be along soon.

I do not see such a pipeline in the top ten. Some economic reasons (5,6,8) are.

Your eyesight is not evidence. You omit major economic factors in play in Syria (for the US and Russia alike) only at the expense of your credibility.

The interesting aspects of your denial of the major economic motives in Syria include not merely how it whitewashes Putin, but also how it allows you to project senseless and blind ideology unto the US. One could speculate a connection there - exposing US motives in Syria exposes Russian motives at the same time.

 

[Schmelzer]

"

That's a field mark, not a definition, and it begs the question of your definition.

Ok, definition: I name an organization fascist if it is
1.) Mussolini's black shirts,
2.) If it has cooperated with Mussolini in his attempts to create a fascist international.
3.) If it has named itself fascist.
4.) Hitler's national socialists.
5.) A nationalist organization which has supported German/Italian occupation forces of its country (Quislings).
6.) If it tries to revive, explicitly and openly, one of the organizations in 1-5.

For me, this is nothing but a naming convention. So, I do not have to identify any "essentially fascist" properties.

Furthermore, you don't actually use that criterion (you don't use it to evaluate Trump, for example). The criterion you use is self-labeling - whether the principals label themselves fascists and members of fascist groups.

Given that I'm not aware of any case where Trump has openly labeled himself fascist, he is not fascist. A simple application of this criterion, so I use it. (The idea of a compromise with you widening the definition of fascism so much that Trump fits I have given up. You have not liked the results anyway, given that Obama appeared to be a fascist too.)

Meanwhile: It's your damn link, it was supposed to provide evidence to me - the evidence from your own link isn't good enough for you?

Of course, Wikipedia is, in the domain of politics, not a reliable source, at least in the English part heavily distorted in favor of NATO propaganda. If a source is distorted toward a well-known side, its claims can be used in a quite safe way against this side, while claims in favor of this side have to be doubted. A basic rule for work with propaganda sources.

You obviously aren't responding to my post as written (you have omitted central terms and inverted the direction of implication, for starters - I have several times directed your attention to that basic screwup, noting that you are supposed to be a math guy, but you insist on committing it)
so the question is why not: How - or why - did you get the argument backwards? Overlook central terms?

Which central terms? The only term given in your "You have never given a definition of fascism, or even a list of characteristic field marks and essential features such as I have given you (starting with corporate capitalism as its economic system)" is corporate capitalism. So, this is all I use answering this. I'm not aware of any complete definition of fascism you have given, if you have given it somewhere, give the link.

So would simply labeling nobody a fascist - and with essentially identical results.

Except your Ukranian Bandera friends, the Serbian Chetniks. But, indeed, it would be useless for you. So what? Not my problem.

In your previous attempts to provide examples, which you have wisely abandoned: you alternated claiming I label every rightwinger I don't like "fascist", which was obviously false, with claiming fascists like Trump are not fascists.

You may have hidden somewhere a definition of fascism you use. But it remains hidden to me. I can only guess about it.

The usual "you are stupid" without a single bit of information disposed of.

You omit major economic factors in play in Syria (for the US and Russia alike) only at the expense of your credibility.

Maybe. Feel free to add the information I omit. This would add credibility to you. Such "you are stupid" nonsense without any information is, instead, simply boring, and reduces your credibility.

 

[Schmelzer]

An interesting article http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/11/08...-strategy-could-suffer-a-fatal-blow-in-syria/ about what the Clintonoids think should be done in Syria.

it’s entirely within the U.S. coalition’s capabilities to decide that they — not the pro-Iranian forces — will seize Abu Kamal and the Syria-Iraq border from the Islamic State.

This is what makes the liberation of Al Bukamal so important - this part of a possible US plan (the dream of this FP writer) is now dead.

What should be done after this is described in the following way:

Washington can assure its SDF partners that it will remain in Syria even after the Islamic State is defeated to assist them in holding strategic terrain and assets that they have liberated — even in the face of intimidation, threats, and attacks from the Syrian regime and its backers.

