Military Events in Syria and Iraq Thread #4

[iceaura]

It is a lie. "and the missing justification is no big deal in your world (you have Syria justified in bombing Israel itself, after all)" clearly says that the justification is missing, despite the fact that I have given one.

It doesn't: In context it says that if you used "retaliation" as if it automatically implied justification, the missing justification would fit right in with anyone who thinks Syria bombing Israel with Russian support is ok.
And you haven't: what you have posted does not justify what you claim it justifies.

That psychotic point I have mostly taken back after I have learned about that strange medical condition of her eyes.

Too late. You were suckered, and never learned to be less gullible. Also: You never took back the argument you based on it, and you still post garbage from those propaganda sites that suckered you.

And you are in all three wars thanks to Obama

Nope. He inherited that mess.

Of course not. Starting a conventional war with Russia, as Clinton has promised, would have been more important than her qualities as a policy wonk.

Not to someone whose priority was avoiding nuclear war. Why would you think Clinton would start a war with Russia anyway?

A guy who was, in comparison with Clinton, more peaceful, and has fired her afaiu because of this.

? Now what fresh idiocy about US politics have you fallen for this time - Obama fired Clinton? For promoting war? You believe that?

It was my priority in the question of the American elections.

It was your priority in the question of American foreign policy.

I favour Russia in comparison with America,

You also favor Russia in comparison with your erstwhile libertarian preferences and your former top priority wish to avoid nuclear war, and you favor Russia over fact-checking propaganda and protecting yourself from media manipulation.

 

[Schmelzer]

It doesn't: In context it says that if you used "retaliation" as if it automatically implied justification, the missing justification would fit right in with anyone who thinks Syria bombing Israel with Russian support is ok. And you haven't: what you have posted does not justify what you claim it justifies.

Strange interpretation. Of course, "retaliation" implies a justification. Namely, something can be named "retaliation" only if there was an aggressive action of similar type by the other side, and the own action is justified as an answer - a retaliation. So, if there is no such justification, the use of the word "retaliation" is simply incorrect. A correct use of "retaliation" therefore means that a justification exists, and gives even enough information about this justification.

The information I have given was that Israel has attacked military positions on Syrian territory with its air force, and that, as a retaliation, the Syrian army has made an attack against Israeli military position at the Golan Heights. Feel free to argue that the Syrian bombing of the Golan Heights cannot be justified as a retaliation, for whatever reasons, but at least explain why you think something is missing. It has nothing to do with any missing justification, and a position that Syria bombing Israel without such justification is ok.

Too late. You were suckered, and never learned to be less gullible. Also: You never took back the argument you based on it, and you still post garbage from those propaganda sites that suckered you.

Teacher Iceaura now establishes timelines? I correct my position when I understand they are wrong, based on arguments. The argument was, in this case, another video of Hillary, where she showed that she can move both eyes completely independent of each other. This looks extremely strange and made it quite plausible that one would better restrain from interpreting how her face looks because this could be very misleading. As a consequence, I have corrected what was necessary to correct, which was not much, because I have not put much weight into this particular point anyway.
As usual, you lie about me without any evidence. Note: My primary sources are not American, with a single exception which is not Breitbart. So, whenever I post here some link to an American site, it means simply that I have followed the path from my sources to their origin, or googled to refind an information I have found elsewhere and lost. So, your fantasies about the sources of my information are nothing but your fantasies.

Nope. He inherited that mess.

He inherited Afghanistan and Iraq. He started in Libya, Syria, Ukraine. Ok, if you think he inherited them too, you are in some sense right - if you follow the idea that this is what the deep state decides about, so that the president puppets simply have to follow the line. But, even if he may have had problems to end Guantanamo, he could have easily prevented Syria, Libya and Ukraine.

Not to someone whose priority was avoiding nuclear war. Why would you think Clinton would start a war with Russia anyway?

Because this was in her program. Remember, a no-fly zone over Syrian territory where she would have to shoot Russian planes to enforce it?

Obama fired Clinton? For promoting war? You believe that?

Formally not fired. Feel free to believe she simply wanted some years without worrying about politics before trying to become president, I think some conflict between Obama and Clinton is more plausible as an explanation. Which conflict? Different commentators will comment this differently. This was one variant.

It was your priority in the question of American foreign policy.

As usual, a claim about me without any evidence. Please, support every statement about my position with an appropriate quote.

You also favor Russia in comparison with your erstwhile libertarian preferences and your former top priority wish to avoid nuclear war, and you favor Russia over fact-checking propaganda and protecting yourself from media manipulation.

These are different questions. And there is no conflict between libertarian positions and favouring a multipolar word order as less evil in comparison with a unipolar one. The "top priority" was a top priority only in one quite restrictive context (Clinton vs. Trump) and never existed in the other one (right of self-defence vs. obligation to submit to US blackmail to avoid the danger of nuclear war).

 

[iceaura]

I correct my position when I understand they are wrong, based on arguments.

And so you have never corrected your gullibility to US propaganda, because the stuff itself pre-empts arguments and blocks your ability to understand. What you need is information, and under its influence you reject information.

Strange interpretation. Of course, "retaliation" implies a justification.

It implies a claim of justification. It does not ensure its adequacy.
The US does a lot of retaliating that you find unjustified, at best disproportionate, for example.

He inherited Afghanistan and Iraq. He started in Libya, Syria, Ukraine.

He also inherited Iran and the US relationship with Saudi Arabia and Israel. So he inherited the mess.
The French appear to have started the latest intervention in Libya. The US never was at war in Ukraine. That leaves Syria to hang on Obama, possibly Yemen - others responsible include Putin, Israel. Looking back, my guess is that some aspects of the various African involvements are going to end up on Obama's CV as well. But the immediate agency of the central disaster was W&Cheney.

Formally not fired. Feel free to believe she simply wanted some years without worrying about politics before trying to become president, I think some conflict between Obama and Clinton is more plausible as an explanation.

Feel free to invent nonsense for other people to believe and think of it as argument - I was wondering where you got the idea that you had been presenting arguments on this forum. (I wasn't, really - familiar).

If it's any of your interest, my speculations include the fact that she had a fairly significant concussion from a fall, that restricted her travel and other key aspects of her job performance as well as her life; also that she had already been on that job longer than the average, been more intensively at work at it than average the whole time, and was likely ready for a change - it's a hard job, and anyone who can do it well has much easier and better paid options in life. She lasted longer than most.

