Military Events in Syria and Iraq Thread #4

[iceaura]

I do not read sources where Russian censors explain their reasons what to censor.

They all use that one - "defamation" - just like you.

Because I don't see any value in namecalling and don't see anything different than namecalling in your use of fascism.

Why not? You're a bright young lad, Trump' s fascism is blatant and highlight obvious, what's your problem?

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

Then you don't know what the word means. Ok: Quit using it, and quit objecting to other, better informed, people's use of it.
(btw: You are posting the Republican Party wingnut line, yourself - again. The majority of your posts on this forum toe it, across a wide variety of topics. Any idea why?)

Having a reasonable definition is the presupposition for identification

So? We weren't talking about that - the issue is your inability to identify fascism.

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".

You are attempting something beyond your abilities.
Don't misrepresent my posts, get them wrong, and put quotes around your stupid bullshit as if those were my words.

So, you have not yet described any particular Russian geostrategic interest in Syria.

You have not acknowledged the great importance of oil and pipelines to everyone involved in Syria - including Putin. It's pretty much the only reason there's a war - although the drought and Iraq stressed the place.

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.

You have been called on that attempted deflection (Syria's own oil reserves) three times now. The next time you mention Syrian oil, deliberate dishonesty will be assumed.

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

Point of English: the pipeline role of Syria. "Pipeline" is an adjective in that sentence.

So: pipelines and their related geopolitics, including Putin's interests in them, are central factors in interpreting the maps from now on - yes?

 

[CptBork]

Schmelzer's given his own definitions for everything already, no need to argue about it.

"Liberal anarchy" = Rus Viking hegemony
"Fascism" = anything that opposes/precludes liberal anarchy

 

[Schmelzer]

Schmelzer's given his own definitions for everything already, no need to argue about it.
"Liberal anarchy" = Rus Viking hegemony
"Fascism" = anything that opposes/precludes liberal anarchy

Not even funny. Of course, Russia is a state, and a quite strong one, and certainly not anarchistic (even if there is more anarchistic freedom than, say, in Germany). And the whole point of the fascism discussion is that I refuse to use fascism in such an extremely wide sense.

They all use that one - "defamation" - just like you.

And you know this from extrapolating American censorship to the whole world.

Why not? You're a bright young lad, Trump' s fascism is blatant and highlight obvious, what's your problem?

I have some cultural background and do not like to defame.

Then you don't know what the word means. Ok: Quit using it, and quit objecting to other, better informed, people's use of it.

No problem. I use it in agreement with my rules, so, essentially only if talking about the Ukraine. And please stop to cry around that I do not use this word, ok?

(btw: You are posting the Republican Party wingnut line, yourself - again. The majority of your posts on this forum toe it, across a wide variety of topics. Any idea why?)

There would be no point in making the same claims as you, so if you want a discussion, so expect that I make the best out of the arguments against you. And, as I have explained many times, I care about the content of the arguments, not about the source. Sources are relevant if you evaluate factual information, say, about the reliability of maps. In case of argumentation, the content can be evaluated for itself. Does the argument convince you or not? This does not depend on the source.

So? We weren't talking about that - the issue is your inability to identify fascism.

Given that I don't know your definition of fascism, I cannot identify if somebody is a fascist according to your criteria. I can do it for my own definition of fascism and have no problem with this. If you would post here a meaningful definition of fascism, I would be able to try to apply it - the result would depend on your definition.

You are attempting something beyond your abilities.
Don't misrepresent my posts, get them wrong, and put quotes around your stupid bullshit as if those were my words.

Ok, you may be better than me in misrepresenting postings.

You have not acknowledged the great importance of oil and pipelines to everyone involved in Syria - including Putin. It's pretty much the only reason there's a war - although the drought and Iraq stressed the place.

I have acknowledged it for the players where I see it. Which does not include Putin. And it is certainly not the only reason for this war. There is, for example, the wish of Israel to destroy all Arab states, simply because they are enemies of Israel. A quite strong wish, they openly prefer chaos and destruction in all the Arab states around them. There are the Russian-speaking jihadists, which are dangerous for Russia. There is the Iran-Lebanon Shia-controlled land bridge, which can be used not only for pipelines but also for a lot of other things. For example weapons.

So: pipelines and their related geopolitics, including Putin's interests in them, are central factors in interpreting the maps from now on - yes?

No. If you see such a central factor, feel free to comment particular maps. If you give some information about your claimed Putin's interest in some particular pipelines, you are welcome too. I don't know about such pipelines. If I see some pipeline on some map playing some role, I make the corresponding comments, like here. So I see no reason to change anything from now on.

