Military Events in Syria and Iraq thread #3

[iceaura]

Once the deep state wants war and regime change, it does not matter if Clinton rules or Trump, they have to follow the orders

Never mind the deep State - that's not why you were wrong about Trump. You can't see what Trump is for the same reason you can't see what Putin is: you are blind to fascism. Rightwing tyranny sneaks up on you.

Before these elections, I have thought that US elections are fake for the stupid, which will be allowed to decide about questions like should be gays allowed to marry or not, or which toilets transvestites have to use. About the relevant questions, they have no saying at all.

Why not become a bit better informed before posting opinions, so you don't embarrass yourself in public like that?

Around 1914 or so, when it became obvious that gas does not give anything reasonable in war.

So Assad has been shown to employ the stuff long after it made any sense to do so in actual war. Which is typical of State terrorism, and common among strongman governments in the region - not only Assad.

For the neighbors of Israel - which is a nuclear power - it made sense to have chemical weapons simply for having some weapons of mass destruction of civilians, to retaliate against a nuclear attack from Israel.

Please. Don't insult people's intelligence. Assad stockpiled them, and used them, and not in any form useful against Israel even before a nuke strike.

." it wasn't because it didn't make any sense to Assad to have these weapons. He wanted to keep them, for handling the unruly population of his country."
Nonsense.

Tell that to Assad. It's possible he also wanted to be able to trade gas attacks with Saddam, of course, if need be.

He had motive for what he did - and what he does. His motives are the same now as when he stockpiled sarin and chlorine gas components, and developed barrel bomb and artillery delivery methods.

 

[Schmelzer]

you are blind to fascism.

Anything new? Some argument?

Why not become a bit better informed before posting opinions, so you don't embarrass yourself in public like that?

Feel free to inform me a little bit better. If you have something to say beyond "right wing fascism is worse than left wing fascism" or however you name your own political position.

So Assad has been shown to employ the stuff

Only in Western propaganda and some faked attacks. Sorry, I don't believe into such fakes, and the number of such fakes does not matter at all. If it has been said twenty times that Assad has destroyed the last hospital in Aleppo, it does not become more plausible because of the repetition. "He has already 19 times destroyed the last hospital of Aleppo" does not impress me.

Please. Don't insult people's intelligence. Assad stockpiled them, and used them, and not in any form useful against Israel even before a nuke strike.

He (his father afaik) has stockpiled them for deterrence of Israel, and he never used them, given that Israel has not started an open aggression. In 2013 I have checked the arguments, and my conclusion was that it was faked. What the UN has said later about some later attacks was based on White Helmets or similar public making some claims, without anything else, and so it has discredited in my eyes only the UN.

Tell that to Assad.

No necessity, he also knows that this is nonsense.

 

[iceaura]

Anything new? Some argument?

Same observation, of the same circumstance.

Feel free to inform me a little bit better. If you have something to say beyond "right wing fascism is worse than left wing fascism" or however you name your own political position.

I have made no such argument or assertion, ever.
Meanwhile, there is of course no such thing as left wing fascism - that oxymoronic entity is a wingnut propaganda meme, in the US. It's part of the Orwellian aspect.

But you sound as though you bought it, at least in English. Apparently there is no American rightwing propaganda meme, however silly, you have not adopted - an extreme level of gullibility for an American; your excuse of course being your ignorance as a foreigner, and your lack of experience with professional American marketing operations. They are really very good. They've spent 25 years refining their presentation of Hillary Clinton as crazy and evil and manipulating things behind the scenes, for example - falling for that on first encounter is nothing to be embarrassed about. But for how long are you going to play the patsy?

He (his father afaik) has stockpiled them for deterrence of Israel,

Deterrence of Israeli nuke attack, you said. They don't deter Israel nukes, they never did, nobody with any sense ever thought they did, and meanwhile he (following his father) has updated, maintained, improved, and used, them. (The chemical agents destroyed under the 2013-2014 agreements included some with much shorter lifespans than Assad's dozen years in power, for example).

In 2013 I have checked the arguments, and my conclusion was that it was faked.

But you think "deterrence of Israel" explains things, so your conclusions are dubious. And I have seen here how you "check arguments" - mostly by not seeing things, so you can assume they don't exist. In this case, not seeing State terrorism by a strongman.

And also not seeing openly fascistic ideology and character, or its obvious implications, in Trump and his administration.

