Military Events in Syria and Iraq Thread #4

[iceaura]

Your private conspiracy theory? I do not share the "all is about oil" mania and even less in its "oil is evil"

The observation that the oil business is a major factor in the Syrian wars is now labeled - by our local Putin apologist - a "conspiracy theory". A "private" one no less.

Look: you left it out. Omitted it. Completely. In a list of Putin's motives and issues in Syria, pipelines and Middle East petrochemicals didn't even make your top ten. At the same time, you posted a discovered proposal by a US guy to use oil field control for major State-level extortion of Syria and Putin as legitimate evidence of US issues and motives - so it's not like you never heard of the importance of oil and gas and pipelines in Syria. You do know about them, and how critical they are - you just left them out.

What's up with that?

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.

Why are you trying to change and limit the issue to Syrian oil, when it was explicitly pipelines etc?
These rhetorical manipulations have formed a pattern.
Kirkuk's importance to Putin in Syria would be largely the pipeline deals involved, of course. Here's a Western take on Kirkuk: https://www.memri.org/reports/misse...ria-chooses-terrorism-over-long-term-economic
But that doesn't make your top ten. Revelatory.

Except that I'm not doing it. There was a lot of pro-AQ support on the ground

You posted that 100% of the US and NATO news feed - you labeled it all "propaganda" - was pro-AQ, until Aleppo. Not "a lot". The whole thing.

The US is quite irrelevant to my decision about how to use the word "fascism".

.
Reality itself is irrelevant to how you use that word. It's entirely a propaganda term to you, free-floating, essentially with no meaning at all, and in the US the propaganda is sophisticated - they've got your number.
And so you can't identify US fascists, and are clueless about US politics (a resurgence of fascism being the most significant recent trend). But you quarrel with other people's identifications, as if you knew what you were talking about.

It had bipartisan support, and is essentially a deep state project.

Everything that is obviously stupid in your propaganda-addled view of the US is the fault of the "deep state". It's like talking to a little kid who blames stuff on the closet monsters.

The Iraq War, including the regime change policy associated with it, was centrally and essentially a Republican Party war.

It was a one-Party, Partisan, Republican Party initiative. All other involvement was bandwagon side support and/or more or less passive complicity. The issue for the national Democratic politicians was not whether to participate and join, but whether or not to forthrightly oppose this Republican warmongering they had no actual role in. Most did stand up and oppose, despite the Republican propagandist engineered media frenzy - and many lost their jobs, in consequence. When you assert "bipartisan support", you libel them.

The PNAC and other American Imperialist theory providers were Republican, the corrupt military contracting was Republican, even the military command directly involved was Republican. It was a one-Party show, all the way. This was completely overt, open, and public at the time. This was celebrated by many of the Republican principals. They bragged about it.

The Partisan nature of the Iraq War and all that surrounded it has only become muddled in the wake of an American rightwing disinformation campaign, that was launched in the wake of the disaster, launched when it all fell apart, in an effort to spread the blame for what could not be denied.

But as we have seen so many times: that particular American propaganda feed strikes your Achilles heel - and you have actually bought that line, along with the rest of their slop you keep posting here: "bipartisan support", etc. The American dumbass call their bogey of recurrent cognitive dissonance "establishment", you have a slightly more sophisticated "deep state", but minor variations in terminology aside: You swallowed.

And that brings us to Putin's motives in the Syrian wars. If you have a list, and pipelines aren't on it,
1) you probably have a worthless list of course - but the real issue is
2) how does inclusion of pipeline issues inform us as we interpret maps and other information?

 

[CptBork]

Schmelzer knows full well that Putin has a major interest in controlling Syria's oil. Russian military contractors have been promised a large cut of the profits from any wells they "liberate" from Assad's opponents, it's not a state secret.

 

[iceaura]

Side points:

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.
- - - -
The reason is that I see no Russian interest in building a pipeline through Syria.

The matter at hand was why you omitted pipeline issues from your list of Putin's motives and gains. It was your list - lots of perfectly legal things on it, no problem. And no restriction to only pipelines Russia planned to build - the opposite, even, in the suggestion that Putin may have more of an interest not in building them but controlling ones already built, or abetting ones already planned, or - especially - preventing rivals and enemies from doing so.
See, pipelines are among everybody else's major interests in Syria - as you documented. So Putin's lack of interest in them would be unique, as well as strikingly out of character for the head of State of a major petrochemical exporter. That asks for an explanation.

I would discredit me by using defamations.

That wasn't what you said. What you said was that you objected to making them 'feel" defamed.

Obviously "fascist" is not a defamation when it describes a manifestation of fascism - that category of political ideology. It's the correct and accurate term, allowing informative and enlightening discussion of matters in the real world. And if people object to being accurately classified and informatively discussed - that tells you something about what they are doing, right?
So does the refusal to accurately classify and informatively discuss.

Moreover, by defaming others following the mainstream.

You don't know what the mainstream is, in the US.
We have an American expression for the reluctance to name a bad thing when it's directly in front of you: "Wouldn't say "shit" if he had a mouthful".

 

[CptBork]

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

You're afraid that labelling Trump and Putin as fascists would "discredit" you, but you don't seem to find it discrediting to label kindergartens and hospitals in rebellious parts of Aleppo as terrorist bomb factories and such, or to deny the numbers that were destroyed by your friends...