As usual, you lie about me without any evidence. Note: My primary sources are not American,

Yeah, they are, in several issues including anything to do with US politics. I'm not lying about you, I'm informing you. Climate change, racism, Trump, Clinton, the US "deep state", voter fraud, the 2016 campaign, etc - lies and agitprop and deceptive memes trace. There is no general ambient field of sources for this stuff you post - unlike the reality base of informed reasoning, such as some of your posting in this thread about Syria, it has specific authors and media origins. You just don't realize how you're getting played.

The "top priority" was a top priority only in one quite restrictive context (Clinton vs. Trump) and never existed in the other one (right of self-defence vs. obligation to submit to US blackmail to avoid the danger of nuclear war).

It was not restricted to the campaign, the campaign was a specific application of what you advanced as a general principle and top priority for evaluation of any politics - including Syrian military actions explicitly. And now you seem to have slid from Syria bombing Israel to US blackmail - ? Note that the major risks - accident and mishap and unplanned escalation around vulnerable paranoids - you overlook yet again: it's just not in your worldview. You aren't actually concerned about nuclear war. It plays no part in your evaluation of Russian military involvement in Syria.

 

[CptBork]

If Schmelzer supports Russia and China as a counter-balance to alleged American imperialism, and that's his motivation... Why not side with Russia and China when the US is committing aggression somewhere, and side with the US when it's the opposite? America hasn't annexed or incorporated any new territories since 1959. Russia has annexed multiple territories since then, both when the USSR collapsed and in the recent invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine, while China continues to occupy Tibet and build illegal islands in the North Philippine sea. The size of China's land mass is almost identical to America's, while Russia's is twice as large, so who the hell are they to call others imperialists? Even without America in the picture, I don't hear Schmelzer calling for the return of Siberia to its original owners- why favour Russians over Chinese even when it doesn't involve the US?

Of course Schmelzer's motivation really has nothing to do with "liberal anarchy", since fascist dictators are neither anarchists nor liberals. It's all about Russian world domination and national glory after the humiliating defeats it suffered in the 90's and the national failures it's endured since then.

 

[Schmelzer]

The ISattacked Abu Kamal, and it was claimed that at some time they have even reached the city itself. But the Syrian army counterattacked so that the town and its surroundings are now safe again.

And so you have never corrected your gullibility to US propaganda, because the stuff itself pre-empts arguments and blocks your ability to understand.

There is, of course, no reason to correct my position because of your fantasies about gullibility. If you provide arguments and information, I take them into account. You seldom do this.

It implies a claim of justification. It does not ensure its adequacy. The US does a lot of retaliating that you find unjustified, at best disproportionate, for example.

Of course. Whatever I say is a claim, and the claim itself does not ensure its own correctness. Once the claim is made, feel free to reject the claim with arguments. To reject US claims that they retaliate is usually trivial, but at least some argument (even if it would be only "its the US which makes this claim, thus, it is obviously false") would have to be made even in this case. "and the missing justification is no big deal in your world (you have Syria justified in bombing Israel itself, after all)" remains nonsense. What I have written contained a claim of justification, that means, justification matters for me, contrary to your claim. "the missing justification is no big deal in your world" remains a lie.

He also inherited Iran and the US relationship with Saudi Arabia and Israel. So he inherited the mess.

And this forces him to start terrorist wars?

The French appear to have started the latest intervention in Libya.

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya "and military operations began, with American and British naval forces firing over 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles".

The US never was at war in Ukraine.

No. It has only paid for a fascist coup there. Which is nothing that matters, in comparison with the horrible invasion of 12 or so Russian trolls into the American elections, I would guess.

If it's any of your interest, my speculations include the fact that she had a fairly significant concussion from a fall, that restricted her travel and other key aspects of her job performance as well as her life; also that she had already been on that job longer than the average, been more intensively at work at it than average the whole time, and was likely ready for a change - it's a hard job, and anyone who can do it well has much easier and better paid options in life. She lasted longer than most.

Thanks. Why not immediately such normal information, without attempts to present me with your "You believe that?" as completely stupid?

Yeah, they are, in several issues including anything to do with US politics. I'm not lying about you, I'm informing you. Climate change, racism, Trump, Clinton, the US "deep state", voter fraud, the 2016 campaign, etc - lies and agitprop and deceptive memes trace. There is no general ambient field of sources for this stuff you post - unlike the reality base of informed reasoning, such as some of your posting in this thread about Syria, it has specific authors and media origins. You just don't realize how you're getting played.

I have told you about the sources I read. They are not those American sources. Of course, if the information is about the US, they rely on some US sources in their information. And I prefer, of course, sources where I can find out the origin. Of course, every political argument and claim has some origin. If it is about the US, the origin is probably in the US too, and once you don't like it, it comes probably from right-wing guys you don't like. So what? I evaluate such claims and arguments according to my own criteria, and for my own criteria, ad hominem arguments are very weak, almost the weakest imaginable.

It was not restricted to the campaign, the campaign was a specific application of what you advanced as a general principle and top priority for evaluation of any politics - including Syrian military actions explicitly. And now you seem to have slid from Syria bombing Israel to US blackmail - ?

Simply to clarify that your fantasies about my priorities are nothing but your fantasies. If you think there is something inconsistent in my argumentation, quote what you think is in conflict, with links, I will then explain what I think, and why, and if necessary correct something I have said earlier. But you don't. You invent my positions, based on your own misunderstandings.

Note that the major risks - accident and mishap and unplanned escalation around vulnerable paranoids - you overlook yet again: it's just not in your worldview. You aren't actually concerned about nuclear war. It plays no part in your evaluation of Russian military involvement in Syria.

How often I have to repeat that it is in my worldview, but plays a different role in my worldview than in yours? Your fantasies about what I'm actually concerned about are fantasies, as everything you write about me. (Today I'm indeed not concerned about nuclear war, the news of G7 planning censorship seems more relevant today. But that the nuclear war plays no role in my evaluation of the Russian campaign in Syria is something you simply cannot know, simply because you cannot know what I think but don't write about.

America hasn't annexed or incorporated any new territories since 1959.

Except that on the NATO-annexed Serbian territory of Kosovo, there is a really big US base. You can argue that the territory is formally "independent" so that this does not count as annexation, but in fact, this makes no difference for the Serbian people who have been expelled.

Russia has annexed multiple territories since then, both when the USSR collapsed and in the recent invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine, while China continues to occupy Tibet and build illegal islands in the North Philippine sea.

