Military Events in Syria and Iraq Thread #4

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Yazata, Apr 12, 2017.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Yeah, it is. Putin's not communist. At all. Even close. The mafia is not a commune, to illustrate.
    It has been used as such, in the recent past and nearby regions.
    One of the problems with losing moral authority via corrupting everything and doing evil in the service of imperial ambition is that one no longer gets the benefit of doubt.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Putin rose to power through the ranks of the communist Soviet Union. Doesn't matter if Karl Marx would recognize his own theories being practiced there, the Russians employed the veneer of communism as an excuse for totalitarianism which ended up achieving precisely the system one typically calls fascist. I'm not using "commie" to refer to hippies on a compound who think manufactured goods don't pollute as long as one doesn't know where or how they were made.

    The UN has also been used by Russia to whitewash Assad's crimes and block any substantial investigation into such crimes at the security council, it's not a US instrument that acts strictly according to US dictats. Sculptor doesn't get to paint his little cartoon where anyone who agrees with the US government or Israel about something must have been enslaved by their dark magic.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Not much happening on the ground in Syria yet. Preparations going on around Idlib. The main theme in the military forums is the verbal escalation. On Thursday, there was a press conference by Lavrov and the Syrian minister for foreign relations Muallem, where the Syrian guy said that Syria will, in case of an attack, retaliate.

    Of course, in principle Assad could bluff. But, I would not bet. The place where this has been said means that this was coordinated with Russia. And Syria has nice US and French targets - their illegal bases in Syria.

    Let's note also that as the Russians, as the Syrians are already on high alert, the Russians are doing naval exercises near Syria, the US has also already all they need for attacking Syria. This is quite interesting, not? All sides prepare for a war, and the incident which starts the war is also known, a chemical attack claimed to be done by Assad. Essentially, everybody knows what follows - the fake attack, then some missiles, and then, we will see.

    Of course, the Devil is always doing just devil things, just for fun. But, sorry, Assad will not do things which would obviously harm him. All these fake attacks and the following US attacks have been a quite serious danger, even if the effects have been close to nothing. (And, btw, I do not care about "building confidence". I give information to the US propaganda victim from the world outside their bubble, that's all. One cannot expect any positive reaction from this.)
    If this would make sense as such a military tactic, he would do this open and on a regular basis. Doing it twice a year if the US wants to shot some more missiles makes no sense. Either you do it all the time if there are tunnels on the other side, or you don't do it at all.
    Some of the UN structures are US proxies, MSF and AI certainly are.
    No. At the end of Soviet Union, Putin was a local resident of the KGB in Dresden (not even in Berlin, thus, second rank).
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Nonsense. If you wished to deter the rebels from fortifying and making use of basements and use tunnels you would only have to attack once or twice to demonstrate preparedness to commit war crimes.

    How much chems would you think Assad and Russia would be using if not for global outrage and reaction? (You fail to realize that the world generally is outraged by the use of chems....not just the USA)

    Of course you still consider all chem attacks of late to be fake. The temptation for Assad and Russia to end this war quickly by using chems must be very strong.
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    The other thing you fail to comprehend is that the responsibility for the devastation of Syria and the massive displacement of it's citizens as a nation rest ultimately with Assad's failure to provide competent leadership.
    He simply has failed his nation terribly. No if's or buts...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Sep 1, 2018
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    He is not communist. His government is not communist. Russia is not organized or governed as a communist country.
    I'm sure his road to power is fascinating, but its destination is what we have now.
    If he's fascist, he's not communist. By definition. These words have meaning, in English, and they refer to quite different economic and attendant political organization- they are not interchangeable synonyms for "bad".
    - - -
    But he might well do things that would likely help him, terrorism via gas attack being one of those things.
    It's a terrorism tactic, not a military one. He would use it at the right times for his own benefit, as others of his kind have.
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2018
  10. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    The encircling of the IS forces around the Al Safa volcano continues, it is now split into two parts.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The nonsense is on your side. The fortifications in the towns have been build during many years with Western support, so there was no point in deterring. Then, in a real war what matters is what happens on everyday basis. Not some rare events, but what causes the real death every day. And what matters is probability. Everything is possible anyway - including your death. So, nobody cares about some theoretical possibilities of death, if there are real, probable ways to die.
    None. Given that there is no military advantage in applying it. If there would be, they would either use it whenever it is really useful - say, following the fantasies proposed here, whenever they identify a tunnel, they would use gas to kill those inside. Or, if this does not give useful results, which is what I would suspect, they would not use it at all.
    Of course. The point that it is useless from a military point but politically extremely dangerous for Assad makes it sufficiently obvious that he would not use it.

