And next, Syria?

[frogwoman]

I'm not up for wallowing in cruelty and sadism either, but do you deploy the same capacity for empathy with the 74% of Syrians that voted for Assad in 2014?

Of course.

 

[frogwoman]

There are loads of perfectly understandable reasons why someone might support assad, or be pushed into doing so, or feel they have no choice (eg if theyre christian/shia from an isis area)

 

[camouflage]

 

[frogwoman]

I'm not up for wallowing in cruelty and sadism either, but do you deploy the same capacity for empathy with the 74% of Syrians that voted for Assad in 2014?

Not sure why you thought i wouldnt. Im not keen on the solely laying blame at the door at the regime and assad stuff from some quarters either

 

[DownwardDog]

one fat bloke in a white vest, shorts and flip-flops

SAA PT kit, obviously.

 

[camouflage]

But this framing of the issue fundamentally mis-represents the situation in Syria by conjuring up a non-existent powerful US-backed “moderate” force while diverting attention from the real threat posed by al-Qaeda’s Syrian franchise. The Russians are not hitting some imaginary set of “moderate” Syrian armed groups opposing the Assad regime; they are overwhelmingly focused on targeting the military command in which al-Nusra Front is the central strategic force.

Obama Won’t Admit the Real Targets of Russian Airstrikes

 

[Casually Red]

You've been fighting monsters for too long.

He's only putting his foot on top of a crybaby. He's not even kicking him ..he's got flip flops on . Not like he chopped his head off, crucified him and sold his wife and kids into sex slavery . Is it ?

 

[Casually Red]

How do we even know the guy in the picture is daesh and if he is how do we know he's not some poor sod thats been forced to join unless his family are killed or whatever?

So they shouldn't be bombed either ? Like..how do we know they aren't poor little lost sheep. Maybe the ones doing the decapitations have no choice..poor things .

 

[Casually Red]

we don't, and we're not meant to - its standard CR bollocks, pull any old shit out of his arse (err... i mean RT), and if he posts it enough times he think people will get bored of debunking it and it will become part of the accepted discourse.

the simple answer of course is to just look at the details of the photo. one beardy fat bloke in trainers, one fat bloke in a white vest, shorts and flip-flops, and two other, different to both the first and each others, uniforms. does that look like an Army to you?

The uniforms look like a combination of desert pattern camo and boots..as issued to the republican guard... and regular camo , issued to SAA regulars and NDF militia . And it looks to me like an army that's fighting IS as opposed to training and supplying them , or fighting alongside them .

 

[Casually Red]

eh? theres been much worse posted on here before now

Jesus its turned into the Women's institute all of a sudden. Knitting needles and scones all over the floor over bloody nothing . A guy lying on the ground and another with his foot on top of his arm, no blood or injuries. It's gone all like Mary whitehouse watching the human centipede....2

 

[Knotted]

Quite an interesting article.

Interview: Gilbert Achcar on the Russian military operation in Syria

Overall some good points in this. Intelligent analysis of US, French and Russian intentions, sensible analysis of the composition of the armed opposition and a suitably pessimistic outlook. But there are lots of problems with this analysis.

1) Root causery in the claim that the regime created the Islamist/jihadist armed opposition by releasing jihadist from jail.
2) Systematic refusal to acknowledge popular support for the regime. One does not have to have any sympathy for such support to acknowledge its existence. The whole analysis is borked if you don't want to recognise uncomfortable facts.
3) He makes a refreshing distinction between jihadists and Islamists, but in doing so pins the problems of the armed opposition apparently purely on the shoulders of the former neglecting the role of the latter.
4) An overall tendency to reduce the cause of events in Syria to actions of outside intervention...
5) ...culminating in the ludicrous claim that Iran is running the show in Syria...
6) ... and root causery with respect to the lack of US support for the Free Syrian Army leading to the rise of jihadist groups.
7) Root causery in the claim that Assad's rule is what sustains the conflict.
8) The prognosis that Jihadist groups cannot do a deal with Assad in command does not seem to be based on anything.
9) The implied prognosis that Jihadist groups might be able to do a deal with the regime minus Assad does not seem to be based on anything.
10) Given 8) and 9) I don't think there is anything to Achcar's claim that Russia's intervention is prolonging the conflict (which it may well be doing but Achcar has not given us sound reasons to think so).
11) The use of the phrase "relatively secular and nonsectarian".