 

[CptBork]

Look: you left it out. Omitted it. Completely. In a list of Putin's motives and issues in Syria, pipelines and Middle East petrochemicals didn't even make your top ten. At the same time, you posted a discovered proposal by a US guy to use oil field control for major State-level extortion of Syria and Putin as legitimate evidence of US issues and motives - so it's not like you never heard of the importance of oil and gas and pipelines in Syria. You do know about them, and how critical they are - you just left them out.

What's up with that?

It's also hard to believe that Schmelzer would truly think pipelines aren't important to Russia in a land where they're sacrificing significant amounts of blood and treasure and oil is the only major export, yet when he complains about American global influence, his #1 grievance is that the Nordstream 2 pipeline from Russia to Germany is stuck in political and economic limbo. What's up, indeed.

 

[Schmelzer]

The observation that the oil business is a major factor in the Syrian wars is now labeled - by our local Putin apologist - a "conspiracy theory". A "private" one no less.

Learn to read. What I have named "your private conspiracy theory" was not that oil business is important, but your speculations about my motives, which you have marked as speculative yourself (emphasis mine): "But obvious possible reasons are right there - having Putin share the motives of the US brings one too close to comparing his actions, maybe."

At the same time, you posted a discovered proposal by a US guy to use oil field control for major State-level extortion of Syria and Putin as legitimate evidence of US issues and motives - so it's not like you never heard of the importance of oil and gas and pipelines in Syria. You do know about them, and how critical they are - you just left them out.
What's up with that?

Very simple, those in Syria are important for Syria, for maybe the Kurds, for the US to blackmail Syria, then the territory of Syria is for SA/Qatar as well as Iran for pipeline routes. For Russia, the Syrian oil itself is secondary (it has much more itself) and the pipeline routes important for Russia are others. So, for Russia, it is only a side issue. Ok, some contracts for Gazprom and Rosneft are not that bad too, but these are simply nice side effects, they don't make it into the top ten reasons. That there are such side effects I know, of course, but I simply don't consider them to be among the top ten.

Why are you trying to change and limit the issue to Syrian oil, when it was explicitly pipelines etc?

I consider all related questions, so pipelines as well as the oil/gas in Syria itself. Both don't make it into the top ten for Russia. This is simply my opinion about it. If I'm wrong, and it is point 5 or 3 on Putin's list, so what? There would be nothing wrong with this too. Putin helps another country against Western-paid terrorists, and the other country gives, for this, some nice economic opportunities. Would there be anything wrong with this?

You posted that 100% of the US and NATO news feed - you labeled it all "propaganda" - was pro-AQ, until Aleppo. Not "a lot". The whole thing.

You have seen something anti-AQ, pro-Assad in Western media until Aleppo? I haven't.

About iceaura's beloved word "fascism":

Reality itself is irrelevant to how you use that word. It's entirely a propaganda term to you, free-floating, essentially with no meaning at all, and in the US the propaganda is sophisticated - they've got your number. And so you can't identify US fascists, and are clueless about US politics (a resurgence of fascism being the most significant recent trend). But you quarrel with other people's identifications, as if you knew what you were talking about.

How it is used by the Western media I have seen, it is, indeed, free-floating propaganda without connection with reality. In Russian media, it is widely used only in relation to the Ukraine, where the Bandera lovers are in power, and openly distribute fascist propaganda in any form (inclusive swasticas and Sieg Heil cries). I consider the Russian use to be more reasonable, and more close to reality.

In fact, I do not really quarrel - it is you who quarrels all the time. I couldn't care less if you start to name some Eskimos fascists or communist or whatever. Your choice, I can live with this. You quarrel that I do not follow your use of "fascist", that I do not name Trump and Putin fascist but Obama and Clinton not. Stop quarreling, live with the fact that I use the word differently.

The Iraq War, including the regime change policy associated with it, was centrally and essentially a Republican Party war.

Your excuses for Democratic warmongering are remarkable, but they don't change the fact that three serious wars (Kosovo, Libya, Syria) were started by Clintons. And you can whine a lot about the evil Republicans which have prepared everything for these wars - but not to start a war when a Democrat is president would be trivial if they did not like these wars too. So, sorry, they wanted the wars they have started. And your fairy tales about peace-loving democrats you can tell CptBork and joepistole. I don't believe them.

And that brings us to Putin's motives in the Syrian wars. If you have a list, and pipelines aren't on it,
1) you probably have a worthless list of course - but the real issue is
2) how does inclusion of pipeline issues inform us as we interpret maps and other information?

You have asked me about such a list, I have made a guess - if I would think this list would be worth to be posted, I would have published it myself, without waiting for your request. It is simply what I think about this, a guess, nothing more. What matters to me is that there is - with or without oil, gas, pipelines - nothing on the list I would heavily oppose, and enough to justify fighting a war.

If we look at the maps, we see that the Syrian army has cared about the part West of the Euphrat, and allowed the US to capture the East of the Euphrat, that means, most of the Syrian oil. As well as the territory for a Kirkuk pipeline. Despite many Russian commenters have hoped that the Tiger forces would cut the Kurds from reaching the oil fields, this has not happened, and was not even seriously tried. The conclusion was that there was reached some agreement between Russia and US, an agreement where the Kurds were allowed to take the oil fields. What does this tell us about the role of Russian oil and pipeline interests? I don't know.

It's also hard to believe that Schmelzer would truly think pipelines aren't important to Russia in a land where they're sacrificing significant amounts of blood and treasure and oil is the only major export, yet when he complains about American global influence, his #1 grievance is that the Nordstream 2 pipeline from Russia to Germany is stuck in political and economic limbo. What's up, indeed.