The only case where Russia has increased its own territory was Crimea. And this was clearly no annexation, but a consequence of what the people of Crimea have preferred. Tibet was traditionally under Chinese power, all there was was some wide inner autonomy which was for some time a de-facto independence. Even if one names the end of this de-facto independence an occupation, this was done long ago, 1950-51. The islands are necessary for China as military bases to secure their own seaways against a possible US blockade. Given the role the US oil boycott of Japan has played in WW II, this is something China has to care about, for their own security. So, I see no reason to care about.

The size of China's land mass is almost identical to America's, while Russia's is twice as large, so who the hell are they to call others imperialists? Even without America in the picture, I don't hear Schmelzer calling for the return of Siberia to its original owners- why favour Russians over Chinese even when it doesn't involve the US?

Certainly not because of what they do on their own territory, or because of the size of this territory. But because of what the US is doing elsewhere, far away from their boundaries, with hundreds of military bases all over the world. And I also don't call for the return of all the US territory to the remains of the Aborigines. The territory of states is always and everywhere the result of military conquest.

Of course Schmelzer's motivation really has nothing to do with "liberal anarchy", since fascist dictators are neither anarchists nor liberals. It's all about Russian world domination and national glory after the humiliating defeats it suffered in the 90's and the national failures it's endured since then.

It is all about less evil. Fascist dictators which control some territories are less evil than a US world rule. A Russian resp. Chinese world rule would be nothing I would like too, and in a situation where the US would have been encircled by a lot of Chinese military bases in Mexico and Canada, the military budget of China would be ten times the budget of the next, and we would see Chinese-paid uprisings on US territory, I would side with the US.

 

[iceaura]

How often I have to repeat that it is in my worldview, but plays a different role in my worldview than in yours?

Never. Its role in your world view is obvious in your continual omission of it unless explicitly and insistently braced by somebody like me. In all your use of nuclear war threat as a criterion for evaluating a US politician or policy or action, which has been several times, you have never once included mishap or accident or incompetent loss of control as a factor.

quote what you think is in conflict, with links, I will then explain what I think, and why, and if necessary correct something I have said earlier.

You will not.

If you provide arguments and information, I take them into account.

That's not true. You routinely dismiss information out of hand, and seldom (never?) address arguments other than your own paraphrases of them.
Like this:

What I have written contained a claim of justification, that means, justification matters for me, contrary to your claim. "the missing justification is no big deal in your world" remains a lie

So my actual argument was a waste of my time, as far as addressing you - as far as dinging your repetitions to reduce their propaganda effect, maybe not a waste of time, but there's no reason to attempt to persuade you in that respect.

There is, of course, no reason to correct my position because of your fantasies about gullibility

Of course not. And since without correcting your position you will continue to regard your gullibility as a fantasy of others, rejecting and denying the most flagrant of evidence presented to you (your buying into Hillaryhate videos, your buying into rightwing propaganda regarding climate change, your buying into the silliest of delusions regarding Trump's nature now highlighted by events, long list) you are trapped in a propaganda bubble. All I'm doing is reminding any bystanders of the source of what you are posting here about US politics and politicians, climate change, racism in the US, and similar topics that US rightwing authoritarian media operations have taken an interest in.

It's interesting, because it's an outsider's perspective (apparently). It demonstrates the reach of rightwing authoritarian American media ops - the best in the world at what they do.
And in seeing that, we can also see the limits of what they can do: in Syria, and the region overall, US propaganda has been sabotaged by events. The name acquires the attributes of the thing, as the pros say - and the attributes of the thing, the attributes of the actual US agenda and behavior and pattern of action in the area, are what the US name increasingly possesses as its attributes.

 

[pjdude1219]

The only case where Russia has increased its own territory was Crimea. And this was clearly no annexation, but a consequence of what the people of Crimea have preferred.

whats clear is you dont know what the word annexation means. here it is
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/annexation
please read it. this statement is just fucking stupid. if you lack even the most basic understanding of concepts you dont need to be involved in the debate you need to be in school somewhere. whether or not crimea wanted to be a part of russia it was still annexation. annexation is what happens when ever a country expands. despite what you think this was an illegal act. but you love defending despots warcrimes.

 

[Schmelzer]

Beyond the fighting against the IS near the Euphrat, there is also an ongoing operation to clean the Eastern parts of Al Suweida (in the South of Syria) from remaining pockets of the IS.

And since without correcting your position you will continue to regard your gullibility as a fantasy of others, rejecting and denying the most flagrant of evidence presented to you (your buying into Hillaryhate videos, your buying into rightwing propaganda regarding climate change, your buying into the silliest of delusions regarding Trump's nature now highlighted by events, long list) you are trapped in a propaganda bubble.

Except that this is no evidence for my gullibility, but only for the triviality that you don't like these sources and spend a lot of time discrediting them with ad hominem repetitions, without even attempts to argue against them.
And except that even if I had posted the Hillary video, I found the cut context myself, and the strange condition of her eyes too. You, instead, only repeated your "Hillaryhate" ad hominem, as if this would count, without presenting a single fact.

All I'm doing is reminding any bystanders of the source of what you are posting here about US politics and politicians, climate change, racism in the US, and similar topics that US rightwing authoritarian media operations have taken an interest in.

Which is not even the source I use, but only your fantasy. They may have been originated by those sources you hate. But so what? Arguments which are valid remain valid even if they come from some right-wing guys you hate. And if their claims appear to be facts, such is life.

It's interesting, because it's an outsider's perspective (apparently). It demonstrates the reach of rightwing authoritarian American media ops - the best in the world at what they do.

In fact, the left is much better in media ops. Except that they have made the error of increasingly working with the version of censorship known as political correctness. During the times when they fought for freedom of speech, the right had no chance. With political correctness, the left started to lose. They thought they can control in this way all the media - and they succeeded in this - but there was, unfortunately for them, the new medium, the internet. The combination of ignorance, ad hominem and political correctness works in the media, but not in the internet.

And in seeing that, we can also see the limits of what they can do: in Syria, and the region overall, US propaganda has been sabotaged by events. The name acquires the attributes of the thing, as the pros say - and the attributes of the thing, the attributes of the actual US agenda and behavior and pattern of action in the area, are what the US name increasingly possesses as its attributes.

"The name acquires the attributes of the thing" is good. This is how "liberal" and "democracy" became swearwords in Russia during the Yeltsin time.

whats clear is you dont know what the word annexation means. here it is
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/annexation
... despite what you think this was an illegal act. but you love defending despots warcrimes.