 

[CptBork]

Not even funny. Of course, Russia is a state, and a quite strong one, and certainly not anarchistic (even if there is more anarchistic freedom than, say, in Germany). And the whole point of the fascism discussion is that I refuse to use fascism in such an extremely wide sense.

Actually it's very funny in a dark sense, because the definitions I listed for your apparent understanding of "liberal anarchy" and "fascism" correctly predict 100% of your political opinions. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Russia good, USA bad, Hezbollah good, Israel bad (except Israeli immigrants from Russia), blah blah blah...

No problem. I use it in agreement with my rules, so, essentially only if talking about the Ukraine. And please stop to cry around that I do not use this word, ok?

Bashar Assad has torture prisons where tens of thousands have disappeared in the last few years alone. Ukraine doesn't. By your definition (see my previous post), that definitely makes Ukraine extremely fascist, but it would likewise be counterproductive, offensive slander to accuse Assad of anything of the sort.

I have acknowledged it for the players where I see it. Which does not include Putin. And it is certainly not the only reason for this war. There is, for example, the wish of Israel to destroy all Arab states, simply because they are enemies of Israel. A quite strong wish, they openly prefer chaos and destruction in all the Arab states around them.

Israel never told Assad to starve, beat, gas and maim protestors- as a Russian, that's your specialty. How come Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia don't seem to mind them too much? Even if all of Israel were a stolen European colony, it would still comprise less than 1% of what Russia has stolen from Muslims in the last 3 centuries, and an even smaller fraction by death count. Methinks you're just butthurt that Israel successfully defied Joe Stalin and every dumb midget who's sat in his chair ever since.

There are the Russian-speaking jihadists, which are dangerous for Russia.

Ramzan Kadyrov is a Russian-speaking jihadist who's killed more civilians than ISIS, and you made him the official governor of Chechnya. Apparently you only consider something dangerous to Russia if it harms Rus Vikings or their interests.

 

[iceaura]

And you know this from extrapolating American censorship to the whole world.

It doesn't matter how I know it.

I have some cultural background and do not like to defame.

Nobody's defaming anyone by using the word "fascism" to refer to fascism. That's not an issue.

And the whole point of the fascism discussion is that I refuse to use fascism in such an extremely wide sense.

There is no wide sense involved. My sense is narrower than yours, on the visible evidence - I don't accept just any self-identification. There are people running around in the US with swastika tattoos who are no more fascist than a pheasant is gay, for example.

Given that I don't know your definition of fascism, I cannot identify if somebody is a fascist according to your criteria.

I prefer you read my posts for my identifications (because you troll and lie and stuff like that), and use a sensible definition of your own for yours - which is less visible here than mine - otherwise. I'll be happy to correct any mislabelings of yours - such as Obama, or not Putin - as a sort of training set, if you are having trouble. You correctly identified Pinochet and Franco, for example, when you were trying to sell the goofy that fascists like Trump are more likely than others to be insular and defensive and stay inside their borders, so I know you have the basic idea.

And it is certainly not the only reason for this war. There is, for example, the wish of Israel to destroy all Arab states, simply because they are enemies of Israel. A quite strong wish, they openly prefer chaos and destruction in all the Arab states around them. There are the Russian-speaking jihadists, which are dangerous for Russia. There is the Iran-Lebanon Shia-controlled land bridge, which can be used not only for pipelines but also for a lot of other things. For example weapons.

There is no such "wish" of "Israel" as described ("simply") - but congratulations: you have posted a standard propaganda meme (and a slander and defamation, btw, if that's an issue with your "culture") you didn't get from the American rightwing professionals. I feel honor bound to acknowledge that - your gullibility has a wider base than my previous mockery referenced.

Meanwhile, the rest of your list is entirely pipeline and related geopolitics derived. The jihadists are there because of the war (beginning with the Iraq War), the land bridge funnels weapons because of the war, etc, and the war is there because of the pipelines and related petro geopolitics - Putin being a central player in that, of course.

As long as praise is being handed out, may I say how impressed I am by this: "There are the Russian-speaking jihadists, which are dangerous for Russia". I'm not sure how the American warmongers missed that one - obviously English speaking jihadists, wherever they may be, are an even bigger threat to the US, no? That's got real elegance. (Maybe they just didn't need it - the target Americans tend to take English speaking for granted).

The "land bridge" one doesn't work as well for the US imperialist - but Reagan used it in Nicaragua, back in the days when this Iran-Lebanon setup was being set up, so great minds think alike.

