Syria

[f0xx]

This forum consists of people from all over the world, so I would be curious to hear what you guys think about the situation around Syria, The ISIS, the USA and Russia involvements and the recent takedown of Russian jet by Turkish forces.

[Magick]

Daesh shouldn't get the media coverage they do, it's free publicity for them.  It should go something like: "In recent news, Daesh were being dicks again, this time in [City, Country].  Instead of reporting on this story for the next 2 hours, we'll be showing you pictures of fluffy puppies for the period of time we would have attributed to Daesh and other terrorist groups."  Additionally, the only way to get rid of religious extremists is to get rid of religion.  It's a shame that the religious extremists will go away but the fanatics would still be there, turning their attention to something like sports or something equally frivolous.  But that's a whole different can of worms.

 

I'm also torn between wanting the area turned to glass and breaking the cycle of violence.  Both have their merits and drawbacks.

 

As for Russia's jet ... it's about time someone quit taking their shit.  Putin is like a 4 year old; always testing his boundaries.  So far, nobody's had the balls to tell him no.  Russian subs and jets where they don't belong, the 'invasion' and occupation of Crimea, and a host of others.  Definitely using the adage "it is better to beg forgiveness than ask permission" to the fullest.  That being said, I'm surprised that nobody's done that to us, yet.  We've taken our share of liberties in the past.

http://i.imgur.com/Qllk7k1.png

 

 

At the end of the day, why can't we all just get along?

 

 

Just my 2¢.

[Celerity]

I seem to have a very different opinion than Magick.

 

I believe ISIS to be a creation of the US with the purpose of maintaining/creating destabilization in the region. I think the US would like to keep the money flowing to its "military-industrial complex" and, if lucky, put some friendly puppets in the region or at least keep pro-US KSA as the king of oil. US propaganda focuses on removing Assad (for humanitarian reasons....) and the eminent threat of Iran/Shiite Cresent (Iran is a "threat" which the US put into power), both of which are frivolous excuses. The US media openly acknowledges the funding of both ISIS and the 'moderate rebels', much as was the case in Libya and an on-going conflict in Yemen.

 

I still don't understand how ISIS and the 'moderate rebels' were ever an excuse for the US to violate Syria's sovereignty, but for some reason, the US was able to conduct military operations in (yet another) country that does not want them there. If the Chinese did the same to the US, we'd justifiably call it not only an act of war, but an invasion. Turkey (NATO member and ally of the US) is the conduit for aid to ISIS, with both equipment and personnel being acquired and moving through the country into northern Syria. However, although Turkey could benefit from some revenue from oil operations in northern Syria, I think they are really using it all as an excuse to fight the Kurds (an ethnic group that the British intentionally broke up into being minorities in several countries to limit their influence). The Kurds would probably like to unite their people into something like a Kurdistan, but more immediately, I bet they just want their pre-Iraq war land back. Unfortunately for Turkey, the Kurds are the 'boots on the ground' for the US operations in both Iraq and Syria, so it becomes a bit chaotic.

In short:

ISIS is a proxy for the US, but also the US's declared enemy. This explains why the US doesn't fight the ISIS effectively, instead only for show. Turkey says they fight ISIS, but in fact fund and support them, much like the US. Turkey fights the Kurds and Syrian government instead behind the scenes. The US supports the Kurds to fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria, which they legitimately do. Both Turkey and the US want to destabilize Assad (the real target---through ISIS and other groups), but the Kurds don't really care about Assad, but are willing to claim part of Syria for Kurdistan. Assad wants to survive in the short term by removing opposition militants. In the long term Assad must somehow deal with Turkey and the US.

 

Then enter Russia.

 

Russia legally enters the conflict (through the invitation of Assad) and declares all opposition militants to be terrorists then starts waging a real air campaign against them. This instantly brings to show the sham the US had been fighting against ISIS and puts the US in a tough spot---how can the US condemn Russia's cleaning up of ISIS, the US's public enemy? It can't, so instead the US propaganda focuses on civilian collateral damage (ironically of which the US is infamous for) and the protection of the 'moderate rebels'. To do this, the US and Turkey created a "safe-zone" in northern Syria for 'refugees'--of course, this is to protect ISIS and other terrorists so they can somehow fight Assad. Remember that this is also the part of Syria where Turkey feeds new equipment and recruits to terrorists. Of course, Russia will eventually target terrorist operations in the safe-zone.