Ok. https://www.thefreedictionary.com/annexation, as well as https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/annexation, give two meanings, "incorporation by joining or uniting" but also "the formal act of acquiring something (especially territory) by conquest or occupation;" The second one is the meaning of the German equivalent (Annexion, Annektierung). So, if indeed the first meaning is the main meaning in English, a classic case of a false friend.
That it was legal I have explained, your answer with a statement repeating the NATO position, which is what is expected, so who cares. The "war crimes" without a war and without any deads are funny.

 

[CptBork]

Except that on the NATO-annexed Serbian territory of Kosovo, there is a really big US base. You can argue that the territory is formally "independent" so that this does not count as annexation, but in fact, this makes no difference for the Serbian people who have been expelled.

No one has formally annexed the territory, not even Albania, and NATO doesn't want anyone annexing the territory or it would have already happened. All we've done to date is prevent the followers of Slobodan Milosevic from committing another Balkan massacre with Russian support, and as far as I'm aware, the majority of the Serbs who lived there at the time are still living there today.

But the bottoms line is that if you, a self-proclaimed German citizen, don't care about Konigsberg which was actually annexed to Russia after the USSR collapsed, and which was cleansed of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Germans after coming under Soviet occupation, then why would you expect me to give a shit about your failed massacres in Kosovo?

The only case where Russia has increased its own territory was Crimea. And this was clearly no annexation, but a consequence of what the people of Crimea have preferred. Tibet was traditionally under Chinese power, all there was was some wide inner autonomy which was for some time a de-facto independence. Even if one names the end of this de-facto independence an occupation, this was done long ago, 1950-51. The islands are necessary for China as military bases to secure their own seaways against a possible US blockade. Given the role the US oil boycott of Japan has played in WW II, this is something China has to care about, for their own security. So, I see no reason to care about.

Russia also increased its territory upon the collapse of the Soviet Union, since the territories that had shifted around under Soviet occupation were never subsequently restored to their original rightful owners. Beyond Crimea, it has also unilaterally recognized independence for several territories under current Russian occupation, where a minority of the citizens wish to ultimately join the Russian federation and participate in future mass rapes.

Certainly not because of what they do on their own territory, or because of the size of this territory. But because of what the US is doing elsewhere, far away from their boundaries, with hundreds of military bases all over the world.

The US doesn't actually have hundreds of bases on foreign soil- many bases are counted multiple times for having different facilities located in the same area. Beyond that, nearly all such facilities are located in democratic countries by invitation of the elected leaders, and virtually all the remainder are also where they are by invitation of the internationally recognized "UN libertarian contract" leaders.

And I also don't call for the return of all the US territory to the remains of the Aborigines. The territory of states is always and everywhere the result of military conquest.

That's good to know, since any argument about aboriginals and lost territories would apply even more to Russia than it already does to the US.

It is all about less evil. Fascist dictators which control some territories are less evil than a US world rule. A Russian resp. Chinese world rule would be nothing I would like too, and in a situation where the US would have been encircled by a lot of Chinese military bases in Mexico and Canada, the military budget of China would be ten times the budget of the next, and we would see Chinese-paid uprisings on US territory, I would side with the US.

What does the US do to rule Germany? If someone refuses to do business with you, do you typically call them slave masters? And if the US is ruling Germany while Belarus is under smiley puppy rainbow friendship treaties with Russia, why is the former prospering so much more than the latter, even despite your incessant attempts to cause riots and agitation?

 

[pjdude1219]

That it was legal I have explained, your answer with a statement repeating the NATO position, which is what is expected, so who cares. The "war crimes" without a war and without any deads are funny.

it wasn't legal despite your lies and russian propaganda. it doesn't matter that they voted when it was done at gun point. the very fact the russian military and invaded and taken control renders any plebiscite invalid. that you thinks its legal because your favorite despot did it only shows how deranged your viewpoint is. had the us done the exact same thing youd be throwing a weapons grade hissy fit. the only reason you think its legal is because russia did it. it wasn't legal. um you do its considered a war crime to invade another country. still more ignorance lies and defense of autocracy.

 

[iceaura]

Except that this is no evidence for my gullibility, but only for the triviality that you don't like these sources and spend a lot of time discrediting them with ad hominem repetitions, without even attempts to argue against them.

Not true.
Like the wingnuts you got that term from - "ad hominem" - you don't know how to use it.
Besides - what sources? Are you now acknowledging their existence?
If you recall, a lot of your defense of that silly bs you fell for rested on denying where it came from - in many cases, I believe, quite sincerely: you really didn't know where your climate change schtick, your opinions of Trump and Clinton, your presumptions of the causes of the American Civil War, and so forth, came from. Ok, you aren't especially familiar with American politics, or the relevant scientific disciplines behind the CO2 boost alarm, or the kind of sophistication US marketing pros bring to the table. You got took, it happens.
But your refusal to recognize argument and accept further information is on you.

And except that even if I had posted the Hillary video, I found the cut context myself, and the strange condition of her eyes too

Nobody but a sucker would have had to "find" anything: the problem with your videos was immediately visible to anyone who watched them - starting with the fact that they were videos, the liars tool. So that was too late. You had already been suckered,
and you remain suckered: You still accept bs about Clinton from those same sources. You still hold the opinion of Clinton (and Trump) they sold you.
You still, to this day, deny and reject as irrelevant the entire context of everything Clinton ever did, and instead insist on the validity of wingnut bs from rightwing authoritarian sources of lies and propaganda familiar to any literate American.

And so we come around to Syria and Iraq - W's Folly, as it was labeled before he even launched the invasion - the last time Republican incompetence moved into the White House and declared that an era of compromise and weakness and feeble good government was over, and a strong national patriotic mission was on the agenda. The consequences of which you are assigning to Hillary Clinton, or maybe Obama - just like the Trump voters do, and for pretty much the same reasons.

 

[Schmelzer]

No one has formally annexed the territory, not even Albania, and NATO doesn't want anyone annexing the territory or it would have already happened.

Formally not. But occupied. And this was really a crime, an aggression, bombing Belgrad to occupy Kosovo. And it was the final turning point for the Russians. The NATO has to blame itself that Russians consider it now as an enemy (even if Putin continues to name them "partner").

All we've done to date is prevent the followers of Slobodan Milosevic from committing another Balkan massacre with Russian support, and as far as I'm aware, the majority of the Serbs who lived there at the time are still living there today.