So I see no reason to change anything from now on.

Too bad. You would be a better informed commenter than most here.

But the maps remain.

 

[Schmelzer]

Actually it's very funny in a dark sense, because the definitions I listed for your apparent understanding of "liberal anarchy" and "fascism" correctly predict 100% of your political opinions.

Only if one interprets "correctly" in a funny dark sense.

Bashar Assad has torture prisons where tens of thousands have disappeared in the last few years alone. Ukraine doesn't.

This is what American media tell you. Believe it if you like. Other media say different things. Given that horror stories about the enemy torturing thousands in prisons (so, given that this is hidden, one cannot expect video proofs) have a large probability of being propaganda lies, I do not care about them. So, I will not discuss such propaganda claims, from both sides.

By your definition (see my previous post), that definitely makes Ukraine extremely fascist, but it would likewise be counterproductive, offensive slander to accuse Assad of anything of the sort.

No. What makes the Ukraine fascist, is the completely open support of the Bandera-fascist tradition. Which includes the day of the foundation of the Ukrainian variant of the SS being an official holiday now, the standard use of the Bandera-fascist greeting formula (the Ukrainian "Heil Hitler"), and naming streets after Bandera. So, I don't have to speculate what happens in the Ukrainian prison camps.

Ramzan Kadyrov is a Russian-speaking jihadist who's killed more civilians than ISIS, and you made him the official governor of Chechnya. Apparently you only consider something dangerous to Russia if it harms Rus Vikings or their interests.

Kadyrov may be a bad guy in many aspects, but he is certainly not a jihadist. Chechnya is now a Muslim country, with a strong support of the traditional Chechen rules, something one would not like to live under, certainly not a place where I would like to live, but it is peaceful now, without terrorist danger.

It doesn't matter how I know it.

Fine that you start to understand such things. Now it remains to apply this to me too. It doesn't matter what is the source of my arguments. What matters is if the argument is valid.

Nobody's defaming anyone by using the word "fascism" to refer to fascism. That's not an issue.

If there would be something well-defined named "fascism", this would be a point. But you have not even given a definition.

There is no wide sense involved. My sense is narrower than yours, on the visible evidence - I don't accept just any self-identification. There are people running around in the US with swastika tattoos who are no more fascist than a pheasant is gay, for example.

Inventing some artificial example does not prove your point. Your definition is wider at least in some aspects, given that it includes some examples which my definition does not include (like Trump and Putin).

I prefer you read my posts for my identifications (because you troll and lie and stuff like that), and use a sensible definition of your own for yours - which is less visible here than mine - otherwise.

In this case, I have no other choice than to interpret your use of "fascism" as naming some unknown subgroup of those you don't like. Everything else is diffuse and unclear, you refuse to give a clear definition. So, I have no choice but to interpret it simply as a bad word. Which is essentially what I do.

I'll be happy to correct any mislabelings of yours - such as Obama, or not Putin - as a sort of training set, if you are having trouble.

I have no trouble. I have simply no interest in learning how you use your bad words. Why do you think this should be interesting for me? If there would be a precise definition of fascism, it would be interesting to discuss a disagreement if Putin or Trump are fascist. But without a definition of the meaning, the only information I could receive from learning would be that you don't like a particular person. Or who are persona non grata according to your actual Party line. Both not really interesting information.

There is no such "wish" of "Israel" as described ("simply") - but congratulations: you have posted a standard propaganda meme (and a slander and defamation, btw, if that's an issue with your "culture") you didn't get from the American rightwing professionals. I feel honor bound to acknowledge that - your gullibility has a wider base than my previous mockery referenced.

Of course, the use of "Israel" is a simplification for "some particular Israeli politicians, which are sufficiently powerful to have a strong influence on actual Israeli politics". The sources are, btw, not any American, but mainly Russian but also English translations of statements made by Israeli politicians.

Meanwhile, the rest of your list is entirely pipeline and related geopolitics derived. The jihadists are there because of the war (beginning with the Iraq War), the land bridge funnels weapons because of the war, etc, and the war is there because of the pipelines and related petro geopolitics - Putin being a central player in that, of course.

So, fine, in this case, what was your problem with my list of Putin's priorities? Given this argument, I would guess half of the list if not more is "entirely pipeline and related geopolitics derived".

As long as praise is being handed out, may I say how impressed I am by this: "There are the Russian-speaking jihadists, which are dangerous for Russia". I'm not sure how the American warmongers missed that one - obviously English speaking jihadists, wherever they may be, are an even bigger threat to the US, no?