 

[Schmelzer]

Meanwhile, there is of course no such thing as left wing fascism - that oxymoronic entity is a wingnut propaganda meme, in the US. It's part of the Orwellian aspect.

The classical left wing ideal - communism - is dead. What remain alive is social democracy. To name them fascist goes back to Josif Wissarionowitch, in case you don't know, so it is not a right wing invention.

And, in fact, there is not much difference. Between communism and fascism there were big economic differences, the economic system of fascism is corporatism, that of communism state ownership of all production. Is there any economic difference worth to be mentioned which distinguishes consistently social democracy from fascism? No, there is none, nichts, nada. There are only a few quite unimportant ideological differences, along the national/international and the traditional/progressive lines. This ignores that original fascism was in part an international movement, and in particular German national socialism had quite progressive, anti-traditional elements.

Deterrence of Israeli nuke attack, you said. They don't deter Israel nukes, they never did, nobody with any sense ever thought they did,

Which translates into you think they don't deter, but you have no evidence to support this.

mostly by not seeing things, so you can assume they don't exist. In this case, not seeing State terrorism by a strongman.

I see only a poor American propaganda victim with no arguments.

First, I recommend you to learn what "democracy" is. It is a political system appropriate for US colonies. They, first of all, need a "free press", which is nothing but free, it has to be controlled by some Big Media concerns, preferably US, but locals are allowed as long as they are ready to be paid by Americans. So, whenever the US does not like some politician, some sufficiently small contribution to the Big Media solves this problem. Then, there should be multiple political parties, with party leaders connected with the US. (Here, "US" means the deep state. The control over the US territory is organized in the same way, in this sense it is also only a "US"-colony.)

Everything else is not under US control, therefore not democracy, but dictatorship. So, "dictatorship", being everything else, covers a lot of very very different things. But from the point of view of a US propaganda victim, all these very different societies, with very different traditions, principles, laws, methods of conflict resolution and so on look the same, and look like a horror picture from some nightmare. Which is quite natural, because it comes from propaganda, thus, looks like a propaganda picture.

 

[iceaura]

To name them fascist goes back to Josif Wissarionowitch, in case you don't know, so it is not a right wing invention.

So? Trying to establish "leftwing fascism" in the public discourse, as you posted, is an American fascist (which means rightwing etc) propaganda meme. You apparently sucker for all of them.

Is there any economic difference worth to be mentioned which distinguishes consistently social democracy from fascism? No, there is none, nichts, nada.

That would mean you are talking about privately owned corporate capitalist organization of most of the "social democrat" economy - a defining characteristic of fascism. (The unification of corporate capitalism with government, as Mussolini described his type specimen). That would be rightwing governance - by definition. Not leftwing. Not socialist.

Which translates into you think they don't deter, but you have no evidence to support this.

They don't deter Israeli nukes, in the first place, because Israeli nukes are not an offensive threat to Syria. Nukes are primarily defensive weapons - they aren't much good for assault outside of very rare circumstances - and Israel's in particular are nearly worthless for offense, considering Israel's situation so close to its enemies and so vulnerable to hostile nuclear powers.

First, I recommend you to learn what "democracy" is. It is a political system appropriate for US colonies. - - - - -
- - -
Everything else is not under US control, therefore not democracy, but dictatorship. So, "dictatorship", being everything else, covers a lot of very very different things. - - -

Noam Chomsky and Ed Hermann, when they actually made the point you attempt there about US media and perceptions of other countries, had a far better informed and more accurate idea of what was going on in the US. They were not suckers for rightwing and Republican propaganda, as you are. The point being: your various presumptions are once again uninformed, and once again wrong, despite your basically reasonable doubt and wariness with respect to US major media reports.

And none of that changes anything about Assad's strongman regime and State terrorism - including his stockpiles of nerve gas and the like, and his employment of them. He is who he is, does what he does, regardless of American media slanders and lies.

 

[Schmelzer]

So? Trying to establish "leftwing fascism" in the public discourse, as you posted, is an American fascist (which means rightwing etc) propaganda meme. You apparently sucker for all of them.

Not at all. I'm a founding member of the "Sozialdemokratische Partei in der DDR (SdP)" 1989 in East Berlin. So, I have known about this stalinist "Sozialfaschismus" Thesis, and this thesis has even motivated me to think that founding a social-democratic party in East Germany will hit them especially strong.