Propaganda lies. In the Northern part of Kosovo, there is a small pocket where the Serbs live. The NATO decided not to genocide them away, fine. And they probably would not have succeeded, because they would have defended themselves, and all the NATO can do is to bomb, and their Kosovo troops were simply a criminal gang. So, all they could do was to expel the Serbs where those were a minority and not strong enough to defend themselves.

But the bottoms line is that if you, a self-proclaimed German citizen, don't care about Konigsberg which was actually annexed to Russia after the USSR collapsed,

No. It was part of Russia since it was annexed in 1945.

then why would you expect me to give a shit about your failed massacres in Kosovo?

I don't expect. You are known to be a defender of NATO terrorism.

Russia also increased its territory upon the collapse of the Soviet Union, since the territories that had shifted around under Soviet occupation were never subsequently restored to their original rightful owners. Beyond Crimea, it has also unilaterally recognized independence for several territories under current Russian occupation, where a minority of the citizens wish to ultimately join the Russian federation and participate in future mass rapes.

No, there was no such increase of territories. You cannot name it an increase if the territory was already part of the Russian Soviet Republic before. But fine, if we follow your logic, the return of Crimea to Russia was just, simply because the territory was taken away from Russia by the Soviet ruler Krushchov, of Ukrainian nationality, and now returned to their rightful owners.

The US doesn't actually have hundreds of bases on foreign soil- many bases are counted multiple times for having different facilities located in the same area. Beyond that, nearly all such facilities are located in democratic countries by invitation of the elected leaders, and virtually all the remainder are also where they are by invitation of the internationally recognized "UN libertarian contract" leaders.

Formally yes - the usual way was some regime change, either more or less peaceful by influencing an election or by a color revolution or by terrorism, nobody cares, and then the new rulers cry for a US base. Guantanamo is simply occupied, the bases in Germany and Japan are also the remains of occupation in 1945, Kosovo was obtained by war.

That's good to know, since any argument about aboriginals and lost territories would apply even more to Russia than it already does to the US.

No. There are some weak similarities, the most important one that the Siberian Aborigines also have a serious alcohol problem. The acquisition of the territories was more peaceful. Not completely without fighting, but they were never a sort of enemies (different from the Caucasians). Their integration was seriously enforced in Soviet time, with all the quotas and so on, resulting in jokes about how stupid Chukcha join a university. Today there is a very popular Aborigine in politics - minister of defense Shoigu.

What does the US do to rule Germany? If someone refuses to do business with you, do you typically call them slave masters?

There are enough Germans who hate American rule and call them names. More than those who want Königsberg back. But not for what is Trump doing now. That's fine with those who hate American rule. The local Quislings are unhappy with this.

And if the US is ruling Germany while Belarus is under smiley puppy rainbow friendship treaties with Russia, why is the former prospering so much more than the latter, even despite your incessant attempts to cause riots and agitation?

Belarus had to live under communist rule much longer. And, of course, Germans are known to be good workers, even those under communist rule for 40 years were the richest ones among the communist states.

Not true.

True. But let's see if you provide something now:

Like the wingnuts you got that term from - "ad hominem" - you don't know how to use it.

I know it, and use it correctly.

Besides - what sources? Are you now acknowledging their existence?

Those which, according to your fantasies, are my sources. You don't know my real sources and probably could not read most of them without a translator.

If you recall, a lot of your defense of that silly bs you fell for rested on denying where it came from - in many cases, I believe, quite sincerely: you really didn't know where your climate change schtick, your opinions of Trump and Clinton, your presumptions of the causes of the American Civil War, and so forth, came from.
Ok, you aren't especially familiar with American politics, or the relevant scientific disciplines behind the CO2 boost alarm, or the kind of sophistication US marketing pros bring to the table. You got took, it happens.
But your refusal to recognize argument and accept further information is on you.

No. I never cared to argue about the sources, beyond mentioning that ad hominem is a weak argument (or possibly correcting trivial lies). Ad hominem arguments get what they deserve - ignorance.

Nobody but a sucker would have had to "find" anything: the problem with your videos was immediately visible to anyone who watched them - starting with the fact that they were videos, the liars tool. So that was too late. You had already been suckered,
and you remain suckered: You still accept bs about Clinton from those same sources. You still hold the opinion of Clinton (and Trump) they sold you.

I don't like videos too, look them not very often, but a short video sometimes why not. And if videos of interviews with Clinton can be used by Hillary-haters against her, this is not my problem, but Hillary's.

You still, to this day, deny and reject as irrelevant the entire context of everything Clinton ever did, and instead insist on the validity of wingnut bs from rightwing authoritarian sources of lies and propaganda familiar to any literate American.

"Literate American" made my day. I have seen what this war criminal has done, have heard what she has proposed, there is no need for "rightwing authoritarian" or whatever sources to lie about her.

And so we come around to Syria and Iraq - W's Folly, as it was labeled before he even launched the invasion - the last time Republican incompetence moved into the White House and declared that an era of compromise and weakness and feeble good government was over, and a strong national patriotic mission was on the agenda. The consequences of which you are assigning to Hillary Clinton, or maybe Obama - just like the Trump voters do, and for pretty much the same reasons.

The criminal wars in Libya and Syria were not W's wars. And the Kosovo war was also a Clinton war.

(bs by some dude disposed)

 

[iceaura]

No, there was no such increase of territories. You cannot name it an increase if the territory was already part of the Russian Soviet Republic before.

Of course you can. What are talking about? It was never part of Russia, now it is, and this was accomplished by military force.

No. I never cared to argue about the sources,

You mean: "Yes. I never cared to argue about the sources, "

Like the wingnuts you got that term from - "ad hominem" - you don't know how to use it.
I know it, and use it correctly.

You don't. You use it to refer to insults, labels, descriptions, and disparagements, that are not premises of arguments. Just like the wingnut sources you got your bubble from.

Those which, according to your fantasies, are my sources. You don't know my real sources and probably could not read most of them without a translator.

I explained to you how your "real" sources can be identified in your posting - you reject argument and information of that kind. That you don't know where this shit you post regarding US politics et al is coming from in the first place is an interesting bit of trivia.

The contrast between that and what you post concerning matters you do have information about is worth noting.

I don't like videos too, look them not very often, but a short video sometimes why not. And if videos of interviews with Clinton can be used by Hillary-haters against her, this is not my problem, but Hillary's.