So which pipeline is Russia interested to build through Syria? How much oil is there to get in a country where oil production peaked in 2000peaked in 2000 according to iceaura's source? And, mainly, why was Putin endangering Turkstream with an operation where conflict with Turkey was predictable (and really happened later)? Pipelines are certainly important for Russia - but not those through Syria. They are important for Iran, SA and Qatar.

See, pipelines are among everybody else's major interests in Syria - as you documented. So Putin's lack of interest in them would be unique, as well as strikingly out of character for the head of State of a major petrochemical exporter. That asks for an explanation.

No problem. Look at the map. Find Russia, find the main customers for Russian oil and gas (hint: Europe, China), then find Syria. Then find the other players (Iran, SA, Qatar), their main customers, and again Syria. Then make conclusions about who is interested to build pipelines.

So, the only thing which could be a Russian interest here would be "or - especially - preventing rivals and enemies from doing so". But this is not Russian thinking, this is American thinking.

That wasn't what you said. What you said was that you objected to making them 'feel" defamed.

And I do not want to say thinks such that somebody can justly feel defamed. Even if it is my enemy.

Obviously "fascist" is not a defamation when it describes a manifestation of fascism - that category of political ideology.

Yes. That's why I have no problem naming the Bandera fans fascists. And I would not have a problem using some well-defined notion of fascism, even if it includes Putin and Trump, if it would be based on some precisely defined criteria. So, I was open to naming every system which uses the fascist economic system - corporatism - fascism. But in this case, Obama and Merkel would be fascist too, which makes it unacceptable to you. I'm yet open to your not yet presented definition.

It's the correct and accurate term, allowing informative and enlightening discussion of matters in the real world.

Maybe. But once it is hidden to me, I cannot use it.

You're afraid that labelling Trump and Putin as fascists would "discredit" you, but you don't seem to find it discrediting to label kindergartens and hospitals in rebellious parts of Aleppo as terrorist bomb factories and such, or to deny the numbers that were destroyed by your friends...

I doubt that "afraid" is a correct description of personal moral restrictions, and probably my use of "discredit" was misleading too, but I have not found a better word. I follow my own moral restrictions, and not afraid at all if this results here in a shitstorm against me, or if this "discredits" me in the eyes of the Clintonoids here.
But it would be a violation of my own principles to support attacks which I think are unjustified. Attacking Trump and Putin as fascist, but not Obama, would be such an unjustified attack. And repeating things which are obviously propaganda lies, like the claims about the 20 or so last hospitals of Aleppo, would be a violation of my own principles too.

 

[iceaura]

What I have named "your private conspiracy theory" was not that oil business is important, but your speculations about my motives,

No, that's not what you posted.

Your excuses for Democratic warmongering are remarkable, but they don't change the fact that three serious wars (Kosovo, Libya, Syria) were started by Clintons.

No, they weren't.
And your foolish "bipartisan support" propaganda feed posting was about the Iraq War. Focus.

Very simple, those in Syria are important for Syria, for maybe the Kurds, for the US to blackmail Syria, then the territory of Syria is for SA/Qatar as well as Iran for pipeline routes. For Russia, the Syrian oil itself is secondary (it has much more itself) and the pipeline routes important for Russia are others. So, for Russia, it is only a side issue. Ok, some contracts for Gazprom and Rosneft are not that bad too, but these are simply nice side effects, they don't make it into the top ten reasons.

For starters, you can't have it both ways: either Putin is defending Syria as a foe of US unipolar hegemony, or Putin is not much concerned with the pipeline deals in Syria. Not both.
Secondly: you have (if honest, increasingly unlikely) greatly underestimated the role of the Syrian pipelines and oil business in Russian geopolitical concerns - start with Iran's relationship with China and Russia, in particular.
btw: Your insistence on talking about Syria's own oil resources, despite demonstrated familiarity with Kirkuk etc, is part of what leads me to suspect you are deflecting on purpose.

So, the only thing which could be a Russian interest here would be "or - especially - preventing rivals and enemies from doing so". But this is not Russian thinking, this is American thinking.

1) It's your thinking, remember? Putin as the foe of unipolar US tyranny over the planet?
2) Putin thinks. There are no modes of thinking unavailable to Putin, due to his being Russian. And many displays of Putin tactics - such as the entire Russian involvement in US domestic politics - exemplify that thinking you say is not "Russian".
3) You have set a new bar for public stupidity. "Russian thinking"? "American thinking"? You can't even follow the thinking of one American (me) when it's written down in front of you. How about "people thinking", for starters: baby steps. Then you can step up to "criminal syndicate thinking".

No problem. Look at the map. Find Russia, find the main customers for Russian oil and gas (hint: Europe, China), then find Syria. Then find the other players (Iran, SA, Qatar), their main customers, and again Syria. Then make conclusions about who is interested to build pipelines.

Nobody is talking about "who's interested to build pipelines". That's all secondary, tangential, like the Syrian oil. Why do you keep trying to avoid this subject?

Pipelines are certainly important for Russia - but not those through Syria. They are important for Iran, SA and Qatar.

You walk right up to it, and shut your eyes.
It's like watching a high-tech crew tunnel and drill into a bank vault, and having somebody describe their motives in detail - and leave out the money in the vault.

What matters to me is that there is - with or without oil, gas, pipelines - nothing on the list I would heavily oppose, and enough to justify fighting a war.

Nobody here thinks you would withdraw your support of Putin, in a conflict with the US, for any reason - which is why your omission of the Syrian geopolitical role in the planet's oil and gas markets, a central concern of any modern Russian leader, is significant.