Ok. The point being? Have I suggested that English speaking jihadists are not a danger for English speaking countries? But, ok, one can use other points to argue that Russia feels more endangered by ISIS than US, GB or AU, like a map of the wishful thinking of ISIS what they would like to control:

The "land bridge" one doesn't work as well for the US imperialist - but Reagan used it in Nicaragua, back in the days when this Iran-Lebanon setup was being set up, so great minds think alike.

The point being?

The land bridge is an important issue as for the Shia in Iran and Lebanon, as for Israel (which prefers Hisbollah in Lebanon being isolated from Iran), as for Turkey and SA (which want their own Sunni land bridge). It is none for Russia as well as the US themselves. Only in the derived sense - once it is important for their actual allies.

 

[iceaura]

Given that horror stories about the enemy torturing thousands in prisons (so, given that this is hidden, one cannot expect video proofs) have a large probability of being propaganda lies, I do not care about them.
- - - -
So, I don't have to speculate what happens in the Ukrainian prison camps.

You have asked - several times, after being answered several times - for examples of this pattern in your reasoning as I described it: there's another. You draw conclusions about reality based on your assessments of propaganda alone, without information, thereby becoming a patsy for propagandists. That's why you can't see fascism - the pioneer ideology of the highest quality propaganda, the most sophisticated deceptions and lies.

Your definition is wider at least in some aspects, given that it includes some examples which my definition does not include (like Trump and Putin).

You have no definition posted. None. I don't think you have one.

I have simply no interest in learning how you use your bad words.

It's not a "bad word". It's the name of a kind of political ideology (or manner of governance, no quibbling).

In this case, I have no other choice than to interpret your use of "fascism" as naming some unknown subgroup of those you don't like

You could choose to learn something.

The point being?

That you are posting standard, well-worn, imperialist excuses for Putin.

So, fine, in this case, what was your problem with my list of Putin's priorities?

It's missing the central, major, obvious, century-old, famous, basic, motive of all players and root cause of the disaster at hand.

Of course, the use of "Israel" is a simplification for "some particular Israeli politicians, which are sufficiently powerful to have a strong influence on actual Israeli politics".

And reality is going to be assessed according to your interpretation of somebody's cherrypicked Israeli political media feeds? We have seen how that works for you in American politics - you had Clinton as a deranged psychotic, Trump as a rational businessman, racism as a minor factor, fascism nonexistent.

The land bridge is an important issue as for the Shia in Iran and Lebanon, as for Israel (which prefers Hisbollah in Lebanon being isolated from Iran), as for Turkey and SA (which want their own Sunni land bridge). It is none for Russia as well as the US themselves. Only in the derived sense - once it is important for their actual allies.

Only? Seriously: you use the word "only"?
1) It's as if Exxon and Gazprom and pipelines and the petro industry generally don't even exist, reading your posts.
2) And so - in the "derived" sense, meaning the only sense anyone except Syrians (and tribal Kurds) has ever had for bringing military forces within a thousand k of any of this stuff - the question of who has whom for allies is on the table. Which involves the distribution of about 500 billion dollars, American, and the core of China's economy as well as Russia's, Germany's, and America's. And Israel's, Iran's, Egypt's, Pakistan's, India's, and SA's, of course.

So: - - - -

 

[Schmelzer]

You have asked - several times, after being answered several times - for examples of this pattern in your reasoning as I described it: there's another. You draw conclusions about reality based on your assessments of propaganda alone, without information, thereby becoming a patsy for propagandists. That's why you can't see fascism - the pioneer ideology of the highest quality propaganda, the most sophisticated deceptions and lies.

No, I have not asked you to repeat 1232. time the same old boring "you are stupid" nonsense.

You have no definition posted. None. I don't think you have one.

I have given the definition I use in http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3485519/ and that you don't think it is a definition is nothing I care about. I know what a definition is.

It's not a "bad word". It's the name of a kind of political ideology (or manner of governance, no quibbling).

Once you give no definition, it makes no difference. If it is a kind of political ideology, with hidden properties, so what? What I can extract from you postings is the property that you don't like fascism, that's all.

You could choose to learn something.

I have chosen to learn a little bit Arabic language. This can be used to communicate with quite a lot people. But to learn how you use particular invectives for namecalling gives me nothing.

It's missing the central, major, obvious, century-old, famous, basic, motive of all players and root cause of the disaster at hand.

Feel free to name this central, major, obvious, century-old, famous, basic, motive of Putin if you miss it.