 

[Fuchs66]

the simple answer of course is to just look at the details of the photo. one beardy fat bloke in trainers, one fat bloke in a white vest, shorts and flip-flops, and two other, different to both the first and each others, uniforms. does that look like an Army to you?

To be fair there is little standardisation of uniform on the Government side, I've seen everything from khaki Soviet type uniforms, to MARPAD temperate and desert, to old style woodland and even MK 4, DPM NBC suits (used as normal uniform) and everything in-between mixed with a wide variety of civilian clothes.

 

[Casually Red]

Overall some good points in this. Intelligent analysis of US, French and Russian intentions, sensible analysis of the composition of the armed opposition and a suitably pessimistic outlook. But there are lots of problems with this analysis.

1) Root causery in the claim that the regime created the Islamist/jihadist armed opposition by releasing jihadist from jail.
2) Systematic refusal to acknowledge popular support for the regime. One does not have to have any sympathy for such support to acknowledge its existence. The whole analysis is borked if you don't want to recognise uncomfortable facts.
3) He makes a refreshing distinction between jihadists and Islamists, but in doing so pins the problems of the armed opposition apparently purely on the shoulders of the former neglecting the role of the latter.
4) An overall tendency to reduce the cause of events in Syria to actions of outside intervention...
5) ...culminating in the ludicrous claim that Iran is running the show in Syria...
6) ... and root causery with respect to the lack of US support for the Free Syrian Army leading to the rise of jihadist groups.
7) Root causery in the claim that Assad's rule is what sustains the conflict.
8) The prognosis that Jihadist groups cannot do a deal with Assad in command does not seem to be based on anything.
9) The implied prognosis that Jihadist groups might be able to do a deal with the regime minus Assad does not seem to be based on anything.
10) Given 8) and 9) I don't think there is anything to Achcar's claim that Russia's intervention is prolonging the conflict (which it may well be doing but Achcar has not given us sound reasons to think so).
11) The use of the phrase "relatively secular and nonsectarian".

Basically the guy seems to be ticking every box on the NATO narrative..as in every last one of them ,including the most recent additions . He might as well be writing Guardian editorials . He couldn't be any more on message . Which points to a spokesperson whos been thoroughly schooled in advancing that narrative to a T and having its lies accepted as truth in popular western discourse . A shill, in other words . But as he's an academic then the perceived wisdom on here seems to be that's good enough reason to take his word, otherwise you're a tool .

 

[Casually Red]

To be fair there is little standardisation of uniform on the Government side, I've seen everything from khaki Soviet type uniforms, to MARPAD temperate and desert, to old style woodland and even MK 4, DPM NBC suits (used as normal uniform) and everything in-between mixed with a wide variety of civilian clothes.

many of these front line bases are home to a variety of units, such as republican guard, ba'athist militia, Hezbollah, communist militia, NDF etc . Theyll all have different uniforms and dress codes. There'll be punters wandering about in jeans and track tops even . He expects it be like Sandhurst parade ground . As if the Queens going to trot past on a horse any minute .

 

[Knotted]

Basically the guy seems to be ticking every box on the NATO narrative..as in every last one of them ,including the most recent additions . He might as well be writing Guardian editorials . He couldn't be any more on message . Which points to a spokesperson whos been thoroughly schooled in advancing that narrative to a T and having its lies accepted as truth in popular western discourse . A shill, in other words . But as he's an academic then the perceived wisdom on here seems to be that's good enough reason to take his word, otherwise you're a tool .

Oh fuck off you loon.

 

[Casually Red]

we don't, and we're not meant to - its standard CR bollocks, pull any old shit out of his arse (err... i mean RT), and if he posts it enough times he think people will get bored of debunking it and it will become part of the accepted discourse.

the simple answer of course is to just look at the details of the photo. one beardy fat bloke in trainers, one fat bloke in a white vest, shorts and flip-flops, and two other, different to both the first and each others, uniforms. does that look like an Army to you?

This is your standard ad hominem approach. Doing precisely what you accuse me of and thinking nobody will notice your hypocrisy .

 

[Casually Red]

Oh fuck off you loon.