Apparently even someone as fully on board with Putin as you are has trouble reconciling Putin's visible agenda in the real world with their support.

And I would not have a problem using some well-defined notion of fascism, even if it includes Putin and Trump, if it would be based on some precisely defined criteria

You obviously do have such a problem. You refuse to recognize the criteria, even, so intent are you on avoiding "defamation" of the Putins and Trumps of this world.

But it would be a violation of my own principles to support attacks which I think are unjustified. Attacking Trump and Putin as fascist, but not Obama, would be such an unjustified attack.

An inability to identify fascism - or any other US political ideology, for that matter - is not a "principle".

So, I was open to naming every system which uses the fascist economic system - corporatism - fascism

You keep getting it backwards - and you're a math guy? That's really kind of stupid, you know. It's basic: "if A then B" is not the same as "if B then A".
And the propaganda twist - leaving out "capitalist", a central and absolutely necessary term in that context - is a repeated feature of your propaganda-addled posting here. You insist on it. Do you think that's your idea? Are you that lost?

And I do not want to say thinks such that somebody can justly feel defamed. Even if it is my enemy.

There's no injustice in standard, originally self-established, ordinary terminology for common ideology.

Maybe. But once it is hidden to me, I cannot use it.

It's not hidden from anyone else here. Quit hiding it from yourself.

And when you have done that, reinterpret the maps. The maps are valuable.

 

[CptBork]

Maybe Putin plans to send probes to the moon and sell pretty moon rocks on Earth to pay for Syria's reconstruction. Russia can't afford it from their own pockets, because they blew all their spare cash on Sochi.

 

[CptBork]

And I do not want to say thinks such that somebody can justly feel defamed. Even if it is my enemy.

That doesn't seem to be a problem for you when you accuse Joepistole and I of supporting Al Qaeda, or accusing Obama of supporting the ISIS leaders that Assad himself released from prison.

But it would be a violation of my own principles to support attacks which I think are unjustified. Attacking Trump and Putin as fascist, but not Obama, would be such an unjustified attack. And repeating things which are obviously propaganda lies, like the claims about the 20 or so last hospitals of Aleppo, would be a violation of my own principles too.

This ain't Leningrad, comrade. A lie repeated over and over doesn't become the truth here. We've been over your "last hospital" propaganda hoax several times before. The bloggers who put that compilation together sourced reports from hospitals in completely different regions of Aleppo rather than the besieged city itself, and several reports were published/re-published on different dates referring to the same attack on the same hospital, but were referenced separately to falsely present them as contradictory claims. Do you still wish to claim that your reference is reliable?

 

[CptBork]

Note to all: If I recall correctly, Schmelzer often claims he has sources which he's not allowed to disclose here. The Russian troll farms in St. Petersburg and elsewhere have their own internal Wiki-KGB site with only facts about how awesome Russia is (at least the white Orthodox Christian Slavs), and how evil Yankees and their prosperous friends are by contrast. They're apparently not allowed to make any claims which can't be found on said Wiki, presumably along with a variety of "sources" which (they hope) can't be obviously traced back to their origins at the Kremlin. They also have 3 specific rules:

1) Do not criticize Putin.
2) Do not criticize Putin.
3) I KEEL YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY IF YOU CRITICIZE TSAR PUTIN!

It would be interesting to compare what's on the KGB's WikiBullshit to the nonsense Schmelzer spews to see how much of it matches up, assuming it's even publicly accessible (if not, too bad Wikileaks has apparently become a front for the KGB).

 

[Schmelzer]

For starters, you can't have it both ways: either Putin is defending Syria as a foe of US unipolar hegemony, or Putin is not much concerned with the pipeline deals in Syria. Not both.

Strange logic. A policeman is catching a thief stealing bread. You cannot have it both ways: The policeman is defending the victim of the thief, and the policeman is not much concerned with getting bread to eat?

Secondly: you have (if honest, increasingly unlikely) greatly underestimated the role of the Syrian pipelines and oil business in Russian geopolitical concerns - start with Iran's relationship with China and Russia, in particular.
btw: Your insistence on talking about Syria's own oil resources, despite demonstrated familiarity with Kirkuk etc, is part of what leads me to suspect you are deflecting on purpose.

Maybe. Give some evidence for these points. Not about the US, SA or Qatar interests, but about the Russian.
Russian shows military activity in Syria, and the question was about Syria. I do not insist on talking about whatever, if you like, talk about Kirkuk, no problem.

1) It's your thinking, remember? Putin as the foe of unipolar US tyranny over the planet?
2) Putin thinks. There are no modes of thinking unavailable to Putin, due to his being Russian. And many displays of Putin tactics - such as the entire Russian involvement in US domestic politics - exemplify that thinking you say is not "Russian".
3) You have set a new bar for public stupidity. "Russian thinking"? "American thinking"? You can't even follow the thinking of one American (me) when it's written down in front of you. How about "people thinking", for starters: baby steps. Then you can step up to "criminal syndicate thinking".

Obviously one cannot use anymore in discussions with Americans normal human language because one receives a shitstorm for politically incorrect speech or so. I was talking about some traditions in the political thinking where Russian and American traditions are quite different. The idea is not my own, but common and popular among many Russian commenters, that anglo-american political thinking is characterized as zero-sum thinking.

Nobody is talking about "who's interested to build pipelines". That's all secondary, tangential, like the Syrian oil. Why do you keep trying to avoid this subject?