That would mean you are talking about privately owned corporate capitalist organization of most of the "social democrat" economy - a defining characteristic of fascism. (The unification of corporate capitalism with government, as Mussolini described his type specimen). That would be rightwing governance - by definition. Not leftwing. Not socialist.

Social-democratic is certainly not socialist (even if some social-democratic parties have "socialist" in their name). Social democracy does not reject private property, even private property of the means of production. So, there is private ownership, and there is state regulation. You may think that the open declaration of a union between them can distinguish fascism from social democracy. But there is no economic diffeerence if this union is open or a little bit hidden behind what is named lobbyism. It makes no real difference.

They don't deter Israeli nukes, in the first place, because Israeli nukes are not an offensive threat to Syria. Nukes are primarily defensive weapons

Fine if you believe so. But I think you have to live with the fact that the Arabs don't think so, and prefer to have a deterrence against Israel.

considering Israel's situation so close to its enemies and so vulnerable to hostile nuclear powers.

???????????????????? Explain. Which "hostile nuclear powers?

Noam Chomsky and Ed Hermann, when they actually made the point you attempt there about US media and perceptions of other countries, had a far better informed and more accurate idea of what was going on in the US. They were not suckers for rightwing and Republican propaganda, as you are. The point being: your various presumptions are once again uninformed, and once again wrong, despite your basically reasonable doubt and wariness with respect to US major media reports.

I can not evaluate this, given that you have not given any reference. So this counts only as yet another "you are stupid" without evidence. Ok, I could start to google about 'Noam Chomsky and Ed Hermann", but given that I know that they have written a lot of very different things, this would be arduously. So, link please, or it will be ignored.

And none of that changes anything about Assad's strongman regime and State terrorism - including his stockpiles of nerve gas and the like, and his employment of them. He is who he is, does what he does, regardless of American media slanders and lies.

Of course, it does not change the fact that he is not a US vassal, and, therefore, necessarily an evil dictator. It also does not change the fact that he thought chemical weapons may be useful to deter Israel, but in the crisis of 2013, accepted that giving up this deterrence of Israel is less harmful than the start of an open US war. And it does not change Western propaganda fantasies about the use of chemical weapons. Nor does it change his way of handling Daesh or Al Qaida prisoners in his prisons, which, I admit, I would prefer not to try out to be able to make an informed decision if it is better or worse than Guantanamo.

 

[iceaura]

Social-democratic is certainly not socialist (even if some social-democratic parties have "socialist" in their name). Social democracy does not reject private property, even private property of the means of production. So, there is private ownership, and there is state regulation. You may think that the open declaration of a union between them can distinguish fascism from social democracy.

So fascistic "social democracy" features an economy organized around private capitalist corporations - rightwing, not leftwing.
If it didn't, it would not be fascist. There is no such thing as leftwing fascism, and fascism is not a leftwing ideology.

It may sound silly to have to repeat that over and over, but it's actually a big deal in the US - it's a major factor in the takeover of the Republican Party by an American fascist political movement. It's how they concealed their agenda, and won otherwise unobtainable popular support.

Fine if you believe so. But I think you have to live with the fact that the Arabs don't think so, and prefer to have a deterrence against Israel

Living with Arab delusions is no strange situation for me. What you then consider is the fact that a guy like Assad, and his military command etc, almost certainly knows better - and so his nerve gas stockpiles and manufacturing setups are and always have been otherwise motivated: especially any small and hidden caches that escaped the UN mandated destruction.

Explain. Which "hostile nuclear powers?

Pakistan, India, China, Russia, and quite possibly France or Britain, would have a very negative and emergency reaction to Israel launching nuclear first strikes on anybody - let alone a country next to a major oil field.

I can not evaluate this, given that you have not given any reference. So this counts only as yet another "you are stupid" without evidence.

Your "evaluations" of American political analysis (or history, or recorded event) are uninformed, and they actively prevent you from learning, so my abetting them would be a mistake. If you haven't read Chomsky you should, and any of his political writings with Hermann would illustrate my point above (as would his shorter and more recent essays, if you provided a context of event in good faith).

Meanwhile, your mistaking observations of ignorance for accusations of stupidity is of course yet another common American rightwing authoritarian propaganda meme (as you can verify by finding it littered throughout the authoritarian rightwing posters on this forum) - you have apparently compiled a complete set, rejecting none of them, including recent deployments of Hillaryhate, Bothsides, Noracism, Notstupid, Leftfascist, Bribedscience, and so forth.