So, the plan is, in violation of any international law, to continue to occupy the Syrian territory it has taken over from ISIS, even after ISIS is defeated - that means, even after the only justification for the US to act in Syria has disappeared. The aim of this occupation is, simply, blackmail:

The U.S. goal should be to accumulate as much leverage as it can with an eye toward an eventual negotiation on Syria’s future.The U.S. goal should be to accumulate as much leverage as it can with an eye toward an eventual negotiation on Syria’s future. Especially if the SDF is able to take Abu Kamal, the assets already held by the U.S. coalition are substantial and should not be frittered away for nothing. To list just a few of those assets: Large swathes of territory in northern and eastern Syria. Many of the country’s most important infrastructure projects — essential to its economic future — including Syria’s largest gas and oil fields in Deir Ezzor, as well as some of its largest dams and hydroelectric power stations. Finally, the United States and its partners in Europe and the Arab Gulf hold the key to the tens of billions of dollars in international assistance that Syria will require to recover from the civil war’s devastation

And the aims of this blackmail are also quite interesting:

With those cards in hand, Washington and its allies will at least have standing to demand that any political settlement in Syria take American interests into account. That means a plan to eventually transition Assad from power; guaranteeing the basic political and social rights of Syria’s minorities, especially the Kurds; and, perhaps most importantly, preventing the establishment by Iran and its Shiite proxies of a permanent military presence in Syria that would light the fuse on a future Israeli-Iranian conflagration. In short, no IRGC land bridge to the Mediterranean.

So, among the Clintonoids, the wet dream of "Assad must go" is yet alive. And the Israeli dream of preventing the Iranian land bridge to the Mediterranean too.

Of course, a Clintonoid cannot do without propaganda lies, so there appears also a "rights of Syria’s minorities". As if the US has ever cared about them, by supporting terrorist forces who relied on the Sunni majority only, putting all the minorities in danger of genocide.

So, with this nice description what the Clintonoids would do now, one can also have a look at what they think evil Trump may do:

The great unanswered question about Trump’s Syria policy is whether U.S. military support of the SDF is aimed solely at defeating the Islamic State, or whether it is now also informed by the larger objective set out in the president’s new strategy of countering Iran’s growing power as well. If only the former, then once the military rout of the Islamic State is completed, America’s job in Syria will be done and U.S. forces can withdraw claiming “Mission Accomplished” — abandoning the SDF to fend for itself in the face of the Iranian/Syrian/Russian tsunami.

In other words, in this horrible scenario the fascist Trump would do what he is obliged according to the international law and in particular the UNSC resolutions about Syria.

And even more interesting is the comment about the horrible thing Trump has already done:

Whatever one thinks about the merits of the dispute between the Iraqi government and the Kurdistan region in the wake of the latter’s ill-timed independence referendum, the widespread perception now exists that the United States took a knee as one of its most loyal and reliable partners was humiliated and brought to heel by an Iraqi Army in cahoots with — and heavily influenced by — Iranian-backed Shiite militias and their IRGC masters. Within a matter of days, and with Washington largely watching from the sidelines, the American-backed Kurdish project in Iraq — more than a generation in the making — has been brought to the precipice of ruin and collapse.

 

[iceaura]

Maybe. Feel free to add the information I omit. This would add credibility to you.

I have linked you to pipeline and oil and gas and geopolitical issues surrounding them several times. So of course you granted credibility, and incorporated the information into your analysis.

Ok, definition: I name an organization fascist if it is

That is not a definition. Even as a set of field marks - like a bird identification guide - it is of very limited use (central Europe, post WWII, non-Soviet bloc regions). You seem confused, at a very basic level, about fascism.

So, the plan is, in violation of any international law, to continue to occupy the Syrian territory it has taken over from ISIS, even after ISIS is defeated - that means, even after the only justification for the US to act in Syria has disappeared. The aim of this occupation is, simply, blackmail:

Not blackmail - ransom, extortion. And extortion via the economic leverage you omitted from your list of Putin's motives - and then demanded I supply, again. Do oil and gas and money only exist for you when the US wants to seize them and use them for its own benefit?

