Russia and Iran start ‘ethnic cleansing’ Syrians

Discussion in 'World Events' started by w1z4rd, Dec 3, 2015.

  1. w1z4rd Cry the beloved country Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    http://freerussian.press/russia-and-iran-start-ethnic-cleansing-syrians/

    I really feel for these poor Syrians

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,093
    The site is a typical anti-Russian propaganda site, so joepistole will obviously like it, everybody interested in reliable information ignore it.

    http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940912000428 (FARS is the Iran news agency, thus, can be considered a propaganda site from the other side) makes a more interesting accusation against the US, namely that the US pressures the Iraq government not to cooperate with Iraqi Shia militias, and that "the Americans' interference has distorted plans to free Ramadi".
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. w1z4rd Cry the beloved country Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    I may be no expert on all things international, but I have a bullshit filter that I apply to everything in life. To science, to genetics, to GMOs to vaccinations. If someone has to rely on logical fallicies (in your case, ad hominem) then its unlikely that the concept they are trying to convince me of is reliable. Ive found this as an effective tool to filter out the crazy out there.

    Could I see the source of this please statement:

    Since your whole argument seems to be based around (and I paraphrase) "theyre lying, I am telling the truth", could you provide a list of sites that do not have propaganda that you recommend?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,907
    As you have been repeatedly informed, the truth isn't propaganda. It's just the truth. This isn't Mother Russia. Unlike Mother Russia, we don't have state owned and controlled press.

    Additionally, Iran is a nation which is well known for its support of terrorism and religious extremism which includes murdering Sunni Muslims who Iran views as religious apostates. Like Russia, Iran supports Assad. The very same Assad who has gassed and barrel bombed his people killing countless innocent men, women and children in a vain attempt to retain his dictatorship.

    Yeah, the US is opposed to a Iranians slaughtering Sunnis. Genocide isn't the answer. Sorry comrade, history should have taught you Russia's traditional solutions will not work. How well did Afghanistan work out for you? The US wants a long-term peaceful solution. It doesn't want to create more violence. Ultimately, Sunnis and Shia need to learn to live together in peace. And when you allow one side to slaughter the other that doesn't happen. How well has that strategy worked out for Assad or the Israel? It hasn't.

    Fomenting and exacerbating religious extremism isn't the answer to ISIS.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2015
  8. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,093
    To name ad hominem a logical fallacy is nonsense. It is simply a weak argument. And it depends on the circumstances how powerful such an argument is.

    In particular, it is much more powerful in a war-like situation, where it is well-known that above sides tend to distribute information which is highly distorted in favor of the own side. That's why I have also indicated that farsnews may be prejudiced toward the other side.

    Another question which influences the usefulness of ad hominem is if the issue is about claims about facts (as in your case), which one has to believe or not, but where one is unable to check them, or if it is about arguments, which one can evaluate independently. In the last case, ad hominem is typically useless and an indication that the one who uses ad hominem has no arguments about the content left. In the first case, ad hominem may appear the strongest argument one can check. In your case, I can easily check, by looking at your page, that the site covers a lot of different questions and in all of them its position is the usual anti-Russian pro-NATO position. What the Iranian or Hezbollah guys are really doing on the ground I'm unable to check.

    Why do you think my arguments are somehow based on personal belief? Of course, I would not distribute things I believe are wrong. But in this case I have even given the information that farsnews cannot be considered as a neutral source. And that I nonetheless believe that this information is plausible is that I know that there have been heavy conflicts between the mentioned Iraqi Shia militias and the US.

    And, no, I cannot provide any list of sides one can trust completely. Such sources do not exist. Every normal person takes sides in such conflicts, considers at least one side as less evil than the other one. So, even the best analytical sources will be in favour of one of the sides, and one has to take this into account if one reads them.

    To find reliable information in the time of war is a very difficult thing. If one has only a small number of sources and believes them without own independent checks one will be certainly a victim of some propaganda. Like joepistole.
     
  9. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,907
    N
    Wiz4ard called you out for what you are and very accurately described your argument, and while that may hurt, it is the truth. As has been repeatedly brought to your attention, you habitually dismiss unpleasant realities as propaganda and you rely heavily on fallacious argument. Now you have been reduced to defending fallacious argument. Ad hominem is a fallacious argument. That's a fact comrade.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. w1z4rd Cry the beloved country Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    So I assume by all your baffle you are unable to provide a list of propaganda free websites that you recommend? Even though your entire argument against the information presented was based on the information being incorrect because its from a "propaganda site" ?