 

Russia flew a combat operation in northern Syria along the Turkish border. The Turks flew an F16 and shot down a Russian bomber. The Turks claim the Russians violated their airspace for a few seconds. The Russians claim that the Turks flew into Syrian airspace to shoot it down (the Turks had the flight plan and coordinates of the bomber as supplied by the Russian gov. to the Turkish gov.). One pilot was killed by pro-Turkish rebel small arms fire and one rescue helicopter was damaged (and one marine killed) by a US TOW missile fired by the same group. Turkey cut off communication with Russia after shooting the bomber and called an emergency NATO meeting. Russia promised severe consequences. The last I have heard was that Russia was hitting the Syrian border towns that Turkey uses as the conduits as a show of force (second pilot was rescued!).

 

Why did Turkey shoot down a Russian bomber? My feeling is that Turkey wanted to provoke Russia into actually intentionally violating their airspace in retribution. This would give cause for the US to declare the border airspace a no-fly zone which would protect the border areas (on the Syrian side) from Russian air operations, preserving ISIS and other US-backed terrorists in northern Syria for awhile longer.

I don't always agree with Russia, but in the case of Syria, I believe Russia to be strongly on the side of legality and the US a very questionable player.

[Anume]

Financial reasons and pretense aside, someone saying things like, once I conquer a village all the women there belong to me so they are my property and it is not actually rape when I take them (quote from an IS member), or cutting the head off anyone who does not agree with your religion without trial or even charge should not be acceptable behavior for anyone in our time

 

So yeah, I think the IS needs to be stopped.

 

I also think the US should stop pumping ever more money and weapons into the conflict regions as they have been doing for decades. They end up fighting the guys they supported the last decade all to often.

[Mali]

I believe ISIS to be a creation of the US with the purpose of maintaining/creating destabilization in the region.

 

This is an untenable argument that is wholly in the realm of conspiracy theory.

[f0xx]

At the end of the day, why can't we all just get along?

Because:

1) People are evil

2) People are stupid

3) People are greedy

4) The evil people will use the stupid people in order to satisfy their greed

I made this thread because I wanted to see if the "native" Americans still buy into the propaganda their government feeds them. Seeing Magick and Mali's comments, it seems they do.

[Erelei]

Propaganda? Government sells us propaganda? Proof. Need. Proof. (That you're right and they're wrong of course)

[f0xx]

Propaganda? Government sells us propaganda? Proof. Need. Proof. (That you're right and they're wrong of course)

Iraq.

Afghanistan.

Libya.

Or as in Magick's words, "it's about time someone quit taking their shit."

[Magick]

 

I made this thread because I wanted to see if the "native" Americans still buy into the propaganda their government feeds them. Seeing Magick and Mali's comments, it seems they do.

 

...

 

I can't argue with the first half of your post, but I haven't been subjected to US media in almost a decade.  I'm not sure how you figure that I'm "buying into what the government feeds us" anyway.  Was it me saying that Daesh shouldn't get the media coverage they do?  No, because that's an opinion based on that Daesh gets a lot of media coverage, regardless of country.  Was it me saying that religion should go away?  Imagine the uproar if FOX news or CNN ran that story.  They would riot, screaming something about their First Amendment rights of Freedom of Religion.  And it can't be my conflicting views between peace and nukes.

 

So perhaps it's about the jet.  I'm well aware that Russia and Turkey are saying two different things about the flight plan of the plane and the repeated warnings (or lack thereof).  I think there's a little truth in what both sides are saying concerning events, and when most of us heard about this, most sides weren't being totally honest.  Like a kid who gets caught stealing a toy from his brother's room.  And Russia has been notorious for flying where they don't belong.  Or at least into 'areas of interest' held by other states, which aren't airspace violations mind you, but skirting close enough to airspace to warrant attention.  Or at least the one where the UK scrambled Typhoons to intercept the pair of Russian aircraft this past September.  OR how about the Finns reporting in June that Russia broke (this time actually break) into Finland's airspace for the 6th time in a year?