Good luck trying to think coherently about US politics with that virtual reality headset on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_reality_sickness

Of course, it does not change the fact that he is not a US vassal, and, therefore, necessarily an evil dictator

And that does not change the fact that he is a strongman employer of State terrorism. Bad US behavior does not redeem such figures, whether allied or opposed.

 

[Schmelzer]

So fascistic "social democracy" features an economy organized around private capitalist corporations - rightwing, not leftwing.
If it didn't, it would not be fascist. There is no such thing as leftwing fascism, and fascism is not a leftwing ideology.

Thanks for the repetition of the dogma. But it remains that you have not given anything remembering a consistent difference between socialism and fascism in economic policy. After the death of communism, there is no left-wing economic policy different from fascist economic policy.

Living with Arab delusions is no strange situation for me. What you then consider is the fact that a guy like Assad, and his military command etc, almost certainly knows better - and so his nerve gas stockpiles and manufacturing setups are and always have been otherwise motivated: especially any small and hidden caches that escaped the UN mandated destruction.

Oh, Assad "knows better", because you say so - without any evidence.

Pakistan, India, China, Russia, and quite possibly France or Britain, would have a very negative and emergency reaction to Israel launching nuclear first strikes on anybody - let alone a country next to a major oil field.

LOL. Of course, Israel would use nuclear weapons with full US support, and in the unipolar world nobody would even say something. Even Russia has essentially done nothing during the "Arab spring".

Your "evaluations" of American political analysis (or history, or recorded event) are uninformed, and they actively prevent you from learning, so my abetting them would be a mistake. If you haven't read Chomsky you should, and any of his political writings with Hermann would illustrate my point above (as would his shorter and more recent essays, if you provided a context of event in good faith).

LOL. An interesting logical variant: You know nothing, and therefore I cannot give you the links which would prove my points. Or so. Again, no link. I have read some Chomsky, not really that good to read all, if you have some special recommendation I would take a look, but so ...

Meanwhile, your mistaking observations of ignorance for accusations of stupidity is of course yet another common American rightwing authoritarian propaganda meme (as you can verify by finding it littered throughout the authoritarian rightwing posters on this forum) - you have apparently compiled a complete set, rejecting none of them, including recent deployments of Hillaryhate, Bothsides, Noracism, Notstupid, Leftfascist, Bribedscience, and so forth.

Who cares? The point of my observations is that you make wrong general claims, suggesting that I know nothing. But you refuse to give any evidence, or any source which would increase my knowledge about what is actually discussed. I understand that very well - you have tried long ago, and found that I have read your sources and found there even more evidence that you are wrong. So, now you are even afraid to give me a link to Chomsky.

Your new trend is to name something you don't like a rightwing propaganda meme. This works for leftists to save their leftwing propaganda bubble - everything somehow incompatible with leftwing propaganda will be, of course, used by somebody on the right, and after this it can be named "rightwing propaganda meme". Your leftist comrades may have to care about it - for them, this would be evil. But why should I care? I'm independent, I don't have to care about political correctness. I take a look who has the better arguments. You have none - at least you present none.

Look at it this way: Ok, I'm far away, and don't know that much about US-internal questions. So I may err. But if I make some observation, and you tell me that some from the right have made similar claims, what does that mean for me? Once the right is not inherently evil for me, it means, first of all, that other people have expressed the same opinion. Fine. This is, first of all, some additional support for it. Then, I learn that this or that guy from the right has claimed such a thing. Fine. This makes it worth to see what else this guy has to say. Maybe he has made some other interesting observations too. So, with me this does not work. No chance. It will have even the opposite effect, and make those you hate more attractive for me.

I doubt that this will change your behavior. Because I think that you are not really interested in discussion, but in distributing political correctness to other readers. They know that you distribute the political correct view, and learn from you how they have to react if confronted with people like me.

And that does not change the fact that he is a strongman employer of State terrorism. Bad US behavior does not redeem such figures, whether allied or opposed.

The problem is that you simply repeat the US propaganda. He is bad because he does not behave like an US ally is supposed to behave. If he is really bad or not we don't know.

 

[iceaura]

The problem is that you simply repeat the US propaganda

No, I don't. Try quoting.