Whooooh....who's a grumpy little bear this afternoon.

Ok then. He managed to tick all those boxes of that western / NATO regime change , "lets support the decent, islamist terrorist "narrative completely by accident seems to be what you're suggesting. He's agenda free, just completely wrong over and over again by total accident. That's an insult to people's intelligence .

Eta

You wanker

 

[laptop]

Sigh.

An ad hominem would be "CR is an arsewipe, therefore his argument is false".

A rebuttal is "CR argues thus, which is false". For example, repeatedly pulls any old shit off RT.

Corollary: I recall zero instances of a man who cried "ad hominem!" not being an arsewipe, and a reactionary one at that.

 

[Knotted]

1) Non of what he said was supportive of Islamists.
2) Do you not think that he might be motivated by other agendas other than advancing NATO, such as opposition to the Ba'athist torture state?
3) I know you think that big power agendas dominate every question in Syria, but don't assume I'm going along with that. I can hardly criticise Achcar for being reductive in that respect and go along with your geopolitical bollocks.

 

[butchersapron]

I'm not up for wallowing in cruelty and sadism either, but do you deploy the same capacity for empathy with the 74% of Syrians that voted for Assad in 2014?

Explain this election please.

 

[Casually Red]

Watch Putins UN speech

Watch Lavrovs press conference

Watch Putins press conference


Watch the events that unfolded from that point on re Russian strikes in Syria.

Let me know the bit where Russia asks US permission, and let me know at what point you became confused as to Russias stated intentions.

Chicks and powerful things, very poetic etc. Meanwhile back on Earth- events unfold for people to see for themselves.

Compare that level of statesmanship to this fucking drivel in response to it from these would be world leaders



Remember I'm the loon and these people are talking what passes for common sense among the clowns on here

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So they shouldn't be bombed either ? Like..how do we know they aren't poor little lost sheep. Maybe the ones doing the decapitations have no choice..poor things .

I know you're being sarcastic, but this is a valid point, I think, generally about all sides in this. Pity any boy turning 18 in Syria at the moment. He and his family face a bunch of difficult choices. The only option that involves not fighting for one side or the other is often getting yourself out of the country by any illegal means necessary, only to face further problems when you get out or even being refused entry if you're a man on his own.

This article describes various problems faced by men of military age in Syria at the moment.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Remember I'm the loon and these people are talking what passes for common sense among the clowns on here

Clear where the speakers' priorities lie - stopping Russia from establishing power in the region. No mention at all about what's bests for Syrians. That's not part of their calculation at all.

 

[Casually Red]

1) Non of what he said was supportive of Islamists.
2) Do you not think that he might be motivated by other agendas other than advancing NATO, such as opposition to the Ba'athist torture state?
3) I know you think that big power agendas dominate every question in Syria, but don't assume I'm going along with that. I can hardly criticise Achcar for being reductive in that respect and go along with your geopolitical bollocks.

1) absolutely nowhere have I said he was supportive of Islamists. I said throughout he was a NATO/ western shill, not an IS one. And cpuldnt have been any clearer . I compared him to a Guardian editorial, not some crazed cleric .How you managed to dissect his interview so admirably, yet get my few lines so completely wrong leads me to the conclusion you're being deliberately disingenuous in your response. Which, admittedly, has improved a little from the grunt of " fuck off loon" , but only so far as abuse has now progressed to deliberate dishonesty . NATO however most definitely have been supportive of jihadists throughout , hence the necessity for bollocks about " moderately Islamic and sectarian" terrorists

2) where he merely opposed to the Syrian state I would not expect him to conform in his analysis to every single aspect , including right up to the minute, of the western/NATO political narrative justifying their stance . A conformity you yourself demonstrated by highlighting virtually every thing which was wrong in his article, which conforms in its totality to all Natos stances on this conflict . Including on the very recent Russian intervention . That complete conformity of error and falsehood is no accident, which is why I called your stance that it is , and that is somehow his independent point of view ,that just so happened to coincide with NATOs in every regard ,an insult to people's intelligence . He's a NATO shill that should be writing for the Guardian .