You suckered for video agitprop from the crudest of rightwing American media manipulators, even posted it here, because you were and are ignorant and gullible and misled - by them, in the first place - about Hillary Clinton.

I have seen what this war criminal has done, have heard what she has proposed, there is no need for "rightwing authoritarian" or whatever sources to lie about her.

And therefore no reason for you to buy into those lies. But you do.

Give up. Your thesis - that electing a Republican and fascist demagogue to the US Presidency would reduce the chances of war, any war including nuclear war, anywhere including Iraq and Syria - is not ever going to become reasonable.

Although your actual emphasis and visible motivation - the US becoming weaker diplomatically in the face of Putin's agenda of expanding influence, that weakness visible in Syria as Putin's agenda meets with success and US acquiescence to it grows ever more unmistakable - is reasonable.

 

[Schmelzer]

Of course you can. What are talking about? It was never part of Russia, now it is, and this was accomplished by military force.

In 1945. Not when the Soviet Union dissolved.

You mean: "Yes. I never cared to argue about the sources, "

No. I answered nonsense of the following type: "a lot of your defense of that silly bs you fell for rested on denying where it came from". I do not deny uninteresting things I have not cared about. Denying them would require some research about where it came from.

You don't. You use it to refer to insults, labels, descriptions, and disparagements, that are not premises of arguments. Just like the wingnut sources you got your bubble from.

No, I use it against you once you use ad hominem attacks.

I explained to you how your "real" sources can be identified in your posting - you reject argument and information of that kind.

I ignore them, given that these are cheap ad hominems. If the source is a right wing source, so be it. What matters is if you provide arguments about the content. If you don't, but simply repeat your ad hominem, I ignore this.

That you don't know where this shit you post regarding US politics et al is coming from in the first place is an interesting bit of trivia.
The contrast between that and what you post concerning matters you do have information about is worth noting.

If you post something about facts on the ground, something you cannot evaluate yourself, you depend much more on the reliability of the sources and therefore have to care about it. If you post arguments, you anyway can and have to evaluate them yourself. So, the source does not matter. By the way, if the right or the left publishes more lies is an open question.

You suckered for video agitprop from the crudest of rightwing American media manipulators, even posted it here, because you were and are ignorant and gullible and misled - by them, in the first place - about Hillary Clinton.

If taking quotes from interviews given volitionally by Hillary can be agitprop for the other side, this is Hillary's problem. Beyond the out of context problem (which was there, but was not at all decisive) there is not much one can do. And a professional politician should be aware of this problem.

And therefore no reason for you to buy into those lies. But you do.

No. I know that there is much more Hillaryhate, like all those body counts and so on. All that has impressed me a little bit was the video, and not mainly the face she made during some quite aggressive talk. Until I have found this condition of her eyes, which makes her facial expression quite misleading. The aggressive talk remains, and it is her talk, the war crimes remain, the election program remains.

Give up. Your thesis - that electing a Republican and fascist demagogue to the US Presidency would reduce the chances of war, any war including nuclear war, anywhere including Iraq and Syria - is not ever going to become reasonable.

Don't forget, I don't have to care about your fantasies, I have to care only about my own claims.

Although your actual emphasis and visible motivation - the US becoming weaker diplomatically in the face of Putin's agenda of expanding influence, that weakness visible in Syria as Putin's agenda meets with success and US acquiescence to it grows ever more unmistakable - is reasonable.

Up to now, Trump has not started a war.

We will see what will happen after the next faked chemical weapons attack. There has been given information that the US plans yet another such attack in the Deir Ezzor region. Sometimes such public information prevents the attacks, but the West is now in a mood where they don't care at all if the accusations are plausible or not, so even such warnings cannot prevent them. At least in Douma they have not prevented it.

 

[iceaura]

Up to now, Trump has not started a war.

Just doubled down on the drone war and assassination operations, restored military operations of that kind to CIA control, gutted the State Department, ginned up a border conflict (and sent soldiers), and reneged on a few major treaties, while boosting the military budget on borrowed money.

And the best thing is, he wouldn't have to actually start one: there's a half dozen in progress, and a couple of dormant ones waking up - thanks to him, partly.

All that has impressed me a little bit was the video, and not mainly the face she made during some quite aggressive talk. Until I have found this condition of her eyes, which makes her facial expression quite misleading. The aggressive talk remains, and it is her talk, the war crimes remain, the election program remains.

Hook, line, and sinker. You are apparently completely unaware of who is manipulating you. Look at you still banging on about that wingnut stuff you suckered for regarding Clinton, with the US government in the hands of a fascist demagogue.

In summary, you're relying on Trump's incompetence and greed to save you from his natural inclinations regarding the US military. He has no base in the military command, he can't organize a war, and he can be bought off of anything (including the defense of his own country). That's your hope, if war with nuclear risk is your fear.

No, I use it against you once you use ad hominem attacks.

I don't. Never have. It's a point of reference, for me.
Meanwhile, you repeatedly and frequently use the term exactly - same circumstances, same role, same specific references, everything - as the domestic victims of American wingnut propaganda use it. Coincidence?

I do not deny uninteresting things I have not cared about. Denying them would require some research about where it came from.

You deny - actively reject - information about the sources of your goofy delusions. You wouldn't have to do research, merely accept the information offered to you.

If you post arguments, you anyway can and have to evaluate them yourself. So, the source does not matter.

But you don't. You don't evaluate them. That would require information, which you reject - as the sources of the bs you bought into have set you up to do.

I ignore them, given that these are cheap ad hominems. If the source is a right wing source, so be it.

So why do you deny your sources? In your climate change foolishness, for example, where you interpreted an absence of good news as evidence of bias in the news and the science, and went on to "explain" the bias, without having any information about the news or the science: How did you arrive at that determination of bias, and those particular odd counterfactual explanations, without the necessary information? When I pointed out the obvious and in fact only source, you denied it.

By the way, if the right or the left publishes more lies is an open question.

That you have been taken in by the goofiest bs of the American rightwing authoritarians is not an open question. It is a repeatedly demonstrated fact. And among the consequences is that on one hand you have no idea who or what the left is in American politics, and on the other are unable to recognize fascism unless it labels itself for you - which American fascism does not do.

Neither does Russian fascism.

If taking quotes from interviews given volitionally by Hillary can be agitprop for the other side, this is Hillary's problem

You simply have no defenses, none of the sophistication and wariness an American intellectual develops from a lifetime of this shit, from years of comparing the facts on the ground with what those guys promulgate.