But it remains that you have not given anything remembering a consistent difference between socialism and fascism in economic policy.

I have posted nothing more often, or more repetitively, or more plainly, on this forum - hundreds of times, including in several direct responses to your posts.

Your new trend is to name something you don't like a rightwing propaganda meme.

Nothing new about that.
Specifically an American fascist movement propaganda meme, in your case. It's just information. FYI. You seem unaware of the fact, as if you believed you were posting your own independent insights, so I remind you of what half your audience here already knows.

Oh, Assad "knows better", because you say so - without any evidence.

"Almost certainly", to quote. He is Western educated and very intelligent, a sophisticated guy, and with a lifetime's practical experience of such matters. That would be my evidence for the likelihood he knows what he's doing, and I could have lifted it from your posts at need - remember when you posted that description of Assad?

I understand that very well - you have tried long ago, and found that I have read your sources and found there even more evidence that you are wrong.

At the time, you didn't read past a couple of sentences, and you paid no serious attention even to them (as revealed in the ignorance and incomprehension of your comments). I was there, remember? I was irritated - running your errands, finding basic info you should have had in the first place before forming such opinions. and not even a thank you. I no longer irritate myself that way.

They know that you distribute the political correct view, and learn from you how they have to react if confronted with people like me.

And we see you adding "politically correct" to your armory of US rightwing authoritarian corporate propaganda bs - have we seen that one from you before? I don't recall. But it's not a surprise.

Significant and critical aspects of your view of US politics and history are being handed to you, complete with vocabulary, by American fascist movement propaganda intent on confusion and deception. If your repetition of them is not intentional, you're being played. That's a piece of information for you - take it or leave it.

But until you take it, you can have little credibility among Americans in your description of Syrian contingencies beyond what others can verify physically. The American propaganda sources you echo are the antithesis of reliable - they mislead intentionally, and are famous for that. And that is a waste, because you actually have information and a legitimate point of view regarding Syria.

 

[Schmelzer]

I have posted nothing more often, ....

Maybe. Who knows? It would have been easy for you, in this case, to give some links, you haven't. So, the consistent criteria which distinguish left wing from fascist economic politics remain your secret.

Specifically an American fascist movement propaganda meme, in your case. It's just information. FYI.

As I have explained, I do not care. There is no purpose about informing me about things I don't care about. So, instead of posting such irrelevant nonsense, post some counterarguments. If you continue to post such irrelevant points, I have to conclude that you have no real counterarguments, thus, the fascists may have a point, given that you have nothing to answer except "a fascist has said this too".

You seem unaware of the fact, as if you believed you were posting your own independent insights, so I remind you of what half your audience here already knows.

The "fact" itself is irrelevant.

"Almost certainly", to quote. He is Western educated and very intelligent, a sophisticated guy, and with a lifetime's practical experience of such matters. That would be my evidence for the likelihood he knows what he's doing, and I could have lifted it from your posts at need - remember when you posted that description of Assad?

Your point being? If you want to say that Assad is in no way stupid, fine. This is my argument too. He has to be stupid to use chemical weapons, so that this thesis is, from the start, very implausible.

I was irritated - running your errands, finding basic info you should have had in the first place before forming such opinions. and not even a thank you. I no longer irritate myself that way.

Thanks for admitting that you have made a deliberate decision not to give any links to support your claims. Your excuse is funny. You really expect "thank you" in political discussions from your opponents? Never seen such things. Despite giving a lot of links to support my claims.

And we see you adding "politically correct" to your armory of US rightwing authoritarian corporate propaganda bs - have we seen that one from you before? I don't recall. But it's not a surprise.

Thank you for implicitly confirming my theory, by giving only a completely irrelevant counterargument.

But until you take it, you can have little credibility among Americans in your description of Syrian contingencies

I don't have to care about credibility. I give the information, do that in a way I think good sources of information should use. Feel free to ignore it if you don't like it.

 

[iceaura]

As I have explained, I do not care. There is no purpose about informing me about things I don't care about.

So you don't care that you are posting rubbish from the least honorable and worst motivated propagandists in the US, which you have been swindled into taking as your own thoughts?
You have spent entire paragraphs and posts explaining how you think you successfully handle propaganda. And then you post Hillaryhate videos as evidence of her being a murderous psychopath, claim the existence of bothsides "leftwing fascism", use "politically correct" to describe posts like mine, and so forth.