 

http://news.sky.com/story/1550997/raf-intercepts-russian-jets-near-uk-airspace

http://yle.fi/uutiset/finland_confirms_6th_russian_airspace_violation_in_just_over_a_year/8143705

 

Wow.  Those are viable and reputable sources from multiple media sources from multiple states.  US media is nowhere to be found there.

 

Hmm.  Foxx sounds like Bush looking for WMD's in Iraq so far.

 

As for Mali's comment, he's right.  It's an untenable argument based on what Celerity said about one aspect of her post, which is both speculation and doesn't begin to scratch the surface of this part of the cluster**** that is the Middle East. https://tahriricn.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/0001ni1.jpeg (I'd like to mention that while it was just a few seconds, 17 from what I hear, that's a lot of time when you're in the air.  Not to mention the lead up with the warnings as the trajectory was set to break into Turkish space.  https://www.rt.com/op-edge/323543-turkey-downing-russian-jet/ )

But I digress.

 

So ultimately, it boils down to Foxx looking for a stereotype and finding one, however tenuous.  I still can't see it, though.

 

 

 

 

And that's wonderful proof concerning propaganda, Foxx.

I can list three countries at seemingly random, too:

 

China.

North Korea.

Saudi Arabia.

 

If you're wondering why I picked those three, it's due to their tightly controlled state-run media outlets.  When giving sources or proof, don't be so vague and diffuse as to be right on a technicality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm leaving this thread right here as I don't see any more good coming from it from any angle.

Edit: Fixed links.  Stupid spaces/parenthesis.

[f0xx]

Okay....

lets get rid of opinions and work with facts.

1) USA has lead 6 wars in the last 15 years, most of which are on territory with plenty of oil.

2) USA has been financing and supplying with weapons the Free Syrian Army (FSA). A lot of the fighters in ISIS are ex-FSA fighters.

3) USA has been bombing ISIS for more than a year now, while at the same time they are gaining territory from Syria, to a point where Assad officially asks Russia to intervene and the moment that happens, they start regaining their land from ISIS.

4) The Russian jet crashed on Syrian territory. The two pilots landed on Syrian territory. The rescue mission helicopter was blown on Syrian territory (by turkmen "moderate" rebels, screaming Allah Akbar, while using a USA made rocket)

5) Last year alone Turkey broke Greece's airspace 40 times. A day. For a total of 2244 times.

6) Turkey supports islamic fundamentalists and jihadists and buys oil from ISIS.

7) Some 800 shotguns were recently seized by Italian forces from Turkey en route to Belgium.

8.) Now, I am not saying I approve of what Russia did in Ukraine and Crimea, but Ukraine, in Russian means "outerland". 98% of the Crimea populace considers themselves Russian, spoke Russian, and are, basically, Russian. There is very little similarity of what Russia did in Crimea to what USA did in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan.

PS. Two of your links don't work.

[Naruthiron]

Buttered toast.

[hotspring monkey]

http://i.imgur.com/MLqK4Hg.webm

[Mali]

Fareed has an interesting analysis:

 

http://fareedzakaria.com/2015/10/01/in-syria-whose-side-is-the-united-states-on/

[Imoutgoodbye]

f0xx...hehehe...propaganda, government.  Those words are as unstable as a third world country.  

 

Deconstruction jokes aside, what's the point?  Look at how much money the U.S. pumps into the military.  That is a HUGE slice of the federal budget.  

 

Think about the premise of the latest South Park episode, that a person can be an advertisement.  People in the U.S. are more concerned with images than substantive analysis.  Somewhere between South Park and this Syria incident you will find that what Anume says (in line with IS being morally corrupt) is that in general, "native" Americans (not to be confused with Native Americans), are more concerned with feeling patriotic by supporting the troops and denouncing IS than they are about reforming the system that has allowed the perpetuation of continually supporting regimes in other countries that we end up fighting later.

 

EDIT:  I realize that is NOT what Anume says (she does say IS is morally corrupt), but I am saying the implication is there ultimately because while citizens of the U.S. may not realize it, they ARE the government.  A government, especially a constitutional republic using a nearly democratic voting method, is the first line of the U.S. Constitution:  "We the people...".  Deny it all day, but a government is nothing more than a group of people making decisions.  If you're married, you know what I'm talking about.  There is no head of household.  There's a decision making process that is shared.