"The subject" seems to be that Russia, you seem to think, is simply interested to harm, by whatever means, the US and all of its allies, . This is how you interpret that Russia fights for a multipolar world, without US hegemony. But this is your idea about this, not my own. If you want to discuss this, no problem. But, once I do not think that Putin thinks this way and wants to harm them all, these points will not appear as high priority on what I think is a Russian priority list.

It's like watching a high-tech crew tunnel and drill into a bank vault, and having somebody describe their motives in detail - and leave out the money in the vault.

So be explicit here, what is, IYO, the money in the vault? Simply whatever is bad for the US and their allies is good for Russia? What else? Which oil or gas pipeline is the Russian aim, which oil field? What else?

Apparently even someone as fully on board with Putin as you are has trouble reconciling Putin's visible agenda in the real world with their support.

Some oil geopolitics is certainly not something I would have trouble with. Of course, Putin is doing a lot of such geopolitics, with Turkstream and Northstream II and pipelines to China.

You obviously do have such a problem. You refuse to recognize the criteria, even, so intent are you on avoiding "defamation" of the Putins and Trumps of this world.

I indeed have a problem to identify any criteria for fascism among your postings. Give a precise definition of fascism, which is not "Trump and Putin are fascists, Clinton and Obama not", but something objective, something one can evaluate, to find out which of the four mentioned are fascists.

You keep getting it backwards - and you're a math guy? That's really kind of stupid, you know. It's basic: "if A then B" is not the same as "if B then A".

I considered one possible definition of fascism. "If corporatism then fascism" would be one. I do not claim that it is your definition, your definition is yet hidden, so that it cannot be discussed. If it contains "if fascism then corporatism", fine, but this is not yet a definition of fascism, but one particular property.

And the propaganda twist - leaving out "capitalist", a central and absolutely necessary term in that context - is a repeated feature of your propaganda-addled posting here. You insist on it. Do you think that's your idea? Are you that lost?

I'm not leaving it out at all, it is not relevant today because there actually are no non-capitalist economies. In the wide sense, which is necessary anyway if you want to include corporatism, which has nothing to do with free market capitalism.

It's not hidden from anyone else here. Quit hiding it from yourself.

Once you openly refuse to give a definition (which is how I have to interpret this) it makes no sense to discuss fascism with you. So, end of the fascism discussion until you give an explicit definition. Anyone else here may know your Party line, I don't.

 

[Schmelzer]

Daesh claims to have retaken Al Bukemal. This seems to be fake, but there are certainly serious counterattacks with a lot of suicide bombers, and nonetheless various speculations about some parts not yet cleared or again under Daesh control after such counterattacks. The official position (MoD) is that Al Bukemal is under SAA control, and reports by SOHR and even some Iranian source seemed to refer only to the Daesh claims.

At the same time, the Tiger forces are advancing toward Al Bukemal from the North along the Euphrat. As before, they advance not in the Euphrat valley itself, but in the nearby desert. This makes sense from a military point of view, given that it is much more difficult for Daesh to hide themselves in the desert, but control of the desert gives fire control over the valley. The clearing of the remaining big pocket has started too, several points South-East of Al Sholah and Kobajeb have been taken.

or with some more detail:

That doesn't seem to be a problem for you when you accuse Joepistole and I of supporting Al Qaeda, or accusing Obama of supporting the ISIS leaders that Assad himself released from prison.

Learn to read, my description contains the word " justly". You and joepistole I have named based on your postings here, Obama based on what I know about the situation on the ground. If you or joepistole openly declare that I have misunderstood something and in the fighting between Al Qaeda and the Syrian army you are on the side of the Syrian army, fine, I will stop naming Hatesh "joepistole's friends" or so.

A lie repeated over and over doesn't become the truth here. We've been over your "last hospital" propaganda hoax several times before. The bloggers who put that compilation together sourced reports from hospitals in completely different regions of Aleppo rather than the besieged city itself, and several reports were published/re-published on different dates referring to the same attack on the same hospital, but were referenced separately to falsely present them as contradictory claims. Do you still wish to claim that your reference is reliable?

I have read your link which attempted to justify all the last hospitals of Aleppo destroyed, and it did not convince me. Ok, some of the 23 or so may have referenced the same bombing, so what, don't forget that already two such claims would be at least one lie.

Note to all: If I recall correctly, Schmelzer often claims he has sources which he's not allowed to disclose here.

You don't recall correctly. All my sources are open access. Many of them are in the Russian language, therefore it makes not much sense to link them here, that's all.

 

[iceaura]

Obviously one cannot use anymore in discussions with Americans normal human language because one receives a shitstorm for politically incorrect speech or so.

You have not been criticized for "politically incorrect" anything, on this forum. You have been the source of attempts to enforce "political correctness" , instead - you are the source of the shit in that storm, here.

Your private restrictions of terminology and dysfunctional usage demands are convenient for your propaganda feed repetitions, but propaganda feeds are not normal human language. Fascism is a normal, meaningful word in English, especially in the political wing of a science forum, for example, and I use it just that way. You are the one attempting to enforce "political correctness" - entirely in alignment with your focus on propaganda instead of physical reality.

Once you openly refuse to give a definition (which is how I have to interpret this)

Now you are interpreting your own gullibility and denials as someone else's "refusals". Blaming others for your own intellectual defects and absurdities.

Some oil geopolitics is certainly not something I would have trouble with.

But you do. In Syria, you cannot even acknowledge it.