Your point being? If you want to say that Assad is in no way stupid, fine. This is my argument too. He has to be stupid to use chemical weapons, so that this thesis is, from the start, very implausible.

My point is that your claim that his alleged use of chemical weapons would be stupid is an error. You are wrong to think his gassing of the defiant would be stupid.

Assad's use of chemical weapons, even if exactly as presented by the Western media, would be typical of the most intelligent and competent strongmen in his position - well chosen in target, in execution, and in timing. Not stupid at all.

That doesn't mean he did it, of course. But there is no argument that he didn't, based on the idea that he's too smart to be evil in that way. That's a smart guy's way to be evil. Look at Putin.

I give the information, do that in a way I think good sources of information should use.

On the topic of American politics, you repost American rightwing authoritarian propaganda, obvious bs from familiar sources, and refuse to reconsider it. That's not "information".

 

[Schmelzer]

So you don't care that you are posting rubbish from the least honorable and worst motivated propagandists in the US, which you have been swindled into taking as your own thoughts?

I don't have to care about your fantasies. If there is an argument which I find interesting, I'm interested in hearing counterarguments. If there are no counterarguments, it means it is a good argument. Why should I care if some however motivated guys have used similar arguments?

My point is that your claim that his alleged use of chemical weapons would be stupid is an error. You are wrong to think his gassing of the defiant would be stupid.

But you have not presented any reasonable argument why it would not be stupid. All you have made is a claim that it is not stupid. But it is, sorry, extremely stupid. There would be no big chance that it remains hidden, it would not even have any advantage if it would remain hidden (you could kill the same number of civilians with other means to, as the US does in Mossul all the time, creating locally the same horror). And if it becomes public, with proof (and if you do it, you cannot be sure that there will be no proofs) there would be not only a big Western media campaign, but even Russia and Iran would start to insist that Assad would have to go.

But there is no argument that he didn't, based on the idea that he's too smart to be evil in that way. That's a smart guy's way to be evil. Look at Putin.

Nonsense. Of course, smart and evil is compatible. Look at Obama. But here you have to combine smart and stupid.

On the topic of American politics, you repost American rightwing authoritarian propaganda, obvious bs from familiar sources, and refuse to reconsider it. That's not "information".

Name it however you like, nobody cares. If you would have reasonable counterarguments, this would matter. But if all you say is "evil Bannon has said this too", so what?

 

[iceaura]

I don't have to care about your fantasies. If there is an argument which I find interesting, I'm interested in hearing counterarguments. If there are no counterarguments, it means it is a good argument. Why should I care if some however motivated guys have used similar arguments?

You are reposting rubbish from the media operations that supply American talk radio, memes for the crudest of fascist propaganda, etc.; not arguments. You aren't arguing for the legitimacy of Hillaryhate bs, or "Leftfascist" claims, or "Noracism" handwaving, because you can't - nobody can, it's all nonsense. You're simply posting that crap as a frame, an assumption, a "side" that exists because you posted it. The best you can argue for any of it is illustrated by your complaint that I hadn't provided you with any evidence of a significant economic difference between socialism (as in socialist governance) and capitalism (as in fascist governance) - and all that proves is 1) you will play the fool if you have to, and 2) you haven't been reading my posts.

And 3) you think those idiotic memes and frames are your ideas, that you came up with them.

I'm a big believer in coincidence with a common base in reality, but not in bizarre falsehoods and the specific vocabulary of calculated propaganda deceptions. There's one basic source for the notion that Hillary Clinton is a murderous psychopath, that racial oppression of black people in the US is a myth, that fascism is a leftwing ideology, that "politically correct" means anything applied to posts like mine, and so forth: and that source is not you.

But you have not presented any reasonable argument why it would not be stupid.

Sure I have. A couple of them - the similar gas attacks by unarguably smart tyrants, the excellent timing and targeting of the ones attributed to Assad, for two.

 

[Schmelzer]

You are reposting rubbish from the media operations that supply American talk radio, memes for the crudest of fascist propaganda, etc.; not arguments.

If you think naming my arguments not arguments, and that's all, will help you, you err. Then, one can argue even for complete BS. Such arguments are usually easy to refute, but if you don't refute them, you reach nothing. Then, you write a lot of nonsense, 90% of your writings are not arguments, but cheap ad hominem. So, "you haven't been reading my posts." cannot count as an argument. I read them, answer them, remember the arguments you have made, which is not much, given that ad hominems are not arguments, and "Hitler has said this" too. So, sorry, if you have made an argument somewhere in the past, you have to repeat it or link it. You know much better where you have made it, which words you have used, so it is easier for you to find it.