 

The history is there.  Yet, bring it up, and in this country you're a conspiracy theorist.  

 

An example of how loony tunes crazy this country is:

 

I presented an argument about the U.S. Civil War being fought over slavery.  Showed the legislation and wording of the legislation leading up to the Civil War that was introduced in the government.  Pointed to the wording in the Constitution on slavery and the way it all cross referenced.  It didn't matter.  In the end, I was told it was about state's rights and reducing the government because that's what the people believed they were fighting for, not over slavery.

 

Sheep.  This country will always be built on sheep.  This forum, as far as Americans, is above the average intelligence level of the country.  

[J.Twendrist]

Well what a cluster a crap we have in Syria. As for the downed Russian plane, it was inevitable that a situation like this was going to arise. With so many players in a small area some kind of mess up was almost assured. Somebody wanted to flex their muscles and take things to the next step. In this particular incident, it seems that depending on the strategy someone wanted this to happen. I'm not sure if Russia wanted it so as to increase their presence in that sphere, or if NATO wanted it so as to counter growing Russian presence, or if Turkey just wanted to give a big middle finger to Russia, it was clearly no accident. There is much to gain and lose for many factions in this situation that for someone not "in the know" it would be impossible to know for sure. Such is the nature of politics, especially in the big game picture. In the end though, whoever benefits the most (which has yet to be seen) is usually the guilty party.

The way I see the conflict from the beginning is this. Certain groups grew disenfranchised in Syria and decided they wanted to protest. Now, like it or not, Assad was a totalitarian, much like many leaders in second and third world countries, and his response was natural to that of a dictator. Show extreme force to crush any chance of uprising. Unfortunately, this time it just didn't set well, and rather than stop the demonstrations, it set into a whole new level of unrest.

Following that, he did the only thing he could- show more force. After unrest begins, for a Dictator it would be impossible to back down, because that in and of itself indicates that the will of the populace can dictate to the dictator, and thus, further crackdowns. Except, again, it did not quell the unrest but rather turned it into outright rebellion. This cycle continued and escalated, leading to military forces to split, with some going to the rebels and some backing Assad. Due to air superiority alone, the rebellion in the long game did not really stand a chance. Thus many rebels called for international aid (which is very common in rebellions, from Syria to Ireland all the way back to the American revolution).

Enter the United States, and conversely Russia. Now, the US, I don't think, didn't particularly care if Assad was in power or not, but the thought of having a squarely friendly, pro US government in place, rather than the pro Russia Assad government must have been appealing for political purposes. However, being a relatively Moderate President of a country still war weary over Iraq/Afghanistan, President Obama didn't really see it as feasible to commit military forces, and we all know how well arming groups in the past has gone (ie getting shot with our own guns in Afghanistan that we gave to them to fight Russians). Problem is, Assad had no limits on what he was willing to do, and thus weapons we don't like got used, ie the nerve gas.

Now this became a real problem. In truth, there are no real rules in war. There is no "legality" in war. War is about killing people, for whatever reason, and limiting yourself to what you can do is foolish at best, as is the thought that the other side won't use them if they feel it necessary. That said, we have long touted the Geneva convention, and for that purpose to keep that standard, steps had to be taken. I would assume it is at this point President Putin told Obama that if the US got involved, so would Russia, because Russia is essentially, in old school terms, Assad's liege lord- not unlike US and Israel. So now we have the Rebels calling for US assistance and Assad calling for Russia.

Still war weary, the US, not wanting to commit to full scale ground opperations, and unable to enforce a "no fly zone" without provoking Russia, we went about giving the rebels everything we could without offending Russia- communications, non lethal supplies, etc. However, once the gas was used, the American populace started getting ansy. Republicans began to demand rebels be armed (which again, bad idea), and the Democrats still on the anti war narrative were hesitant. Now, right before the US is obliged by it's populace to get involved for realzies, a deal to remove Assad's nerve agents gets struck, essentially giving him an out from US forces escalating on behalf of the rebels. He takes it and tension between the major players- the US and Russia seems to diminish some. Enter ISIS. 