An interesting article http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/11/08...-strategy-could-suffer-a-fatal-blow-in-syria/ about what the Clintonoids think should be done in Syria.

As long as you confuse yourself by adopting propaganda terms designed for confusion ("Clintonoids"), you will be confused. What you are describing is (for example) an aspect of the foreign policy of W&Cheney, in the region. The PNAC related stuff, etc. It's what's behind the Iraq War, Saddam's removal, etc. It's primarily the work of domestic political enemies of the Clintons, people now allied with Trump.
The propaganda effort to spread blame for that as widely as possible has claimed many victims, not just you. It's been Republican Party stuff, predominantly, in the US (not denying major Dem involvement). You naturally expect to get more of this from Republican Trump than you would have from Clinton, and more militarized rather than diplomatic - you do understand these basics of American politics, right?

And even more interesting is the comment about the horrible thing Trump has already done:

Attend to this:

the American-backed Kurdish project in Iraq — more than a generation in the making

Calling that the project of "Clintonoids" is going to prevent you from making sense about Trump. (Notice that he has Tillerson in his cabinet, guys like Mnuchin, and he is handing big money to the CIA and the Pentagon while removing and defunding civilian oversight of whatever his administration's plans regarding Iran involve).

In other words, in this horrible scenario the fascist Trump would do what he is obliged according to the international law and in particular the UNSC resolutions about Syria.

If you think respect for international law is even on the radar in Trump's administration, as anything other than a nuisance, you're a fool.

 

[iceaura]

If a source is distorted toward a well-known side, its claims can be used in a quite safe way against this side, while claims in favor of this side have to be doubted. A basic rule for work with propaganda sources.

And for some reason you think you can do that, without information, anywhere - climate change, domestic US politics, stuff you know nothing about.

And that's giving you the benefit of the doubt, assuming that you are not merely one of Putin's bitches with no agenda other than confusion itself.

Look: You can't evaluate or assess distortion, you can't "know" a "side" well, you can't even identify the sides involved, without information. You won't know what the claims are, whether they are "against" any particular side, or how to "doubt" them. You will instead post the kind of stuff you have posted about climate change, Jim Crow, Trump's campaign, and so forth - the silliest, stupidest, most juvenile garbage imaginable, straight from the least credible and most distorted propaganda operations of the American rightwing media feed, posted in all sincerity. You actually believed it.

So we are left to wonder - those of us who lack info about Syria - whether your entire description of the Syrian conflict is similarly delusional. You clearly have no bullshit detector where Putin is concerned, and the fact that Clinton was Secretary of State for a couple of critical years of this mess can be counted on to trash your perceptions of anything in the vicinity forever before and after - what's left?

The maps.

 

[Schmelzer]

I have linked you to pipeline and oil and gas and geopolitical issues surrounding them several times.

But that was not about some Russian pipeline plans, but about pipeline plans of other players.

As I have already explained you several times, the word "fascism" is today anyway of very limited use, mostly discredited by all those who name everybody right of them "fascist". What I use is what makes sense - those who I name fascists roughly name themselves fascists too. So my usage cannot be accused to be defamation.

You have not yet given a meaningful definition of fascism.

Not blackmail - ransom, extortion. And extortion via the economic leverage you omitted from your list of Putin's motives - and then demanded I supply, again.

Of course I "omit" motives I see no evidence for. Putin was invited by the legal government, and what it gets there it gets on the base of volitional contracts. Extortion is something different.

Do oil and gas and money only exist for you when the US wants to seize them and use them for its own benefit?

No, but only if sized in illegal ways it is morally wrong to make money out of oil and gas.