3) again you're wrong. Even if , somehow, all the big powers were removed from this equation, I'd still support the Syrians against this scum of the earth that's arrayed against them and their rotten agenda just as strongly . Just as i expressed my opposition to them in Libya, which received no military assistance from anyone .A stance which any sane person can see was justified . By making that false argument in the first place it's yourself reducing everything to mere "geopolitical bollocks " Nobody else. For your own dishonest purposes as and when it suits.

 

[Casually Red]

Sigh.

An ad hominem would be "CR is an arsewipe, therefore his argument is false".

A rebuttal is "CR argues thus, which is false". For example, repeatedly pulls any old shit off RT.

Corollary: I recall zero instances of a man who cried "ad hominem!" not being an arsewipe, and a reactionary one at that.

How many RT links have I even posted on this thread ?

Why is RT less trustworthy than BBC , CNN etc. it's the reference to RT and its supposed inferiority to western mouthpieces which is the ad hominem bit . Only you're too much of a..yes..reactionary russophobic, anglophilic arsewipe too see either that or your own hypocrisy . Or his .

Your personal terms of reference could do with a looking at .

 

[Knotted]

1) absolutely nowhere have I said he was supportive of Islamists.

You said he was calling for support for Islamists.

I said throughout he was a NATO/ western shill, not an IS one.

Yes I know and you're an idiot. He has consistently opposed Western intervention.

And cpuldnt have been any clearer . I compared him to a Guardian editorial, not some crazed cleric .How you managed to dissect his interview so admirably, yet get my few lines so completely wrong leads me to the conclusion you're being deliberately disingenuous in your response. Which, admittedly, has improved a little from the grunt of " fuck off loon" , but only so far as abuse has now progressed to deliberate dishonesty . NATO however most definitely have been supportive of jihadists throughout , hence the necessity for bollocks about " moderately Islamic and sectarian" terrorists

NATO is an alliance of countries and thus does not have a single view. This is why you are a loon, you talk as if NATO is dictating a narrative to its member nations. Plus the use of the word "shill" pretty much cements it.

Worse you talk as if the opinions of people on Syria can be summed up in terms of pro or anti NATO and of course your solution to those who are pro Nato is to be pro Russian. Like a fucking idiot. You have no concept that things that are happening in Syria might be shaping political thought on Syria rather than people just lining up behind NATO (boo, hiss) or Russia (hurrah). People dieing on the ground are either deserved enemies of the great power Russia (hurrah) or grist to the mill of Russian propaganda (hurrah). You have removed their humanity and you only know propaganda. You sound exactly like your neo-conservative opposite.

And the fact is that you couldn't dissect Achcar's interview because you aren't even part of the conversation on Syria. You are just an amateur propaganist for Russia and all things allied to it.

2) where he merely opposed to the Syrian state I would not expect him to conform in his analysis to every single aspect , including right up to the minute, of the western/NATO political narrative justifying their stance . A conformity you yourself demonstrated by highlighting virtually every thing which was wrong in his article, which conforms in its totality to all Natos stances on this conflict . Including on the very recent Russian intervention . That complete conformity of error and falsehood is no accident, which is why I called your stance that it is , and that is somehow his independent point of view ,that just so happened to coincide with NATOs in every regard ,an insult to people's intelligence . He's a NATO shill that should be writing for the Guardian .

Sorry but he doesn't fit into your categories.

3) again you're wrong. Even if , somehow, all the big powers were removed from this equation, I'd still support the Syrians against this scum of the earth that's arrayed against them and their rotten agenda just as strongly . Just as i expressed my opposition to them in Libya, which received no military assistance from anyone .By making that false argument in the first place it's yourself reducing everything to mere "geopolitical bollocks " Nobody else. For your own dishonest purposes as and when it suits.

Who talks about Syrians as if they are a monolithic entity all with the same view, all taking the same side? The people against the evil X.

But, sure you'll back all sorts if NATO (boo, hiss) are involved or might be involved. For you there is no other game. Or as Maragaret Thatcher used to say, there is no alternative.

 

[Casually Red]

Clear where the speakers' priorities lie - stopping Russia from establishing power in the region. No mention at all about what's bests for Syrians. That's not part of their calculation at all.