ISIS, made up of militants from all over the region seized on the opportunity and began to grow in strength. From Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria and all over, they came together in unity of a total anti-west, anti-christian, anti-everything but them. They begin their campaign against everyone. Assad, rebels that don't align with them, and various foreign nationals (see all the beheadings etc). Now, this finally makes the US populace start to lean more pro war, giving the government more room to act. Bombing campaigns begin- solely against ISIS, not the Assad regime, for fear of Russian countering by strengthening Assad. Not wanting to put boots on the ground, we begin to arm and train more moderate groups. The only problem is, to not draw Russia in, we had to make these rebel groups promise not to go against Assad and only go after ISIS.

Well, now that became a problem for the Rebels. After all, even though ISIS is causing a mess, these groups still remember Assad bombing cities and using weapons banned by international treaty and they effectively say- well balls, if you're not going to let us fight this guy why should we fight for you, America? And so some of them ditch out and ISIS grows. The original rebellion started to oust Assad, and now when the US does get involved they don't want their groups going after him. So now there is effectively a threesome of a civil war between ISIS, moderate/secular rebels, and Assad, with other nations supporting and funding the groups the choose. This vacuum and confusion leads to further growth of ISIS, because it is clear that neither side can really kill each other off. Meanwhile, ISIS steps up and sticks out the middle finger to the rest of the world, emboldening other recruits to come join, and causing more strife for other nations, leading them on the campaign against ISIS. To that effect, ISIS begins (or continues) a strategy to not only make other nations hostile to them but to Muslims in general, seemingly with the goal of turning it to an us against them mentality and in the long run drawing in more Muslim support (which, if you look at Trump, it seems to be working) against the "crusaders".

Now, as the US revs up more, the question has to be asked- when this coalition does defeat ISIS, what becomes of Assad? Thus, Russian assistance ramps up too. Seemingly it is their idea to bomb the balls off of all rebel groups in Syria, from the ones we like all the way to ISIS, so that when the dust settles, Assad can remain in power, and Russian armed forces will be poised to ensure that happens. By this point, the US is less concerned with who is in power and is now more focused on the growing issue of ISIS and it's broader implications. As boarder countries like Turkey get involved, the number of players in the small sandbox grows and the likelihood of accidental escalation becomes and ever growing potential- not unlike the ramp up to WWI where 1 assassination, which without alliances would not have stirred up as much of a problem, the political climate led to a much broader conflict. And that is where it stands now.

So for the implications here. ISIS is clearly a bad guy, we know that, and they gotta go. Assad, also not a good guy probably needs to go to- having a massive uprising/rebellion generally rules out legitimacy to govern. That said, Sadam was a bad guy too, but that environment almost required a heavy handed authoritarian to keep order/peace- a republic/democracy in Iraq was a pipe dream, as the fundamental prereqs for such government did not exist, and just trying to prop up a government and keep it funded in the idea that eventually it would take root was never going to work. It would have required an enormous occupation, for years- possibly decades, and not the kind we did which was half assed and not based on changing institutional issues and was more based on politics.

Now. Should the US be involved. I believe so, to a point and only if done correctly (something the US has failed miserably at since the conclusion of WWII). Unlike our previous dalliances in other countries affairs, a great many Syrian people wanted US backing to overthrow Assad. Anyone who says that countries should not do this are blind to history, as it has happened many times, including French aid to the US in the revolution, and where as they did not do a whole lot, it was enough at a crucial moment to bring the war to a close. Problem is, Russia had a competing motive to keep Assad in place. That said, I think if we moved quick and hard enough, took him out and oversaw/encouraged the revolution, I doubt Russia would have gone to war with us over a dead dictator. However, if we were not able to take him out quick enough Russia would have backed him and moved in, quite possibly leading to a conflict between Russia and America. That is quite a gamble as both nations are nuclear armed, so I understand why they didn't want to go there.