    So, the reaction to the declaration "if Assad uses chemical weapons again, we will strike" simply means that the US will strike. So, the consequences are the natural ones, the same if the US would declare it would strike, without any reason: The US ships and submarines and so on move to positions to attack, the Russian navy moved to positions to defend and counterattack if necessary, the Syrian air defense goes on high alert, the Syrian foreign minister says that the Syrian side will self-defend and retaliate in the case of an attack. Everybody in the forums speculates about what will happen during the next US attack - simply yet another repetition of the last attack, or an escalation - but nobody has any doubt that there will be an US attack once Assad starts to attack Idlib. And all this without even a claim that any gas was used. This is simply what the Western media and their White Helmet reporters there will deliver anyway once the US will attack.

    Corrected with bold letters by me.
    Terrorism is something which terrifies somebody, in particular civilians. You cannot terrify anybody using a little gas once half a year in a civil war with the most important enemies being fanatics ready to suicide attacks. The fantasies of using it as a means against tunnels would be military applications, not terrorist, given that the tunnels are military installations.
  11. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    So what? The Soviet Union was never communist in anything but name, just like every joke of a country that has ever called itself communist since. I can't recall ever meeting a self-proclaimed communist (including people I've actually lived with) who actually gave away anything significant of their own to those with even greater needs; it's always about how the "have-nots" just need to seize wealth from vaguely specified "elites" (i.e. anyone richer than themselves) and redistribute it to the "masses" (once again, mostly themselves). Putin was a member of the communist party- that's the means by which, according to his own claims, he was elevated to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the KGB, and despite Schmelzer's assertions that Dresden was an unimportant jurisdiction, Lieutenant Colonel sounds like a pretty high rank. Then his Communist Party buddies made him deputy mayor of St. Petersburg and the rest is history.

    Under "communist" rule, the Soviet Union was a fascist dictatorship governed by the "Communist Party". Now it's a fascist dictatorship governed by the Russian Mafia, most of whom orginally acquired their wealth and power through their connections and affiliations in the Soviet system as it collapsed.

    I didn't say he's a communist, I said he rose to power through the Communist Party, and he embodies the same values that Westerners have traditionally associated with those appropriately labeled as commie pinko scum, who conflate "global revolution" with their own personal enrichment at the risk of starting WW3.

    And he will subsequent deny timely access to inspectors from any neutral international organization, even though he will happily parrot and champion these exact same organizations whenever they take shots at Israel or the US.
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2018
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    so let me ask you this:
    If that were the case, why haven't the rebels used gas labelled "from Assad" already, to incite a USA reaction this time?
    According to your theory it would be in their interests to frame Assad ASAP.
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Also I do not think that the sort of financial resources needed to rebuild such a devastated nation like Syria are going to be donated/made available if Assad remains in power. So how is Syria going to be rebuilt?
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Several countries and nations - including the Soviet Union, to a degree - have been organized economically as a conglomeration of communes. That is communism.

    The Soviet Union was not fascist. The term "commie fascist" is in fact an oxymoron.

    The ongoing Orwell-identified effort to destroy the meanings of the terms of political discussion in the US
    - and in particular the association of "fascism" with the characteristic rightwing authoritarian, corporate capitalist, specifically private enterprise employing, economic organization that is central to the definition and meaning and real world establishment of "fascism" -
    should be resisted, not abetted, on a science forum.
    No, it was not. It was not corporate capitalist. That's important.
    It's the right rank for the guy overseeing the espionage and secret service operations of an important region - the main guy in Western Europe, say - in a regime like that. Schmelzer didn't invent his "deep state" projections out of nothing.
    It's also a catbird seat for learning how rightwing authoritarian, corporate capitalist authoritarian, stuff works.
    The attempt to associate those values with commie pinko scum, and obscure or deflect their real world association with fascist moneybags scum, has been a major part of the agenda of recent Republican propaganda operations.