As long as you confuse yourself by adopting propaganda terms designed for confusion ("Clintonoids"), you will be confused. What you are describing is (for example) an aspect of the foreign policy of W&Cheney, in the region. The PNAC related stuff, etc. It's what's behind the Iraq War, Saddam's removal, etc. It's primarily the work of domestic political enemies of the Clintons, people now allied with Trump.

Feel free to replace it with propaganda terms you like more. Globalists, warmongers or so. I think that there are a lot of rep. warmongers like McCain, who would agree with these proposals too.

You naturally expect to get more of this from Republican Trump than you would have from Clinton, and more militarized rather than diplomatic - you do understand these basics of American politics, right?

I'm sure the author of that piece would have much preferred Clinton. I have no idea if he is rep or dem, as if this would matter.

Attend to this: Calling that the project of "Clintonoids" is going to prevent you from making sense about Trump. (Notice that he has Tillerson in his cabinet, guys like Mnuchin, and he is handing big money to the CIA and the Pentagon while removing and defunding civilian oversight of whatever his administration's plans regarding Iran involve).

Nice try, but you don't get the point that, however it is named, the wet dreams of this guy have not been realized, but, instead, severely damaged. And the poor guy whines openly about it, and is afraid that this will continue. Moreover, it seems quite clear that Trump has to be blamed for the sadness of this poor guy. Clinton would have made him, quite certainly, much happier. Not?

If you think respect for international law is even on the radar in Trump's administration, as anything other than a nuisance, you're a fool.

I don't think so. I would like it if it would be on your radar. And that you would care who argues in favor of violating it.

The other posting contains only the usual "you are stupid", zero information -> garbage can.

 

[iceaura]

No, but only if sized in illegal ways it is morally wrong to make money out of oil and gas.

Do try to bear down: Putin. Motive. Omitted. Elephant In Room.

But that was not about some Russian pipeline plans, but about pipeline plans of other players.

You cannot possibly be that fucking stupid.

Of course I "omit" motives I see no evidence for. Putin was invited by the legal government, and what it gets there it gets on the base of volitional contracts.

Including volitional contracts involving oil and gas pipelines, granted to Putin's favored and denied to others. So why did you omit that obvious, hugely significant motive? You are attempting to present Putin - the powerful man in control of the very large Russian oil and gas industry and its multinational operations - as the only player in Syria not motivated by the oil and gas pipelines stuff. That's silly.

As I have already explained you several times, the word "fascism" is today anyway of very limited use, mostly discredited by all those who name everybody right of them "fascist".

You keep posting that, yes. But it never happened. The very few people who call everyone to the right of them fascist have had no such influence, in part because they have been largely excluded from the major media in the US along with the rest of the Left. The people of US influence who misuse "fascist" in that way, on TV and major media, are using it to name everybody to the left of them "fascist". That's far more common, on US media.

So that claim, false and counterfactual as it is, is one of the "intellectual" stupidities being promoted by US propaganda feeds - part of an American billionaire-funded effort to destroy the meanings of words used in political discourse, (a variety, but especially "liberal" and "fascist"), to help them gain political power in a democracy that would have nothing to do with their agenda otherwise. Orwell explained this.

In other words: That's a fairly crude American wingnut propaganda meme you posted - and you don't even know it. You think it's an insight. Tell us again about how you have good methods for obtaining information from propaganda.

Feel free to replace it with propaganda terms you like more. Globalists, warmongers or so.

Try "Republicans". That would be somewhat accurate, at least, to a first approximation.

Use "Republicans" whenever you are talking about US political faction behind the launching of the Iraq War, the regime change movements in Middle Eastern countries, and so forth, and you will think more clearly.

I'm sure the author of that piece would have much preferred Clinton

Are you now.
If Clinton reversed her adopted "no Kurdish nation" policy, and Obama's "support and train Iraqi Army against all enemies" policy, maybe. But why would you expect that?
You don't know anything about the guy, or the context, or Clinton, or Trump's policies, or what the discussion was about. But you're "sure". Because bringing Clinton anywhere near your thought process is like putting a magnet up against a plasma TV.