Of course they don't care , which goes to the root of their reasons for intervention in the first place . According to them ...now after 4 years of pumping billions into a meat grinder conflict...all of a sudden they don't want Bashar to go..at least not right away ...sort of...um..yeah..that'd be sort of bad . Mebbe he could stay on a bit until we find somebody who could be acceptable enough for us to replace him . Never mind the Syrians who voted for him. The west are demanding they mustn't ever be allowed to vote for him ever again !! And never mind all the voices that told them for years the downfall of the state would lead Syria into unimaginable horror. Now they see that...sort of..grudgingly unconvinced but maybe they've a point kind of thing . But they simply don't care.
That's why Putins address to them, " do you realise what you've done ?" isn't just point scoring and rhetoric . There was never a truer word spoken . They don't care and never did . They're mad and incompetent . Running about the place destroying nation after nation while parroting the same old consumer orientated liberal rubbish to justify it . Psychopaths .

 

[camouflage]

Just as i expressed my opposition to them in Libya, which received no military assistance from anyone

Actually I believe NATO kindly stepped in to be the Daesh airforce, the 'no-fly zone' spiel (rapidly becoming close-air support) that Russia and China fell for at the time but decided "not this time chum" when the same sort of nfz-game was proposed re northern Syria.

 

[camouflage]

Compare that level of statesmanship to this fucking drivel in response to it from these would be world leaders



Remember I'm the loon and these people are talking what passes for common sense among the clowns on here

All extremist ideologies are irrational, and Exceptionalism is no exception.

 

[Casually Red]

You said he was calling for support for Islamists.




Yes I know and you're an idiot. He has consistently opposed Western intervention.



NATO is an alliance of countries and thus does not have a single view. This is why you are a loon, you talk as if NATO is dictating a narrative to its member nations. Plus the use of the word "shill" pretty much cements it.

Worse you talk as if the opinions of people on Syria can be summed up in terms of pro or anti NATO and of course your solution to those who are pro Nato is to be pro Russian. Like a fucking idiot. You have no concept that things that are happening in Syria might be shaping political thought on Syria rather than people just lining up behind NATO (boo, hiss) or Russia (hurrah). People dieing on the ground are either deserved enemies of the great power Russia (hurrah) or grist to the mill of Russian propaganda (hurrah). You have removed their humanity and you only know propaganda. You sound exactly like your neo-conservative opposite.

And the fact is that you couldn't dissect Achcar's interview because you aren't even part of the conversation on Syria. You are just an amateur propaganist for Russia and all things allied to it.



Sorry but he doesn't fit into your categories.



Who talks about Syrians as if they are a monolithic entity all with the same view, all taking the same side? The people against the evil X.

But, sure you'll back all sorts if NATO (boo, hiss) are involved or might be involved. For you there is no other game. Or as Maragaret Thatcher used to say, there is no alternative.

Point to exactly were I ever said he was calling for support for Islamists . You're a liar .

He has consistently opposed direct western military intervention. That's not the same thing at all, NATO isn't keen on it either .. He explicitly supports NATOs analysis on Syria .

NATO has a general secretary, his name is Anders fogh Rasmussen. He articulates NATOs political position . While individual member states may well demur from getting involved in some of its escapades the big powers decide what those escapades will be and dominate the organisations stance on them . Rasmussen then articulates their stance based on the consensus the big powers demand and get..their own outlook. Anyone suggesting otherwise is either a loon or a liar .

The rest of what you're saying is a complete load of bollocks . While I'm supportive of the stance Russia has taken as regards Syria I was , and remain, deeply critical of it in Libya . I don't support the Syrians because Russia has gotten involved and that's merely yourself talking bollocks, trying to dictate my position for me and then opposing it on grounds you've just made up yourself . Me being glad of the fact Russia has stepped in to offer various kinds of support to weaker nations facing a threat from western aggression and hegemony , does not for one minute mean I only support them because i support Russia . It's completely the other way around . I admire Russia for stepping in and supporting those who I support in the first place . That's the entire basis of my support for Russia . I prefer a multi polar world of different choices and possibilities to one of American and British dominance and hegemony .

And I suspect that's why people like you and others who take western hegemony as a natural given hate Russia so much , and end up enraged to the point of idiotic incomprehension as to why anyone could admire them . And turn into little Joe McCarthys denouncing people as Russian agents .

And Maggie thatcher said " there is no we "...you really lost the plot on your last sentence . Mostly incomprehensible .