Side remark: In the East, you have already failed if you think there is such a central thing. The central, major and obvious basic motive of Americans seems to be money, and their main problem is that they think the whole world has the same motive. The result is that all the bandits they pay are, of course, happy to take the money, but do not plan at all to do what the Americans want them to do.

And reality is going to be assessed according to your interpretation of somebody's cherrypicked Israeli political media feeds?

No, these are only supportive information. The main point is if a particular theory about Israel allows explaining Israel's behavior. Which includes quite strange things, like the support of a lot of Arabian jihadi fundamentalists, who claim to have the complete destruction of Israel as one of their main aims. In case you don't deny these facts, how do you explain them?

you had Clinton as a deranged psychotic, Trump as a rational businessman, racism as a minor factor, fascism nonexistent.

As usual, I have to correct you, if you write something about me. My actual opinion about America is that it is an extremely racist country.

Only? Seriously: you use the word "only"?
1) It's as if Exxon and Gazprom and pipelines and the petro industry generally don't even exist, reading your posts.
2) And so - in the "derived" sense, meaning the only sense anyone except Syrians (and tribal Kurds) has ever had for bringing military forces within a thousand k of any of this stuff - the question of who has whom for allies is on the table. Which involves the distribution of about 500 billion dollars, American, and the core of China's economy as well as Russia's, Germany's, and America's. And Israel's, Iran's, Egypt's, Pakistan's, India's, and SA's, of course.

I was talking about the Iran-Lebanon vs. SA-Turkey land bridge. Not even about a pipeline using it. You claim this particular choice is decisive for the fate of China's, Russia's, Germany's, and America's economy? Sorry. Don't forget that for a pipeline to Europe, Iran could choose Turkey as well, or if not go through the Caspian sea and use the Russian ones. And SA could as well build a pipeline through Egypt, which is a good friend of SA. Of course, there would be differences.

 

[iceaura]

"And reality is going to be assessed according to your interpretation of somebody's cherrypicked Israeli political media feeds?"
No, these are only supportive information.

But they aren't, see. That's not information. That's deception. You're being suckered.

I have given the definition I use in http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3485519/ and that you don't think it is a definition is nothing I care about. I know what a definition is.

That's not a definition. It doesn't even resemble a definition.
You apparently do not, in fact, have any idea what a definition is.
It's not even workable identification criteria - you can't screen for false positives or negatives.
And you don't actually use it - you have correctly identified both Pinochet and Franco as heads of fascistic States, for example, neither of whom meet those criteria.
So what are you trying to do, with these posts?

No, I have not asked you to repeat 1232. time the same old boring "you are stupid" nonsense.

You have several times demanded examples of that pattern in your arguments here, when mocked for it, and been provided with them. Yes, you have. (It's one of your standard rhetorical tricks - make other people chase around and defend, over and over and over. My limit is two or three times.)

As usual, I have to correct you, if you write something about me. My actual opinion about America is that it is an extremely racist country.

Your actual posting was as described - straight wingnut feed from the professional propagandists backing the Republican Party, including their claims of racism as a minor factor only, which you parroted (look up your claims of Trump's racism detractors being merely "politically correct", for example).
I have no idea what you mean by "actual opinion", but your blindness to the importance of American racial issues is thoroughly documented on several threads here - denial of Jim Crow most blatantly.

I was talking about the Iran-Lebanon vs. SA-Turkey land bridge.

And even then failing to talk about pipelines and Big Oil in the context of Putin's motives in Syria. We noticed.

But never too late. Maps with discussion of their major significance, coming up?

 

[Schmelzer]

But they aren't, see. That's not information. That's deception. You're being suckered.

If statements of Israeli politicians are deception, ok, if you say so. Not really a high opinion about the honesty of Israeli politicians.

That's not a definition. It doesn't even resemble a definition.

Name it however you like in your Newspeak, I name it definition, and for me, it works as it should. With some false positives or false negatives I can live, given that I have no particular aims using this word to insult other people. So, if some Chetnik feels insulted, because of the Chetnik movement, even if it openly cooperated with the Nazis and Mussolini, is not really fascist, so be it. With Pinochet incorrectly classified you may have a point. It was part of my childhood education to name them fascists, cooperating with Nazis in the Colonia Dignidad torturing prisoners, and I have not cared to check this later. Franco has cooperated with the Nazis and Mussolini in the Spanish Civil War, s0 this is close enough too.

So what are you trying to do, with these posts?

To answer the bs you write about fascism.