Nice try, but you don't get the point that, however it is named, the wet dreams of this guy have not been realized, but, instead, severely damaged. And the poor guy whines openly about it, and is afraid that this will continue. Moreover, it seems quite clear that Trump has to be blamed for the sadness of this poor guy. Clinton would have made him, quite certainly, much happier.

You seem unaware of the role, context, and audience of that paper, in taking it at face value as you do. It's an attempt at manipulation, not a memoir of regret.
And no, Clinton would not have been expected to act overall any differently with regard to the Kurds - more competently, perhaps, with a less blatant betrayal better concealed with soft words, but same basic outcome.

So that's not why Putin wanted Trump running the Syrian war.

 

[Schmelzer]

There is yet heavy fighting either on the outskirts of Al Bukamal or even inside the town.

Including volitional contracts involving oil and gas pipelines, granted to Putin's favored and denied to others. So why did you omit that obvious, hugely significant motive? You are attempting to present Putin - the powerful man in control of the very large Russian oil and gas industry and its multinational operations - as the only player in Syria not motivated by the oil and gas pipelines stuff. That's silly.

And as usual a lie. What makes the difference is that one uses legal means (being invited by the legitime government), the other not.

You keep posting that, yes. But it never happened. The very few people who call everyone to the right of them fascist have had no such influence, in part because they have been largely excluded from the major media in the US along with the rest of the Left. The people of US influence who misuse "fascist" in that way, on TV and major media, are using it to name everybody to the left of them "fascist". That's far more common, on US media.

Whatever, most of those called fascists today do not identify themselves as fascists, thus, feel defamed. I do not like such defamations in general. Note also that I have made this decision based mainly on the German use of "fascism", which includes naming a moderate right-wing party like AfD fascist, but (in the same media) avoiding to name anything in the Ukraine fascists, despite them openly admiring Bandera and even crying Sieg Heil from time to time. The US is quite irrelevant here, even if I have not yet seen any evidence that there is a difference. At least your behavior does not show any essential difference. Those you name fascists do not identify themselves as fascists, and you have not given any neutral, objective criteria your use of "fascism" is based on. So, your naming is, from what I can judge, your quite arbitrary subjective decision, nothing objective.

Try "Republicans". That would be somewhat accurate, at least, to a first approximation. Use "Republicans" whenever you are talking about US political faction behind the launching of the Iraq War, the regime change movements in Middle Eastern countries, and so forth, and you will think more clearly.

Obama and Clinton are Republicans? LOL.

If Clinton reversed her adopted "no Kurdish nation" policy, and Obama's "support and train Iraqi Army against all enemies" policy, maybe. But why would you expect that?

The US support for the Kurds in Syria, serious enough to cause open conflict with Turkey, is nothing Trump has started. The use of the YPG as an US asset can be attributed to October 2015, the creation of SDF, which is a pure US construction, which allowed to claim the US that their support for YPG is not support for the Syrian branch of the Kurdish PKK terrorists, but for some Syrian democratic forces, even if it was essentially nothing but YPG. (Today it is a little bit more, namely the US was buying some tribes supporting Daesh to switch sides.)

And the moment they became the main US-supported force, instead of Al Qaeda, can be named too - the fall of Aleppo. Up to this moment, the whole propaganda war was 100% pro Al Qaeda. You remember all these last hospitals bombed by evil Russians, and the US not even stopping the support for the Al Zinki childheadcutters even after that video? But after Aleppo was lost by the US, they understood that Al Qaeda is not strong enough to win the war, and switched to plan B, the Kurds. (There was also the NSA project, which resulted in the US occupation of the Al Tanf border crossing, so which of the two one names "plan B" is quite arbitrary.)

You seem unaware of the role, context, and audience of that paper

As usual, zero information. Feel free to give your version of the role, context, and audience of that paper.

 

[iceaura]

What makes the difference is that one uses legal means (being invited by the legitime government), the other not.