And in this Syrian context, maybe it's time for you to wonder if Russian media pros can do to you what the American Heritage Institute et al have done.

 

[CptBork]

Not only have Russian media pros done to Schmelzer what the American Heritage Institute has done, he probably wouldn't share a single opinion with the latter if not guided to that opinion by the former. He only reads US Republican agitprop if it's pointed out by his Russian internet buddies and media, and if it's in agreement with whatever Putin says. Schmelzer, as per his own admission, does not care in the slightest about US internal politics, but he does show a great deal of care and concern on any matter affecting the Russkies, whether it's a US Republican initiative or otherwise.

 

[Schmelzer]

And the best thing is, he wouldn't have to actually start one: there's a half dozen in progress, and a couple of dormant ones waking up - thanks to him, partly.

First of all, thanks to Obama and the other predecessors who started them.

Hook, line, and sinker. You are apparently completely unaware of who is manipulating you. Look at you still banging on about that wingnut stuff you suckered for regarding Clinton, with the US government in the hands of a fascist demagogue.
In summary, you're relying on Trump's incompetence and greed to save you from his natural inclinations regarding the US military. He has no base in the military command, he can't organize a war, and he can be bought off of anything (including the defense of his own country). That's your hope, if war with nuclear risk is your fear.

Because I don't care about your fantasies. If there is manipulation, show how it works, show where the misinformation is hidden or whatever is done to manipulate. Your unsupported fantasies have nothing to do with reality.

I don't. Never have. It's a point of reference, for me.

Not to discuss the content, but to attack the source is a sort of second nature to you, the base of your argumentation. Together with your fantasies about what I think. Sort of totalitarian thinking: The discussion of the content of what the evil sources write is impossible in principle - to read them is evil. And, of course, the totalitarian judgment is also about the evil intentions of the wrongdoer. This is the point of discussing all the time what I think. Based on fantasy, but the very particular fantasy of a prosecutor, like here:

Meanwhile, you repeatedly and frequently use the term exactly - same circumstances, same role, same specific references, everything - as the domestic victims of American wingnut propaganda use it. Coincidence?

We have completely lost the context. It was something about ad hominem. The content of your claim (I use ad hominem incorrectly) is not discussed at all. You have even not given information about what is my error - simply claimed I don't use it correctly. Now you add guilt some by association. The unknown error appears to be the same error as the one made by the enemy or his victims.

In fact, the explanation is simple. The error is to use the accusation of ad hominem against the left. It is the base of their argumentation, the point of reference. You should never attack the base of the argumentation of the left. And, once I do it, I do the same as other opponents of the left do.

You deny - actively reject - information about the sources of your goofy delusions. You wouldn't have to do research, merely accept the information offered to you.

Do you offer information about the sources? That's new to me. "The origin of this argument is an evil rightwing propaganda source" does not contain more information than "I don't like this argument", given that you apply it all the time and don't support it with anything.

But you don't. You don't evaluate them. That would require information, which you reject - as the sources of the bs you bought into have set you up to do.
So why do you deny your sources? In your climate change foolishness, for example, where you interpreted an absence of good news as evidence of bias in the news and the science, and went on to "explain" the bias, without having any information about the news or the science: How did you arrive at that determination of bias, and those particular odd counterfactual explanations, without the necessary information? When I pointed out the obvious and in fact only source, you denied it.

Sorry, the media bias is what I see whenever I see something from the mainstream media about climate change. It is always only bad news, 100% in what I have seen. This is certainly not a big sample, so I would not make claims about the accuracy. If in other samples in say 5% something positive is somehow mentioned, I would not wonder. But the source, in this case, is my own observation. If some evil rightwing sources have made similar observations, I would not wonder, but this does not make them my sources.

For what follows I had the necessary information, and defended it. It was quite easy because it is obvious that a global warming has some positive consequences too. The controversy in the media is, instead, mainly about different questions, namely if there is a warming at all, or if it is anthropogenic. In both questions, I do not disagree with the mainstream.

That you have been taken in by the goofiest bs of the American rightwing authoritarians is not an open question. It is a repeatedly demonstrated fact.

For you it is maybe a fact, for me, it is your fantasy. There is nothing you have demonstrated. Often repeated claims, even very often repeated claims, are not demonstrations of facts.

And among the consequences is that on one hand you have no idea who or what the left is in American politics, and on the other are unable to recognize fascism unless it labels itself for you - which American fascism does not do.
Neither does Russian fascism.

Those who openly label themselves as fascists are certainly a group which deserves to be named fascists.

For a mathematician, the basic rule of how to name things is simple: If there are different things, name them differently. Is there a difference between those who label themselves fascist and those who have something in common with fascist politics but don't identify themselves as fascists? Yes, there is. Which of the two groups deserves the label "fascist"? Certainly, the group which openly identifies as fascist. Against those who don't do this but share some properties, one can choose a different label. This is the rational way to handle labels. Ideologues don't like it, the use of such labels as swearwords is far too important for them. In particular, the swearword "fascist" is of central importance for the left.

They don't care about cooperating with those who openly support fascism, in particular in the Ukraine, where the fascists have not only been supported a lot by Obama, and have supported Clinton against Trump in the elections as well as now. The whole Manafort thing comes from the Ukrainian fascist denunciation of the election manager of Janukovic. Of course, he may have done a lot of illegal things - most of what is done in the Ukraine is illegal at least from point of view of Ukrainian law, and if he supported some lobbyism in the US, there will be a lot of illegal things too, remember the "three crimes a day". So, one nicely cooperates with fascists. But that does not mean that "fascist" as a swearword becomes useless, not at all. It is consistently used against everything on the right.

By the way, you have not yet proposed any criteria of definition such that Trump and Putin fit into your notion of "fascism" while Obama and Clinton don't. Until this happens, the only shared property is "iceaura does not like them".

You simply have no defenses, none of the sophistication and wariness an American intellectual develops from a lifetime of this shit, from years of comparing the facts on the ground with what those guys promulgate.
And in this Syrian context, maybe it's time for you to wonder if Russian media pros can do to you what the American Heritage Institute et al have done.

What you have is the simple "defense" against "bourgeois propaganda" which I have learned in my childhood: "don't read them, don't discuss their arguments at all". This was, at that time, supported by the impossibility to access those sources of information. I have never used this "defense". So, with your "defense" you appear completely unable to extract any useful information from such evil sources. And, of course, without being able to extract information from "enemy" sources, the large majority remains unable to identify where the own sources fail.