"The subject" seems to be that Russia, you seem to think, is simply interested to harm, by whatever means, the US and all of its allies,

Not "simply" - complicatedly, as a tactic. It's in Putin's interest, and displayed in his actions, and the goal of some of his operations. It's also one of your interests, explicitly described many times - as a benefit of Trump's election, for example, reducing US global influence.

I have read your link which attempted to justify all the last hospitals of Aleppo destroyed, and it did not convince me.

You are on record as refusing to be convinced that Jim Crow, AGW, and Republican fascism, even exist. You claimed that Bill Clinton started the Kosovo war, and that Putin's interest in the Syrian pipelines is so minor it isn't worth listing. You repeatedly post agitprop and canards from the crudest and stupidest of US propaganda feeds, as persuasive and convincing.

So, apparently, convincing you of things is something that only the likes of Putin, Ailes, and Breitbart, and professional American wingnut propaganda feeds in general, can do. We can't. Nobody can compete with your mental bubble merely by posting words in front of you.

I considered one possible definition of fascism. "If corporatism then fascism" would be one

No, it wouldn't. That is not a possible definition of fascism. That is from the wingnut American disinformation feed, found in - for example - Jonah Goldberg's book.

I'm not leaving it out at all, it is not relevant today because there actually are no non-capitalist economies.

You definitely leave it out, and insist on leaving it out, and you have insisted on leaving it out over months and on multiple threads here. You did this while posting appreciation of Jonah Goldberg's "bothsides" book, an overt work of propaganda from the professional American wingnut feed - which provides the obvious motive.
And that excuse has nothing to do with identifying fascism.
(Meanwhile: China does not have capital ownership of land and other resources, there's Cuba, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc - you overlook some stuff).

But maybe we can wedge into the military events thread some consideration of the oil and pipeline business in Syria. The people commanding the armies and air forces have not forgotten it.

 

[Schmelzer]

You have been the source of attempts to enforce "political correctness" , instead - you are the source of the shit in that storm, here.

That is, of course, a lie, but an interesting one, because unexpected. So, details, please.

Our disagreement about fascism certainly does not count, because all I have done is not to follow your use of "fascism", but use it myself in another, IMHO more meaningful way. Feel free to name a fascist everybody you don't like, or however else you want to use it - I would simply ignore this as meaningless babble, not reject it as politically incorrect speech. All I do here is to defend myself against your continuing attacks for not using "fascism" in agreement with your Party line.

Now you are interpreting your own gullibility and denials as someone else's "refusals". Blaming others for your own intellectual defects and absurdities.

The fact remains: I have asked you to give a precise definition of fascism, as you use it, and you have not given one up to now.

But you do. In Syria, you cannot even acknowledge it.

A new version of your "denier" play? So I'm now a denier of Putin's evil oil pipeline interests in Syria? So, ok, the Party line seems to require that Putin has the evil interest to prevent every competitor on the gas market to build pipelines. And for this purpose somehow supports one of its competitors, Iran, to get a land bridge from Iran to the Mediterranian Sea.

Not "simply" - complicatedly, as a tactic. It's in Putin's interest, and displayed in his actions, and the goal of some of his operations. It's also one of your interests, explicitly described many times - as a benefit of Trump's election, for example, reducing US global influence.

Ok, we are enemies, so it is quite natural that I do not whine if you harm yourself. And, given that I'm only an irrelevant commenter, I can even be openly happy if something bad happens to you. I'm not, but this is not the point here. The point is that Putin cares about the Russian state. And this is a long time interest, and creating short time harm for enemies can have negative long-term consequences.

So, apparently, convincing you of things is something that only the likes of Putin, Ailes, and Breitbart, and professional American wingnut propaganda feeds in general, can do. We can't. Nobody can compete with your mental bubble merely by posting words in front of you.

Of course, with endless repetitions of "you are stupid" words you cannot convince me of anything. Simply because I'm sufficiently self-confident to ignore such babble. Try to use arguments, argue about content. I'm yet waiting for your definition of fascism, as well as of your description of Putin's oil-related interests in Syria.

Once you have recognized that Putin is able to convince me of something, find some video of Putin's speeches or him answering questions (it should not be that difficult to find some with English subtitles) and learn how to convince other people. It is not that difficult. Stop personal attacks, focus on arguments about the content.

That is not a possible definition of fascism. That is from the wingnut American disinformation feed, found in - for example - Jonah Goldberg's book.

It could be a bad one, but it is obviously a possible one.

About "leaving out capitalism" from a definition of fascism or so:

You definitely leave it out, and insist on leaving it out, and you have insisted on leaving it out over months and on multiple threads here. You did this while posting appreciation of Jonah Goldberg's "bothsides" book, an overt work of propaganda from the professional American wingnut feed - which provides the obvious motive.

Beyond the fact that all this is in your usual attacking language (which seems like something one has to live with, like with small children whining all the time), I'm completely lost about the meaning of your pretense. Can you post even a single quote where I "insist on leaving it out", simply for allowing me to understand what you are talking about?

Fascism is certainly not free market capitalism, but highly regulated capitalism, but I have no problem at all if one names corporatism a form of capitalism.

(Meanwhile: China does not have capital ownership of land and other resources, there's Cuba, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc - you overlook some stuff).

Of course, in every corporatist economy, you have only a restricted market. and the particular restrictions are (predictably) quite arbitrary, because in the particular interest of particular players, and the state playing a big role in this game too. NK and Cuba are quite irrelevant minor exceptions.