Irrelevant - the issue was Putin's gains from his Syrian involvement, legal or illegal. You omitted the pipeline stuff - for no definite reason. But obvious possible reasons are right there - having Putin share the motives of the US brings one too close to comparing his actions, maybe.

"Try "Republicans". That would be somewhat accurate, at least, to a first approximation. Use "Republicans" whenever you are talking about US political faction behind the launching of the Iraq War, the regime change movements in Middle Eastern countries, and so forth, and you will think more clearly."

Obama and Clinton are Republicans? LOL.

A good example of where clarification of your thinking would help a great deal.
Read the post, use "Republican". Preventing that kind of crass stupidity on your part will be one of the major benefits - you confuse yourself so badly on this forum simply by adopting American wingnut vocabulary, that I have become impressed at how effective it is at screwing people up.

Whatever, most of those called fascists today do not identify themselves as fascists, thus, feel defamed.

Your concern for the fragile feelings of wealthy and powerful US fascists is charming, but when it leads you to overlook the nature of Republican governance and make gross errors of assessment thereof, perhaps a reminder that they aren't reading these forums anyway will help you overcome your shy and delicate reluctance.

The US is quite irrelevant here, even if I have not yet seen any evidence that there is a difference.

When you are talking about US politics and policy, as you continually are, the US is relevant.

The US support for the Kurds in Syria, serious enough to cause open conflict with Turkey, is nothing Trump has started

Or Obama, or Clinton. It's primarily a Republican project, associated with the Iraq adventures.

And the moment they became the main US-supported force, instead of Al Qaeda, can be named too - the fall of Aleppo. Up to this moment, the whole propaganda war was 100% pro Al Qaeda.

You're doing it again - relying on your assessments of propaganda to tell you what's going on in the world.
Converting anti-Assad propaganda to pro-AQ propaganda is of course a mistake in that assessment, and a rather crude one. But it fits so well with your need to show Putin's assaults on Assad's enemies in a universally good light , that disabusing you of such foolishness seems a hopeless task.

 

[Schmelzer]

Irrelevant - the issue was Putin's gains from his Syrian involvement, legal or illegal.

And this is what makes a big difference between a "liberal" and a libertarian. For an etatist, all that matters is that the state gains something, legal or illegal does not really matter.

You omitted the pipeline stuff - for no definite reason.

The reason is that I see no Russian interest in building a pipeline through Syria. And that one pipeline Russia is building - Turkstream - was even endangered by the Syrian involvement, because it has created some conflict with Turkey. Ok, Gazprom and Rosneft are international concerns, they may reasonably hope for some contracts with Syria after the war is won. Feel free to add this to the list point as one more (and quite secondary) aim.

But obvious possible reasons are right there - having Putin share the motives of the US brings one too close to comparing his actions, maybe.

Your private conspiracy theory? I do not share the "all is about oil" mania and even less in its "oil is evil" . Oil is important, and has motivated and decided many wars, and plays certainly a big role on the Saudi/US side as well as for Iran. But for Russia, it is in this war only a side issue. So, Kirkuk is much more important than the whole Syrian oil together, afaik.

Your concern for the fragile feelings of wealthy and powerful US fascists is charming, but ...

but I do care about myself. I would discredit me by using defamations. Moreover, by defaming others following the mainstream.

When you are talking about US politics and policy, as you continually are, the US is relevant.

The US is quite irrelevant to my decision about how to use the word "fascism". I do not see any reason to change this because of some actual US politics.

Or Obama, or Clinton. It's primarily a Republican project, associated with the Iraq adventures.

It had bipartisan support, and is essentially a deep state project.
You're doing it again - relying on your assessments of propaganda to tell you what's going on in the world.

Converting anti-Assad propaganda to pro-AQ propaganda is of course a mistake in that assessment, and a rather crude one.

Except that I'm not doing it. There was a lot of pro-AQ support on the ground. Almost as open as for the Al Zinki childheadcutters. The situation on the propaganda front is simply an indication, in this case about the moment of time when the West has decided that AQ has failed to deliver.