    If I got this wrong, please provide that list. I really would like it.
     
  11. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,093
    Yes, because I do not believe into the existence of propaganda free websites.

    I have websites I like, because I consider them as reliable. But they all have own political positions, and do not even hide them.
    I have not even claimed that it is incorrect. Because even a propaganda site can sometimes distribute correct information.

    If this particular information is correct or not, the reader has to find out and to decide himself. The information that the site looks like an unreliable anti-Russian propaganda site is some information which was easy to obtain, which everybody can verify himself, and therefore I think it is helpful. For this particular site, my rough evalutation suggests me to ignore it completely. But joepistole obviously thinks otherwise, and seems to think this site tells the truth. Think yourself.

    So this is, of course, only a weak indication. It is ad hominem, and ad hominem is weak. (Fallacious it is only for those who think it is a decisive argument.)

    Personally I do not rely on imaginary "propaganda-free" sites, and do not even try to find some. If a site claims to be propaganda-free, this makes it even more suspect to hide its propaganda. I take a look at different sites, from different sides, take into account the prejudices and weaknesses of these sites, and modify my evaluation of these sites (and their weaknesses) all the time I read them.

    To find the truth in a time of war is very difficult, and if you don't want to think, evaluate and decide yourself, it is hopeless.
     
  12. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    sculptor likes this.
  13. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,181
    Because we support the rights of people to protest their government.
     
  14. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,907
    As Spidergoat points out, there is a philosophical reason but it's far more than that. As demonstrated by ISIS and al-Qaeda before it, failed governments can and do become breeding grounds for terrorists. The problems, the violence, in failed states doesn't remain local. History has very clearly and dramatically demonstrated that fact with 9/11. And history is replete with similar examples.

    Here is something else for you to think about, Syria, Libya and Yemen were destabilized long before any US involvement in those lands. So your premise the US is or has supported destabilization in those countries is just factually incorrect. Libya was in a state of chaos before even one US bomb fell in Libya. Assad's government was in chaos long before the US even attempted talks with rebel forces. Yemen has been in chaos since the 60's with brief periods of relative stability. That's why the country was split into North and South Yemen.

    Yes it would be great if we could wall off these hell holes and would never have to be concerned with them. But we can't. There aren't enough bricks in the world to wall off those countries. We are not living in the 1st century. We are living in the 21st century. Our technologies have made the world a much smaller place and that trend won't be reversed anytime soon. As we become more technologically advanced, the world will become much smaller. So what happens in these remote and primitive lands doesn't stay there and like it or not, it affects us all.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2015
  15. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,784
    I agree. Pull the US, Jordan, Turkey, Israel, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Britain, France and all other Western allies out of the equation. Pull Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, and Iraqi and Afghan Shiites out of the equation as well. Let it just be Syrians vs. Syrians, with their own means and their own equipment, and I give it about 2 weeks before Assad gets his rusty shank colonoscopy.
     
  16. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,093
    This is plausible only for Yemen. Syria, Libya and Iraq have been stable before the US started to act. Yes, they were dictatorships, but powerful and stable enough.

    The US action was not open, the US prefers if its puppets like France or Saudi-Arabia make the ugly things like supporting terrorists in other countries. This gives joepistole the chance to deny it, with his usual refusal to reject everything which is not a US propaganda source as some sort of Russian state-owned source, and to name the claims of US propaganda sources truth.
     
  17. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,784
    Ah, I see you prefer stability over democracy. So I assume you won't have any problem if Russian colonists in Eastern Ukraine and Ukrainian Crimea end up breathing chlorine and sarin at some point in the future, since that was one of your hero Saddam's favourite tricks, and the air and soil would still be cleaner than it usually is in places where Russians live.
     
  18. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,093
    The emphasized part I interpret as an open support to typical Nazi fantasies of ethnical cleansing.