 

In conclusion, the biggest threat to the US in my mind, is the fear that is slowly gripping the populace, and the willingness to embrace what seems to be a new wave of fascism (see Donald Trump). Furthermore, perpetual war against a ghost (communism & terrorism) has led to people with war making powers holding far too much sway in our politics and our pocketbooks, not to even mention the human cost. It is my belief that more attacks will follow, leading to increased polarization in much of the west, which is leading to fear and paranoia on a level not seen in decades. This, unfortunately, is something that politicians embrace to secure their own political futures and powers. Fact is, ISIS may be a threat to some individuals (shootings, bombings, etc), but they are not an existential threat to the US or any other Western nation, in the sense that they could never "conquer" or occupy the United States or other nations. The only reason they have a semblance of a state now is due to the power vacuum caused by the revolution in Syria and the cluster fuck in Iraq and Afghanistan.

PS: Most people are sheep. Not just in the US, but everywhere. Game of Thrones actually summed this up quite well- (paraphrased) The commoners don't care what games the high lords play, they pray for rain, and for crops, and for healthy children. In essence, the majority of people don't give a rats ass what the government does so long as it doesn't encroach on their ability to feed and secure a decent future for themselves and their children.



 

[J.Twendrist]

Also, @ Valek- you're right and wrong. States rights was their argument for secession, but the main "right" they were trying to preserve was slavery, as seen in many of their constitutions at the time. So where as yes, it was about slavery, on a broader level it was about states rights (however morally incorrect they may have been). It is interesting to note that Union states had slavery throughout the civil war, and that the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to those states that were in a state of open rebellion. "Of the states that were exempted from the Proclamation, Maryland (1864), Missouri(1865), Tennessee (1865), and West Virginia(1865) abolished slavery before the war ended. However, Delaware and Kentucky did not abolish slavery until December 1865, when the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified."

[J.Twendrist]

@ Foxx- In regards to Crimea and Ukraine, it seemed like the timing of that mess had to do with Ukraine getting more and more interested in the EU, giving political motivation to Russia, since if they joined the EU it would not only weaken Russia's influence over that particular part of the region, but also remove them as a buffer, essentially bringing the West that much closer to their borders? It seemed to me that Ukraine, and most of the other old Soviet states were/are largely proxies, even to this day for Russia. 

[f0xx]

@ Foxx- In regards to Crimea and Ukraine, it seemed like the timing of that mess had to do with Ukraine getting more and more interested in the EU, giving political motivation to Russia, since if they joined the EU it would not only weaken Russia's influence over that particular part of the region, but also remove them as a buffer, essentially bringing the West that much closer to their borders? It seemed to me that Ukraine, and most of the other old Soviet states were/are largely proxies, even to this day for Russia.

That's exactly what I said too, didn't I?

Or at least I thought, lol. Ukraine being part of NATO is like Mexico being part of the USSR, or w/e you wanna call it.

That being said, J.Twendrust (J for short, from now on), your analyses is pretty pro-american, but that doesn't surprise me the slightest, since you are an american after all

Firstly, the shooting at the protest against Assad, which began this whole escalation - there are evidences that the snipers were part of foreign (read Saudi Arabia) mercenaries. Not Assad forces.

Secondly, the nerve gas which you spoke of, was for sure not used by Assad forces. That was proved by evidence brought out by Putin. At the time when the gas was used, Assad's forces were beating the rebels. Actually, at that time ISIS did not exist in its current form. Just think about it for a moment. It makes no sense. Assad knew that using gas against CIVILIANS would cause international (read USA involvement). How convenient it would be to gas civilians with sarin while there happen to be UN inspectors that arrived a couple of days before on that same place! So, a few months after the gas attacks which happened on August 2013 and the following major "international" involvement (arming of terrorists), on February 2014 ISIS makes their first huge territory claims, by capturing the whole of western Iraq and from there moving to Syria.

 

Bombing campaigns begin- solely against ISIS, not the Assad regime

Come on man, do you honestly believe that? Do you really think that if the US wanted to destroy ISIS it wouldn't have been destroyed by now? The whole world wants to destroy ISIS, that's the easy thing, especially after the Paris attacks. What is not easy is to topple Assad without "boots on the ground". That's why the jihadists come in handy. Be it ISIS, "moderate rebels", FSA, Al-Nusra, Al-Quaeda, f*** it, they are all the same. They all scream "Allah Akhbar" and kill. This whole separation of terrorists is wrong man. There are no good Jihadists. Still though, all the people that want to topple Assad tell us that they support the "right" terrorists. Turkey supports Turkmen "moderate rebels", USA supports FSA. This is no opinion of mine, that's a fact that's clearly been stated by both Erdogan and the Obama administration.