So, "you haven't read my posts" does not count, give a link, quote, or repeat your argument if there was one.

And 3) you think those idiotic memes and frames are your ideas, that you came up with them.

I make no priority claims about any such ideas. I read a lot, all what I read influences me, my thoughts, some arguments I find good and use them. I think also myself, so I have also own ideas. I do not care about priority, and so your (3) is nonsense, at best a misunderstanding.

There's one basic source for the notion that Hillary Clinton is a murderous psychopath, that racial oppression of black people in the US is a myth, that fascism is a leftwing ideology, that "politically correct" means anything applied to posts like mine, and so forth: and that source is not you.

If you have only one source for all this, this is your problem. National socialism as being left goes back even to Goebbels, Mussolini was a socialist initially. "Politically correct" is common language now already for many years. Of course, used more often by enemies of political correctness, but not only, I have heard it from defenders (in German, politisch korrekt).

Sure I have. A couple of them - the similar gas attacks by unarguably smart tyrants, the excellent timing and targeting of the ones attributed to Assad, for two.

What you have linked - Saddam's attacks - has been in no way similar. The timing was excellent for Assad's enemies, for Assad it was everything but excellent, and, moreover, this was only a claim, there was no explanation why this timing and this targeting was somehow excellent for Assad. So, no, you have no reasonable arguments, only one wrong and rejected, the other an unjustified claim, thus, not even an argument.

 

[sculptor]

If something doesn't seem reasonable, it most likely ain't.
Or
There is an unknown.

Vladimir Putin said that “95% of the world’s terrorist attacks are orchestrated by the CIA,”
Putin claims that the CIA is a rogue element of the deep state, and “an expression of the will of world oligarchy and their vision for a New World Order.“
Suffice it to say, the CIA exists today as part of America – but it is certainly not American. “The CIA does not work on behalf of the American people or act in their interests.”

I have no knowledge of who orchestrated the gas attack and neither does our congress.
The possibility remains that it was a "false flag" designed to get us to fight Assad, help the rebels, and by proxy help ISIS.

Or:.......................................................................................(fill in the blank).................................................

 

[iceaura]

Vladimir Putin said that “95% of the world’s terrorist attacks are orchestrated by the CIA,”

The list of claims circulated by the Russian equivalent of Breitbart and talk radio and Rightwing "think tank" media feeds includes many such.

Suffice it to say, the CIA exists today as part of America – but it is certainly not American. “The CIA does not work on behalf of the American people or act in their interests.”

Old news. The largest change came when the former CIA portfolio of intelligence and information gathering (Central Intelligence Agency) began to take a back seat to "active operations" or whatever Putin's version of the CIA calls them. Then came the involvement of large sums of money - Reagan, again.

 

[iceaura]

You know much better where you have made it, which words you have used, so it is easier for you to find it.

You made the reference, and repeated your false claims about it. You look it up, if you refuse once again as before to accept correction.

If you think naming my arguments not arguments, and that's all, will help you, you err

Help me what? You post bs, I call it and point out where you're getting it (familiar American rightwing propaganda feeds). Done and done.

If you have only one source for all this, this is your problem. National socialism as being left goes back even to Goebbels, Mussolini was a socialist initially.

Goebbels was a rightwing authoritarian propagandist - same crowd you are getting your "political correct" delusion from. Goebbels's "National Socialists" were fascist, and embraced corporate capitalism, and were not socialist.
Mussolini left off being a socialist, and became a fascist instead - meaning among other differences that he embraced private corporate capitalist ownership and organization of the economy as a central and defining feature of his new approach.

"Leftwing fascism" is a contradiction in terms, like "square circle". To claim otherwise is to fall victim to Goebbels, or his modern heirs in the US.

What you have linked - Saddam's attacks - has been in no way similar.

They illustrated the typical and familiar carrot and stick operation of State terrorism, employed by Assad as well - you were puzzled about that, remember? You thought there was some conflict between Assad's amnesties and the accusations of gas attacks. There is none. We see that pattern all over.

"Politically correct" is common language now already for many years.