In general, I like to name the Ukrainian Bandera supporters fascists - simply for frustrating all those green anti-fascists which support them as pro-European freedom fighters. And this use I like to defend. Beyond this, I have no use for this word, except to defend various right-wing movements which have nothing to do with fascism against left-wing namecalling. Not because I like them (I'm neutral in the reft-light direction) but because this is another common media lie.

It's one of your standard rhetorical tricks - make other people chase around and defend, over and over and over. My limit is two or three times.

Hm. That's a point. My limit is obviously far too high. So, ok, I will have to learn from you in this question. So, EOD.

 

[Schmelzer]

It seems that the information that Al Bukemal has been retaken by Daesh in some counterattack from the Northern direction was correct, there have been several maps now showing Al Bukemal completely under Daesh control. Here is one such map:

The good news of this map is that it the Syrian army has now started to advance again, encircling Al Bukamal now from three sides.
In Harasta, part of East Ghouta, joepistole's friends have started an offensive and claimed some advances:

Nothing serious, as usual in this region - a few buildings. What would be some real success is if they succeed to take the army base completely.
On the Hama-Idlib border there are small advances of the Syrian army, at different places - the Syrian army is attacking on many places. It is also quite common in this region that Hatesh succeeds taking some village back. But in the average, the Syrian army gains more:

 

[iceaura]

If statements of Israeli politicians are deception, ok, if you say so

It looks exactly like the way you got played by the Hillaryhate bs - a refusal to reality-check propaganda assessments.

Beyond this, I have no use for this word, except to defend various right-wing movements which have nothing to do with fascism against left-wing namecalling. Not because I like them (I'm neutral in the reft-light direction) but because this is another common media lie.

Not having the requisite vocabulary hobbles your analysis, and your thinking. Maybe that's why you can't see fascism.

Meanwhile, you are in error: That is not a "common media lie" in the US.
The media in the US deliver almost entirely rightwing authoritarian framing of issues, and that framing is limited by an enforced politically correct vocabulary (as with you, no "bad words" referring to any rightwing ideology are allowed). So one seldom hears the word "fascist" from major media feeds, and even less often in analysis of a major Party or office-holder. Not common. And this absence of the term is highlighted by the rise of actual fascism in the US, via the Republican Party - making the omission both striking and crippling.

You are not neutral left/right - you are strongly biased favoring rightwing US politics, which are themselves biased right compared with most of the Western world.

Name it however you like in your Newspeak, I name it definition, and for me, it works as it should.

It's not a definition, but a field guide - and it doesn't work as a field guide. It is profoundly silly to rely on honest self-identification to identify any ideology, of course, but especially fascism - the ideology of the Big Lie. And its result is Orwellian Newspeak - your abandonment of meaning in your vocabulary frequently has you disconnecting from, even inverting, physical reality.

And that may prevent you from bringing pipeline and related matters into your analyses of Syrian conflict. But the gap is regretted.

 

[Schmelzer]

Meanwhile, you are in error: That is not a "common media lie" in the US.

So what? The US is not the center of the world. It may be the center of your world, but not of my world.

You are not neutral left/right

Relative to you, of course, not. And there are, of course, some points there I'm on the right side - free markets are more hated by the left than by the right. Same for volitional separation, and support for various social structures which are independent of the state (family, religion, tribal, communal). But regarding sexual freedom and drugs I'm more on the left.

It is profoundly silly to rely on honest self-identification to identify any ideology, of course, but especially fascism - the ideology of the Big Lie.

As long as this is only about names, I have no problem with this. If the really fascist ideology names itself today anti-fascism (something predicted already in the 50's or so) this is not a big deal. I can despise them as anti-fascists too, I do not have to name them fascists.

 

[iceaura]

So what? The US is not the center of the world. It may be the center of your world, but not of my world.

You have been addressing the US media, specifically and explicitly, in all responses to my posting and anything to do with domestic US politics - Trump, anti-Putin claims, Syrian war propaganda, Clinton, Obama, etc. Specifically, you invoked that mythical "common" usage to justify not naming the US Republican Party's dominant ideology.

Relative to you, of course, not.

Relative to the US political range, as explicitly posted.

And there are, of course, some points there I'm on the right side

You have posted on no major issues in which you are not on the American rightwing authoritarian "side" - except possibly Israel, as I noted above. You commonly post straight-up wingnut propaganda feeds from famous and familiar American sources of lies and rightwing bs, which you seem to believe. You post nothing of that kind from even center-right sources, let alone center or left.

As long as this is only about names, I have no problem with this.

It isn't, and you do.
It has profoundly crippled your ability to make sense, or recognize aspects of the real world - when some country is in the middle of a fascist ascendency, as the US is, inability to recognize fascism is a serious intellectual handicap in political discussions.