But maybe we can wedge into the military events thread some consideration of the oil and pipeline business in Syria. The people commanding the armies and air forces have not forgotten it.

Of course, not. But there is not much to say, beyond the fact that Russia and US (or Syria and SDF) seem to have made an agreement not to fight each other now over the control of the Syrian oil fields East of the Euphrat. So, the oil fields East of Euphrat - the only ones which really matter - go actually uncontested by the Russian/Syrian side under SDF control. And this with full awareness that what happens on the ground East of Euphrat is not the Kurd heroically fighting ISIS, but the US paying local formerly ISIS-supporting Arab tribes to switch sides and use another flag.

By the way, about the importance of the Russian oil interest in Syria I would like to quote a moderator of a Russian military forum where Syria is discussed:

За любое упоминание акуительной важности сирийской нефти скоро начну банить.
Уважаемые пользователи, прошу запомнить, что во всей Сирии добывается столько же нефти, как например на Тевлино-Русскинском и Приобском месторождениях вместе взятых. Делать на этом крайне малом дебете какие-то геополитические расклады могут лишь люди очень далекие от нефтянки.

I see google translates now very good:

For any mention of the fatal importance of Syrian oil, I will soon begin to ban.
Dear users, I ask you to remember that the same amount of oil is produced in the whole of Syria, as for example in the Tevlin-Russkinsky and Priobskoye fields combined. To do on this extremely small debit any geopolitical decompositions can only people very far from the oil industry.

 

[Schmelzer]

The Russian Ministry of Defense declared, according to https://ria.ru/syria/20171114/1508770724.html that the US has obviously planned to create out of the Daesh (ISIS) fighters in Al Bukemal a local pro-US SDF government. Evidence for this is that SDF flags have been found in Al Bukemal after it has been taken from Daesh.

It was also said that the US has refused to attack Daesh fighters going away from Al Bukemal. The US claimed that these are fighters who have given up fighting and capitulate, so that they are protected by the Geneva convention. The Russian MoD asked why, then, they are yet with heavy weapons and prepare future attacks against the Syrian army. No answer was given.

 

[CptBork]

The Russian Ministry of Defense declared, according to https://ria.ru/syria/20171114/1508770724.html that the US has obviously planned to create out of the Daesh (ISIS) fighters in Al Bukemal a local pro-US SDF government. Evidence for this is that SDF flags have been found in Al Bukemal after it has been taken from Daesh.

Damn, you got to 'em before the flags could be deployed, they'll never be able to join the SDF without those flags! Sounds like more KGB Koolaid for you to greedily gulp down as always.

 

[iceaura]

That is, of course, a lie, but an interesting one, because unexpected. So, details, please.

Your constantly pushed restrictions in the use of "fascism" are examples of political correctness carried to the absurd (Jonah Goldberg) extreme; a type specimen.

Similar stuff is common in your posting - such as your refuse to accept certain words or allow certain observations of plain fact on grounds that they are "defamatory" - Chinese and Russian censorship uses the same excuse, and so does the American rightwing professional stuff (albeit as with most American media efforts more sophisticated: they project the judgment and invoke self-restriction in their gullible victims).

A new version of your "denier" play? So I'm now a denier of Putin's evil oil pipeline interests in Syria? So, ok, the Party line seems to require that Putin has the evil interest to prevent every competitor on the gas market to build pipelines. And for this purpose somehow supports one of its competitors, Iran, to get a land bridge from Iran to the Mediterranian Sea.

No - it's a new version of my "you can't be that stupid" ploy.
Nobody here believes you are that stupid, ok? Just stop.

Beyond the fact that all this is in your usual attacking language (which seems like something one has to live with, like with small children whining all the time), I'm completely lost about the meaning of your pretense. Can you post even a single quote where I "insist on leaving it out", simply for allowing me to understand what you are talking about?

A few days and a dozen posts directly referencing, and suddenly you don't know what the problem is and we are supposed to start over.
As observed before, by me directly to you, other people are not afflicted with the amnesia you find necessary to maintain your various stances here. If you need a review of the discussion, do the work yourself.

And, given that I'm only an irrelevant commenter, I can even be openly happy if something bad happens to you. I'm not, but this is not the point here. The point is that Putin cares about the Russian state.

The point was that you are refusing to acknowledge certain of Putin's interests, motives, and behaviors - even very obvious ones, directly relevant to the military events in Syria, the topic of the thread.

The questions raised are two: 1) Why? and 2) What would a less crippled analytical approach to the maps et al look like?

 

[Schmelzer]

Your constantly pushed restrictions in the use of "fascism" are examples of political correctness carried to the absurd (Jonah Goldberg) extreme; a type specimen.

I do not push any restrictions on your use of fascism. Use it as you like. But don't cry if I use it as I like. And don't cry "you do not see fascism" without giving a definition of fascism.

Similar stuff is common in your posting - such as your refuse to accept certain words or allow certain observations of plain fact on grounds that they are "defamatory" - Chinese and Russian censorship uses the same excuse, and so does the American rightwing professional stuff (albeit as with most American media efforts more sophisticated: they project the judgment and invoke self-restriction in their gullible victims).

You have no idea about Russian censorship because you don't read Russian sources, we both have none about Chinese censorship, so don't project American censorship to others. Libel laws are not censorship and exist almost everywhere.

No - it's a new version of my "you can't be that stupid" ploy.
Nobody here believes you are that stupid, ok? Just stop.