 

[Schmelzer]

Not only have Russian media pros done to Schmelzer what the American Heritage Institute has done, he probably wouldn't share a single opinion with the latter if not guided to that opinion by the former. He only reads US Republican agitprop if it's pointed out by his Russian internet buddies and media, and if it's in agreement with whatever Putin says. Schmelzer, as per his own admission, does not care in the slightest about US internal politics, but he does show a great deal of care and concern on any matter affecting the Russkies, whether it's a US Republican initiative or otherwise.

Interesting that even CptBork is able to understand and present my position much more accurate way in comparison with Iceaura.

I would like to see the moment when Iceaura recognizes that US Republican agitprop is not in my bookmarks where I regularly read, but sometimes by accident, I end in these sources when I follow links to the origin. He also remembered correctly that I don't care about US internal politics. How many times have I repeated this to Iceaura? That he also adds some own fantasies is, in comparison, only minor disturbance.

Interesting is also that he recognizes that Russian media pros exist. Quite good, the picture presented in the Western media is quite different, all you read there about Russian media is that that they present one-sided (that means stupid) propaganda, and if getting access to the Truth as presented by the Western media, they would immediately understand the Truth, and the only way to prevent this is censorship.

In fact, the Russian media are in this question even more professional than all the Western media. They have learned, during communist time, that censorship gives nothing. One should not prevent even a single idea, argument, or claim made by the enemy without discussion. The only purpose of the control of the media is a completely different one: Make sure that the own position is present in all these discussions in a sufficiently powerful way. (Not sure if they have really understood this, but at least in the informational warfare with the West they follow this line.)

 

[iceaura]

I would like to see the moment when Iceaura recognizes that US Republican agitprop is not in my bookmarks where I regularly read, but sometimes by accident, I end in these sources when I follow links to the origin.

I have always known that. I have repeatedly referred to that circumstance, such as just above:

I explained to you how your "real" sources can be identified in your posting - you reject argument and information of that kind. That you don't know where this shit you post regarding US politics et al is coming from in the first place is an interesting bit of trivia.

You miss the point:

It simply doesn't matter where you think that stuff is coming from, or where you ran into it. Its source remains the same. Of course you get it secondhand from wherever, you don't know where it came from originally, you're a very ignorant person in the area of US politics and a couple of other areas, we know that, ok - that's how they play you, that's why informing you of the source is information, as I have always described it. And I have included, several times in the past, explanations of how I, or anyone reading your posts, spot these sources in the foolishness and bs you post - do you recall?

You are getting played by rightwing authoritarian American media operations. You are a gullible patsy for their product, because you lack information. You lack information because you reject it, even when it's offered to you with argument and so forth. You reject it because you have been manipulated by rightwing authoritarian American media operations into rejecting it. And so the bubble closes.

 

[iceaura]

Not to discuss the content, but to attack the source is a sort of second nature to you, the base of your argumentation.

That is false. That is also your standard dismissal of information and argument you have been manipulated into dismissing - you interpret it as propaganda from some other side, and evaluate the entire matter as a propaganda fight between two sides attacking each other.

We have completely lost the context. It was something about ad hominem.

I haven't.

The content of your claim (I use ad hominem incorrectly) is not discussed at all. You have even not given information about what is my error - simply claimed I don't use it correctly.

That's not true. I have provided you with specific descriptions of your common error, often with examples quoted from your posts, several times over your tenure here - most recently in post 693, right there above.
Briefly, you use "ad hominem" when the disparagement referred to is not a premise. That usage is incorrect.
You also misuse it in the exact circumstances, situations, manner, and contexts, down to specific sequences of English words, that have characterized American wingnut media stuff for many years now. Not merely the same target, but the same approach, and even the same wording - all of it mistaken. That is information, for you to consider at your leisure for implications. That is not, plausibly, a coincidence.

In fact, the explanation is simple. The error is to use the accusation of ad hominem against the left.

If you used it correctly, that might be plausible. If you used it incorrectly, but differently, making different arguments etc, that would not have the implications your actual usage has.
But when you post characteristic and quite specific errors of usage - including ones based on US wingnut misconceptions of "the left" in America, btw, which I agree is a frequent context for your misuse of "ad hominem" - shared reality does not explain them.

Sorry, the media bias is what I see whenever I see something from the mainstream media about climate change. It is always only bad news, 100% in what I have seen. This is certainly not a big sample, so I would not make claims about the accuracy

You do make claims about accuracy. You derive your entire justification for posting the bs put out by American corporate media manipulators from the supposed accuracy of your media observations. If you are wrong about what's in the media, you have no posting, no argument at all.

- - If in other samples in say 5% something positive is somehow mentioned, I would not wonder. But the source, in this case, is my own observation.

All you observed was a preponderance of bad news.
Interpreting that as indicating what you claimed about the underlying reality of climate change, both in its science and in its reporting as you did, was not observation, but your assessment. Your assessment was manipulated by American corporate interests. The visible manipulations you posted as your own arguments (such as your fantasy about grant funding and the influence of money on scientists, which you got exactly backwards exactly in common with American wingnut agitprop) have only one source. That source is not you. You've been played - obviously, flagrantly, and with only one doubt: are you being paid to post like that? If not - - - .

For a mathematician, the basic rule of how to name things is simple: If there are different things, name them differently. Is there a difference between those who label themselves fascist and those who have something in common with fascist politics but don't identify themselves as fascists? Yes, there is. Which of the two groups deserves the label "fascist"? Certainly, the group which openly identifies as fascist. Against those who don't do this but share some properties, one can choose a different label. This is the rational way to handle labels

For the record, that slander of mathematicians is unwarranted. Lots of mathematicians are intelligent, adult, politically sophisticated citizens who have a basic clue in these matters. Many even use labels such as "integers", despite the obvious differences between the even and odd ones.
Meanwhile, aside from the amusing prospect of setting that paragraph side by side with the author's praise of the deep thinking of Jonah Goldberg in his book "Liberal Fascism" (wherein liberals are revealed to be in reality fascists), or a diffident inquiry into how one would label the ideology of people who describe themselves as "National Socialist" while acting like this: https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/american-nazi-organization-rally-madison-square-garden-1939/,

there is a serious issue buried in there: it is difficult to perceive what one cannot name. If you can't use the word "fascist", you will have a much harder time recognizing fascism. And the people behind Fox News know that. The people who financed Trump's campaign know that.

The people behind and around Russia's backing of Assad know that.