On the other hand, Russia supports Assad and fights everyone that screams "Allah Akhbar". And that's why they beat them.

At one point, USA will have to make a choice which one they want dead - ISIS or Assad.

The thing is, this whole shit is getting out of hand. Turkey is clearly supporting ISIS now, by buying their oil and arming them. Then there are the Kurds, who are the biggest nation without a country (there are 35 millions of them) and they see this whole situation as a chance of establishing their own country and that's one of the reasons Turkey supports ISIS (so they fight the Kurds).

So yeah, the more one digs into this, the more crap he finds....

By the way, a very prominent Kurd lawyer was assassinated a couple of days ago. Kurds claim he was assassinated by the Turkish special forces and police which was supposed to guard him. Look at this video, it's rather hilarious.

Also here is a very interesting interview. If you don't want to watch the whole thing, skip to 15:07

[Vaerick]

The whole thing is a mess.

[Imoutgoodbye]

Also, @ Valek- you're right and wrong. States rights was their argument for secession, but the main "right" they were trying to preserve was slavery, as seen in many of their constitutions at the time. So where as yes, it was about slavery, on a broader level it was about states rights (however morally incorrect they may have been). It is interesting to note that Union states had slavery throughout the civil war, and that the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to those states that were in a state of open rebellion. "Of the states that were exempted from the Proclamation, Maryland (1864), Missouri(1865), Tennessee (1865), and West Virginia(1865) abolished slavery before the war ended. However, Delaware and Kentucky did not abolish slavery until December 1865, when the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified."

 

@J.Twendrist

 

I'm not wrong at all.  The secession was about what those states viewed as their right to slavery and all the benefits reaped from it.  The trope of the old white male, especially in relation to patriarchal hegemony, is not a myth.  It's a narrative I can trace.

 

Your speculation with an Ad Hominem Circumstantial fallacy is just that, a fallacy and speculation that cannot be proven.  Whether or not those states were in a position to benefit is null and void given any slave could gain freedom simply by joining the Union army.  

 

As an example, if you see a bunch of people speeding down the highway and you decide you too shall speed and you happen to be the one who gets pulled over by the cop, see how far an Ad Hominem laced argument gets you when you tell the judge "But everyone else was doing it, too!".

 

I am in no way giving the North a privileged position.  I could trace a racist laced narrative through the end of the Civil War into any region of this country as the Great Migration happened.  Sundown Towns were quite prevalent all the way as far north as Michigan as late as the 1960's.  

 

I'm not interested in morality.  I'm interested in the fact that people are trying to rewrite or flat out ignore history because anything not considered patriotic (something that puts American culture or Americans in general in a negative light) isn't American, a dangerous mindset that is seeping into far too much of the general population.  The perpetuation of that needs to be knocked off.  What happened, happened.  It doesn't need to get sugar coated or justified.

[Mali]

WTF Valek. Your work shows mastery of both content and style. You have improved your writing and I encourage you to continue to do so.

[f0xx]

Kappa.

[Celerity]

I'd rather have Putin as my leader than Obama in a WWIII scenario.

http://popularliberty.com/12236/turkey-blockades-black-sea-it-only-gets-more-fun-here

[f0xx]

This is the first time I hear about such a blockade, but if Erdogan decides to block the Bosphorus and Dardanelles for Russia, this will be the beginning of an open war between the two, and from there, who knows...

Erdogan is acting like a mad man, but I doubt he is doing it without the support of some greater power.

On the other hand, Turkey, Greece and Bulgaria (where I happen to live) are all members of NATO, but none in the region holds warm feelings towards Turkey and those who are familiar with the history of the region will know why.

[Imoutgoodbye]

I'd rather have Putin as my leader than Obama in a WWIII scenario.

http://popularliberty.com/12236/turkey-blockades-black-sea-it-only-gets-more-fun-here

 

 

 

And that's all from me, folks, bwahahahaha!