    Relevance to Syria? - The launching of the Iraq War by the Republican Party, W&Cheney's administration, was a milestone in the increasing takeover of US government by the fascist movement that had taken over the Republican Party. Syrian policy follows from that.
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2018
  15. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    There will be a fire sale on Syrian sex slaves. Girls and boys over 15 are discounted 33% or more.

    The traditional definition of communist involves a lot more than mere central planning or living on a commune, and the latter only represented a fraction of the total Soviet economy.

    Have you never heard it explained that Hitler and Stalin, despite their claimed ideological differences, had, in practice, more in common with each other than they did with any Western democracy? Unlike Schmelzer, I judge ideologies and governments based on what they actually do, not just their speeches.

    Labeling the Soviet Union, China or anyone else as even partially authentic representations of Marxist ideology is what should not be encouraged on a science forum. China has more poverty and greater wealth inequality today than just about any Western nation in history, and the USSR had those classy exclusive department stores for party members, among numerous other financial corruptions.

    It was capitalist for the people in charge representing the top 10%, who subsequently formed the first generation of the Mafia oligarchy that runs Russia today.

    Such associations should be seen as denigrating to Republican hardliners who engage in those same types of behaviours, it should not be seen as an attempt on my part to mask the problems they create. I'm saying that the Soviet Union was run and dominated by greedy fascists almost from the very beginning, who also happened to harbour a great deal of barely-concealed racism towards the union's various ethnic minorities, and that many corporatist right-wing policies and platforms today advocate for agendas that lead to comparable outcomes.

    U.S. Syrian policy currently follows from having a Russian agent running the White House.
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Communism does not necessarily involve "central planning". But it does involve communal or "collective" ownership, rather than capital ownership, as the basic unit of economic organization. That is what the Soviet Union had.
    So? Marx himself pointed out that he was not a Marxist.
    It was not organized as corporate capitalist at any level. The major industries, land, and resources, were owned socially.
    The Soviet Union was not fascist. It was socialist, with major communist organization.
    They aren't. Destruction of language favors power over reason.
    It dates to the Iraq War, at least.
  17. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    If they have or not does not matter. Because the West decides what to do. The bombing is not a reaction to anything happening on the ground with chemical weapons, if the terrorists do it themselves, without order from the West, it will be ignored by the Western media. I have some memories of some twits of Assad using gas, which were completely ignored.
    They are, but the US is not a puppet of the terrorists, the terrorists are puppets of the West.
    It is going to be rebuild by the Syrian people.
  18. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    With what? Recycled Pepsi cans and bomb casings?
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  19. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    The local junior college offers programs for all of the construction trades.
    Perhaps, offering the same education to syrian refugees would be a wise investment.
    It seems that there will be enough construction work in Syria to keep a significant portion of the population employed for most of a generation.
  20. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Who do you think the refugees are taking refuge from in the first place?
  21. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    It was capitalist for the members of the Communist Party shopping in private exclusive boutiques, buying and selling on the black market, receiving higher salaries for telling others to do the work they should be doing themselves, and seizing the wealth generated by the state enterprises they ran like personal businesses. The equality and central planning bits only applied to the 90% outside the party who had no wealth to share, and it was a facade to justify the governing party's tyranny and lack of accountability.

    Communism and socialism require that those with wealth share it with those who don't have it, not the other way around.

    Barack Obama sat back for 7 years watching Assad and his allies pound Syria to death and only took meaningful action against ISIS. Why do you insist on pinning everything on the Bush Jr. administration?
  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Assad/Putin will only blow it all up again.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    I'm not pinning "everything" on anybody.
    I'm pinning the Iraq War, and the bulk of its consequences, on the people who promoted it, organized it, launched it, commanded it, made it happen as it did, justified it, and worked hard to prevent its reversal or cancellation or even moderation by others - including by damaging the institutions of US government which could otherwise have been so employed.

    And I'm classifying most of current US policy in Syria as among the consequences of those people's policies and agenda, and that War.
    - - - -
    That's not capitalism. Lots of non-capitalist societies have thieving and parasitic aristocracies, bureaucracies, criminal organizations. State businesses are socialist enterprises.
    They don't. They are instead often set up so that no one "has" wealth, in the first place, as a basic principle.
    Again with the central planning? "Equality" ?
    Regardless: at least 90% of the country, including the vast bulk of the society and its fundamental organization, was by agreement of all, communist/socialist.
    (A larger percentage than is capitalist, in the US).

Share This Page