You cry all the time that I'm too stupid to identify right-wing propaganda lies. Feel free to contradict yourself, I couldn't care less. If you want to play a "you can't be that stupid" ploy, do this completely, in a meaningful sentence, of type "you can't be that stupid to believe A", with A being some meaningful sentence.

A few days and a dozen posts directly referencing, and suddenly you don't know what the problem is and we are supposed to start over.

Often much less of your writings is sufficient to leave the readers completely confused about what you think about the content. Of course, everybody understands that you think you are correct and everybody else is wrong, gullible and so on. But what you really think remains hidden, unclear, confused. We have not seen yet a meaningful definition of fascism, we have not seen yet a clear description of the Russian geopolitical oil-related interests in Syria.

If you need a review of the discussion, do the work yourself.

Too lazy. If you think you have given a reasonable definition of fascism, copypaste or link it. If you think you have given a description of the Russian geopolitical oil-related interests in Syria, copypaste or link it. I'm sorry, but I'm too lazy too read again many pages of "you are stupid" attacks to search for a few bits of information which I may have possibly missed.

The point was that you are refusing to acknowledge certain of Putin's interests, motives, and behaviors - even very obvious ones, directly relevant to the military events in Syria, the topic of the thread.
The questions raised are two: 1) Why? and 2) What would a less crippled analytical approach to the maps et al look like?

Nonsense. The interests I see I have described. Your geopolitical fantasies you have not precisely defined, so I can only guess them, but not "refuse to acknowledge" them. Define them precisely, and I will tell you what I think about them.

 

[iceaura]

You have no idea about Russian censorship because you don't read Russian sources,

You do read Russian sources, so you know the censors use that excuse (tip: they all do).

I do not push any restrictions on your use of fascism. Use it as you like. But don't cry if I use it as I like. And don't cry "you do not see fascism" without giving a definition of fascism.

That's not crying - it's laughing. You actually refuse to identify any fascist who doesn't identify themselves as fascist - no joke, that's your criterion.

You cry all the time that I'm too stupid to identify right-wing propaganda lies.

Sure - but not that one. That one's too blatant. It's right in front of you, in your own posting. You cannot be that stupid.

If you think you have given a reasonable definition of fascism, copypaste or link it. If you think you have given a description of the Russian geopolitical oil-related interests in Syria, copypaste or link it.

You haven't. I haven't. Nobody has here. Identification, not definition, was the issue. Your field guide is silly and prevents identifying fascists or fascism, mine is standard since before WWII and works fine. Example: the US Republican Party has been converted to fascism, and Trump is a standard, almost (lacking military base) classic fascist demagogue familiar for generations now.

Pipelines, Iran & Iraq & Central Asian fields: control of market, leverage in alliances and conflicts worldwide, leverage on currencies and trade deals, major factor in every foreign involvement in Syria since WWII or before - including Putin's now.

Done.

Nonsense. The interests I see I have described.

And so you claim to not see Putin's interests in the pipeline and related geopolitical role of Syria - of predominant concern to the US and every other player including Assad, but not Putin, you claim.
The questions raised are two: 1) Why? and 2) What would a less crippled analytical approach to the maps et al look like?

 

[Schmelzer]

You do read Russian sources, so you know the censors use that excuse (tip: they all do).

I do not read sources where Russian censors explain their reasons what to censor. I see some results of Russian censorship - the quite stupid one that writers have to add, to Daesh or other such organizations, the information "forbidden in Russia".

That's not crying - it's laughing. You actually refuse to identify any fascist who doesn't identify themselves as fascist - no joke, that's your criterion.

Yes, it is my criterion. Because I don't see any value in namecalling and don't see anything different than namecalling in your use of fascism. If fascism would be defined in some reasonable way, as something which gives a certain information about objective shared properties of various political movements, that would be fine, but I do not see such a list.

Sure - but not that one. That one's too blatant. It's right in front of you, in your own posting. You cannot be that stupid.

I do not even bother to look up what "that one" means. Make precise statements about what you think, instead of developing fantasies about my stupidity.

You haven't. I haven't. Nobody has here. Identification, not definition, was the issue.

Having a reasonable definition is the presupposition for identification. If I have no definition what a gremlin is, I cannot identify gremlins.

Your field guide is silly and prevents identifying fascists or fascism, mine is standard since before WWII and works fine. Example: the US Republican Party has been converted to fascism, and Trump is a standard, almost (lacking military base) classic fascist demagogue familiar for generations now.

Fine if your Party line contains such a standard. I have no such standard to follow.

Pipelines, Iran & Iraq & Central Asian fields: control of market, leverage in alliances and conflicts worldwide, leverage on currencies and trade deals, major factor in every foreign involvement in Syria since WWII or before - including Putin's now. Done.

Done? LOL. Let's translate this: "Oil-related geopolitics is about oil, gas and pipelines." A triviality, not information. "control over oil fields and pipelines can be, in principle used for ..." A generality, also trivial. "This has, somehow, been part of every foreign involvement". Nice claim. Not even questioned, I have explained that SA, Qatar, and Iran have an interest in pipelines through Syrian territory.
But not Russia, which has an interest in pipelines from Russian territory to Europe, Turkey and China, Japan, but no use of one through Syria.

So, you have not yet described any particular Russian geostrategic interest in Syria. Only general blabla, which could have been written about almost every country which has some drop of oil on its territory.

And so you claim to not see Putin's interests in the pipeline and related geopolitical role of Syria - of predominant concern to the US and every other player including Assad, but not Putin, you claim.

"The pipeline"??? Which particular interest in which pipeline?