And it seems to have screwed up your Syrian posting as well - not recognizing the interests and motives and strategies and tactics of Assad and Putin and Trump hampers you.

 

[Schmelzer]

You have been addressing the US media, specifically and explicitly, in all responses to my posting and anything to do with domestic US politics - Trump, anti-Putin claims, Syrian war propaganda, Clinton, Obama, etc.

Misunderstanding: What I attribute are, in general, Western media. They are sufficiently homogeneous and mainly controlled by the globalists. They behave roughly as if they would be US liberal media. The main sources are, in this case, German media. The impression that they are almost the same in all countries under US influence is supported by the occassional reading of English-speaking media or English translations of other (French, Spain and so on) media, following links. The US media I read regularly are not mass media.

You have posted on no major issues in which you are not on the American rightwing authoritarian "side" - except possibly Israel, as I noted above.

Of course, in a discussion with you, I'm on the side of your enemies. Don't expect me to participate in peace, joy, and pancakes "discussions", or minutes of hate against common enemies.

It has profoundly crippled your ability to make sense, or recognize aspects of the real world - when some country is in the middle of a fascist ascendency, as the US is, inability to recognize fascism is a serious intellectual handicap in political discussions.

It could be easily circumvented with your help, if you would be interested. All one needs would be your definition of fascism. Even if I may decide not to use the word, I would be able 1.) to identify the points which you use to define fascism, and see them in various modern political movements, 2.) to discuss and understand that they are somehow objectively dangerous, 3.) to recognize that they are mainly present on the left side and to correct my political orientation correspondingly.
What would be, with all this reached, the important thing which could be reached only by using "fascism"? I see here only manipulative differences: 1.) there is a strong emotional aversion against fascism, 2.) it is easier for the left to defend themselves against accusations of fascism, given that the main fascist movements of the past have positioned themselves on the right side, and those who openly support fascist tradition position themselves accordingly. The emotional side makes it problematic for scientific evaluation.

And it seems to have screwed up your Syrian posting as well - not recognizing the interests and motives and strategies and tactics of Assad and Putin and Trump hampers you.

What about presenting evidence for those facts which, IYO, I do not recognize? You have none.

 

[iceaura]

Misunderstanding: What I attribute are, in general, Western media.

No, not misunderstanding - information. That you do not realize the extent to which your postings here have been regurgitations of the crudest, least credible, Republican partisan, standard American professional media feeds is obvious, but this has been pointed out to you in great detail and with so many examples that repetition serves no purpose.

They behave roughly as if they would be US liberal media.

Your entire viewpoint on US media is framed by the rightwing authoritarian side of that same media.

It could be easily circumvented with your help, if you would be interested. All one needs would be your definition of fascism

That's not true. Your inability to identify fascism is willful, politically inculcated, and not a matter of reason or definitions.

there is a strong emotional aversion against fascism

In some people. It's well earned, wouldn't you say?
And you have a strong aversion to leftwing authoritarian government, with little experience of rightwing authoritarian government.
And so you are vulnerable to fascist American propaganda feeds.
And that's where this utterly bizarre Big Lie came from:

2.) it is easier for the left to defend themselves against accusations of fascism, given that the main fascist movements of the past have positioned themselves on the right side

"Leftwing fascism" is Orwellian Newspeak - a type specimen, as fully absurd as one can imagine. Impossible to parody. You've been suckered, completely, by American professional propagandists.

What about presenting evidence for those facts

You think "fascism of the left" makes sense. You read Goldberg's book, and think Jonah Goldberg had some credible insights. That is proof, not just evidence.

 

[CptBork]

What about presenting evidence for those facts which, IYO, I do not recognize? You have none.

Every single excuse you've given for Putin's imperialist policies is an excuse which only applies (in your own limited imagination) to Russian activities, but not similar activities by any opposing force, and they are therefore imperialist excuses in and of themselves. We are all wondering why you behave in this extremely deceptive manner (or rather, we're all wondering if you actually care about anything other than Rus Viking global domination). You claim that thieving Syria's oil or preventing Syrians from selling their oil to alternative markets isn't one of Putin's core interests, in an attempt to make his interventions seem humanitarian in nature as compared to everyone else, yet your alternative excuses require that we make even bigger exceptions for him and for Russian fascism in general.