    And, no, you don't see what I prefer. I'm not a democrat, but a libertarian anarchist. That means, I prefer no state. Nor a democracy, nor a dictatorship. But I also do not support civil wars. They are usually even worse than the worst states, even if many people without any knowledge of anarchistic theory name such civil war chaos anarchy. But this "anarchy" are simply several groups fighting each other, where each group hopes to become the ruling group of the state, and behaves not better, often even worse than states in wars.

    Which form of a state is more or less evil, dictatorship or democracy, depends. Theoretically, democracy is a form of dictatorship of the majority. In fact, this theory is essentially only propaganda, and majorities never rule. Democratic rule is therefore based on demagogy and lies. But it takes into account, in some form, the whims of the majority, and allows for a change of the official rulers without bloodshed. On the other hand, the economy seems to grow faster in dictatorships. What leaves more individual freedom depends, there are dictatorships which leave a lot of freedom, and the only freedom they heavily restrict is the freedom to fight against the government. Other enforce a fixed set of religious rules, so, if you support the given religious rules anyway, they do not restrict your freedoms at all. Others support some nation and suppress some other, in this case it depends on your nationality if your personal freedom is heavily restricted or not. I doubt there are some general rules where you have more suppression and where you have less, except for the small domain of fighting the actual government, which is allowed in democracies and forbidden in a dictatorship.

    BTW, during the time Saddam has used gas against Kurds as well as Iran, he had full support of America. Because he was fighting Iran, an American enemy, and America almost always follows the rule that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
     
  19. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    We did not have to isolate Russia from the world community as we did because Ukraina, we did not have to interfere in Georgia, we did not have to impose our moral standards ( homosexuals ).
    If we would act as each to his own I think we would not have all the challenge that we have created for ourselves .
     
  20. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,784
    No, those are merely actions you endorse when they're done to people who aren't enslaved to Mother Russia. You think it's ok for Saddam and Assad to do it, so why would it be wrong for Ukrainians to liberate their territory in the same fashion?

    Let's suppose, for argument's sake, that America supported Saddam's use of chemical weapons in the 1980's. What does that have to do with you supporting the rights for dictators such as Assad and Saddam to do the same thing today?
     
  21. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,784
    Yeah we didn't have to oppose Nazi Germany either, but guess what? We opposed them, and the world is a far safer and more prosperous place today because of it. And so it is and shall continue to be with fascism and religious extremism in Russia and anywhere else on the planet, because the world is worse off when they're left free to rape and pillage like Mongol savages.
     
  22. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,907
    Actually, it's more than just plausible for Yemen, Syria, and Iraq, it's a fact and an easily verifiable one at that. Instead of spewing mindless propaganda, you would be better served by doing a little googling.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Oh, more mindless conspiracies for which you have absolutely no evidence. That really isn't very scientific and you claim to be a scientist and all. You haven't provided any evidence to even suggest the US has supported terrorists. But I do think this illustrates your ideology, unfortunately for you dissent isn't terrorism. Though for people like you beloved Putin, dissent is certainly a threat. God forbid Russians should ever be allowed to think for themselves, they might just decide to rid themselves of comrade Putin.

    Before you worry about Joepistole denying something, you need to prove there is something to be denied...oops.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And you haven't done that. All you have done is mindlessly repeat Russian propaganda. You have proven absolutely nothing. So let's see it, where are your proofs? Where are your proofs the US supports terrorists? Where are your proofs France and Saudi Arabia are American puppets? You have none. Because you are just mindlessly repeating Russian propaganda and those proofs do not exist because your accusations are untrue.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,907
    We didn't have to do anything. But we did and it was the wise thing to do. People don't have to exercise, but they do. Because it is the wise thing to do. Putin is by any honest evaluation a fascist megalomaniac. The last time the world saw a European fascist megalomaniac invade the lands of its neighbors, it resulted in WWII. Putin has done and is doing the same things which led to WW II, even going so far as to offer the same rationalizations for his behaviors and that is why the US and Western powers responded to Putin's aggression with economic sanctions and effectively isolating Russia. If history should have taught us anything, it's in situations like the Ukraine and Georgia, appeasement is a failed strategy. Chamberlain tried it and it resulted in WW II. We don't need a WW III. That's why it was and remains necessary to respond firmly and quickly to Russia's aggression. The only thing fascist megalomaniac dictators understand is power and the willingness to use that power. That's why it was necessary to isolate Russia and cause Russia economic pain.
     

Share This Page