You are employing it as an American rightwing propaganda meme, same source as all your analysis of American politics - meaninglessly, in other words. as an empty pejorative.
None of my posting here is politically correct, in any meaningful sense. You should know that - it's right in front of you. You don't, because you have no real idea of what "politically correct" means. That in turn is because you are getting the term from American rightwing propaganda operations, which are inculcating meaninglessness as a strategy.

 

[Schmelzer]

You made the reference, and repeated your false claims about it. You look it up, if you refuse once again as before to accept correction.

The claim that you have given some arguments which I haven't been reading is your claim:

The best you can argue for any of it is illustrated by your complaint that I hadn't provided you with any evidence of a significant economic difference between socialism (as in socialist governance) and capitalism (as in fascist governance) - and all that proves is 1) you will play the fool if you have to, and 2) you haven't been reading my posts.

So prove it. Else, you are a liar, as usual.

Help me what? You post bs, I call it and point out where you're getting it (familiar American rightwing propaganda feeds). Done and done.

You name it BS (without any arguments) and cry "Hitler has said this" or so as if this would matter. And you think this is argumentation? Even joepistole is able to do better.

They illustrated the typical and familiar carrot and stick operation of State terrorism, employed by Assad as well - you were puzzled about that, remember? You thought there was some conflict between Assad's amnesties and the accusations of gas attacks. There is none. We see that pattern all over.

In other words, you don't care about contradictions, and think that saying "carrot and stick" is sufficient to explain away all contradictions. Any completely stupid politicy, even self-contradictory, you could present as a wise "carrot and stick" policy, leaving no possibility to show that some particular policy would be stupid. Ok, let's forget this, it makes no sense to discuss this anymore.

None of my posting here is politically correct, in any meaningful sense. You should know that - it's right in front of you. You don't, because you have no real idea of what "politically correct" means.

Hm. If "politically correct" is a rightwing propaganda meme, and nothing more, then, of course, your postings will be politically correct. Because you make leftwing political propaganda, and if "politically correct" is only a rightwing meme, they can apply it to your postings too. Propaganda memes have universal applicability. I conclude that the thesis that "politically correct" is only a rightwing propaganda meme is, IYO, not meaningful.

I also conclude that "politically correct" is some well-defined, meaningful notion, used by the left in well-defined ways, following well-defined rules, and, if I would know these rules, I could easily see that your postings are not politically correct.

I have to admit that don't know the rules which would allow to distinguish politically correct from politically incorrect, I know only how the similar notions have worked in former communist states. There, their main property was that the rules have changed very often. And this knowledge was quite complex. So, I'm not competent to make an informed judgement if your posts are politically correct or not. I have only very shallow knowledge of what would be politically incorrect, because I don't need it. I have not seen anything in your posts which, given this shallow knowledge, would show that your posts are clearly politically incorrect. I would be interested to see explicit quotes which are politically incorrect, with proof why they are politically incorrect.

 

[sculptor]

sculptor said: ↑
Suffice it to say, the CIA exists today as part of America – but it is certainly not American. “The CIA does not work on behalf of the American people or act in their interests.”

Old news. The largest change came when the former CIA portfolio of intelligence and information gathering (Central Intelligence Agency) began to take a back seat to "active operations" or whatever Putin's version of the CIA calls them. Then came the involvement of large sums of money - Reagan, again.

Wow, 04/12/2017
iceaura agrees with Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin!?!

whodathunkit?

 

[CptBork]

If something doesn't seem reasonable, it most likely ain't.

...

Vladimir Putin said that “95% of the world’s terrorist attacks are orchestrated by the CIA,”

And does that sound reasonable to you? 5% (or less) of all terror attacks in the world are authentic?

I have no knowledge of who orchestrated the gas attack and neither does our congress.

It's not your congress, since you basically exclude yourself from American society and proclaim its government to be illegitimate. That having been said, you have absolutely no clue what America's Houses of Congress do and don't know, so please stop making these empty proclamations.

The possibility remains that it was a "false flag" designed to get us to fight Assad, help the rebels, and by proxy help ISIS.

Or:.......................................................................................(fill in the blank).................................................

The other possibilities are:
1) Assad is losing his country to Russian and Iranian occupiers, and his army has almost ceased to exist except on paper, thus he feels compelled to use chemical weapons in order to win battles and stay relevant.
2) Aliens did it (obviously the most plausible answer).