If Russia can protect Assad's regime with 10 vetoes at the UN security council and Assad is therefore the "legal" governing authority in Syria, why is the US presence not also legal in the absence of a security council resolution forbidding it? If Russia wants to use UN law as cover for its actions and support in Syria, why does it not permit the UN to investigate Assad's chemical attacks and press charges accordingly? Give us a sensible answer which doesn't demand that the world make an exception for Rus Vikings who can't get over their humbling past defeats at the hands of Yankees.

 

[CptBork]

You think "fascism of the left" makes sense. You read Goldberg's book, and think Jonah Goldberg had some credible insights. That is proof, not just evidence.

He would never waste his time extensively reading Yankee media, probably just cherry-picks tidbits mentioned on the Kremlin's internal Wiki and Russian language blogs.

 

[Schmelzer]

The Syrian army has taken Salahiya, a village on the Euphrat river half of the way between Mayadeen and Bukamal:

There are also news about advances in Bukamal itself, in particular, that the bridge over the Euphrat has been taken by the Syrian army.
Then, heavy fighting in Harasta continues, with small advances reported by both sides. Some villages taken in Northern Hama, and some mountains of the Beit jin enclave near the Golan Heights (the one heavily supported by Israeli aircraft - whenever the Syrian army makes advances here, Israel claims something has hit the Golan Heights and "retaliates", of course against the Syrian army). So, one can expect similar Israeli retaliation in the near future.

Some usual stupid accusations disposed of.

It's well earned, wouldn't you say?

Of course, like the corresponding rejection of communism. Which is, for some reason, much less emotional. Whatever, this makes the use of the label "fascism" to anybody who does not openly accept it himself suspect. (To name somebody a communist if he does not use this label himself is similarly suspect. But less problematic, given that the rejection of communism is much less emotional.)

And you have a strong aversion to leftwing authoritarian government, with little experience of rightwing authoritarian government.

Even this point you have not identified correctly. My personal aversion depends on how much the government restricts my personal freedom in questions which are important for myself. Once I have no intention to take any political power, the question authoritarian vs. democratic does not matter for me. Centralization of power is what matters much more to me. Because, if the restrictions of freedom differ in different places, I can find a place where I can nicely live. In that place, various freedoms may be severely restricted, but not those I personally care about. In a highly centralized world, I would not have this possibility. This is a reason for me to hate the unipolar world. And once (as far as) there is more support for the unipolar world on the left side, I tend to support the right side. But if, say, Cuba wants to defend its independence from the US, I will be very left-wing.

You think "fascism of the left" makes sense. You read Goldberg's book, and think Jonah Goldberg had some credible insights.

Again, I do not care much about the use of the word "fascism". Fascism, as you use it, is nothing but a nice left-wing propaganda tool. It has no precise definition (you refuse to give one, or to link to one given) and can be attributed only to right-wing - everybody who names some of the left a fascist receives bad words from you, without details of what he made wrong. All this quite typical of propaganda words.

And Goldberg has, of course, some points. But this content is not that much about the word "fascism", but about the content. Much of the content of classical fascist ideology, in particular things especially despised by the left today, is or was shared by the left too. This is what he has shown. Given this background, one does not wonder why you refuse to give a definition of fascism - you know that it could be easily used to show that Obama and Clinton are fascists, or, otherwise, it would be useless to prove Trump and Putin are fascists.

 

[Schmelzer]

You claim that thieving Syria's oil or preventing Syrians from selling their oil to alternative markets isn't one of Putin's core interests, in an attempt to make his interventions seem humanitarian in nature as compared to everyone else, yet your alternative excuses require that we make even bigger exceptions for him and for Russian fascism in general.

Of course, it is not in Putin's core interest to do things which he does not do. What Russia is doing is to help Syria to get back its stolen oil sources. Stolen by the US-supported ISIS and SDF gangs.

If Russia can protect Assad's regime with 10 vetoes at the UN security council and Assad is therefore the "legal" governing authority in Syria, why is the US presence not also legal in the absence of a security council resolution forbidding it?

Because no UNSC resolutions do not mean there is no violation of international law. Else, everything that the US is doing would be legal by definition, which is nonsense. The veto right is there to prevent that a nuclear war will be started with UN support. So, wars started by the UN are not that dangerous, because they are not directed against a veto power. It is not a court which decides law violations.

If Russia wants to use UN law as cover for its actions and support in Syria, why does it not permit the UN to investigate Assad's chemical attacks and press charges accordingly?

It has permitted. And it has even proposed an extension of the permission, which was vetoed by the West. Why do you present a symmetrical situation (proposals from both sides vetoed by the other side) as if only Russia has used a veto? For the reasons why the proposals have vetoed, one has to look at the details of the resolution.