Turkey sends tanks in syria

[W1sp]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=06d_1472345583 Might be NSFW? you see nothing that would make it a NSFW video

Video of SDF blowing up what appears to be a M60? Turkish tank, and no Snackbar in this one either, that's a nice change of pace from all the other videos from Syria.

Ignore the comment section on LiveLeak, you will be braindead after reading them.

I've never even noticed love leak had a comment section and you made me look. Dear god almighty it's like concentrated ass fungus

[Torched]

I've never even noticed love leak had a comment section and you made me look. Dear god almighty it's like concentrated ass fungus

You are best to avoid it like the plague.

[Kellhound]

Nation state means the state is formed by a nation. Unless you claim Turks aren't a nation, it is a nation state.

There are too many other nationalities within Turkey's border for it to be a nation-state. The Turks may be the predominant nationality, but that does not make it a nation-state. South Korea is a much better candidate for nation-state, as ~99% of the population is ethnic Korean.

- - - Updated - - -

Then either every ethnic and linguistic community needs its own State, OR we need to commit to an open policy of ethnic cleansing and violating our own stated international values.

- - - Updated - - -



There is no such thing as an ethnic identity that is multicultural, that is more aptly just political spin.

Or you align with your State and not your ethnicity.

[Kuntantee]

There is no such thing as an ethnic identity that is multicultural, that is more aptly just political spin.

Not really. Western and Eastern Turkey is culturally too distinct. Western Turkey has a prominent Balkan culture, whereas Eastern Turkey has a prominent Caucasus culture with Turkish spin, of course. If you have seen a Balkanoid and a Caucasoid in your life, you would know they are nothing a like, culturally speaking.

European culture is too purist, that's why you can't even imagine a multicultural ethnic identity.

[Theodarzna]

There are too many other nationalities within Turkey's border for it to be a nation-state. The Turks may be the predominant nationality, but that does not make it a nation-state. South Korea is a much better candidate for nation-state, as ~99% of the population is ethnic Korean.

Or you align with your State and not your ethnicity.

Ethnicity and Language are largely the same thing in most cases. You would have to give everyone a nation-state or admit that the UN Charters most countries are committed to are not going to be followed.

- - - Updated - - -

Not really. Western and Eastern Turkey is culturally too distinct. Western Turkey has a prominent Balkan culture, whereas Eastern Turkey has a prominent Caucasus culture with Turkish spin, of course. If you have seen a Balkanoid and a Caucasoid in your life, you would know they are nothing a like, culturally speaking.

European culture is too purist, that's why you can't even imagine a multicultural ethnic identity.

Or, a more likely answer, Turks do not wish to admit to being exactly what they are. An understandable thing since its been State policy to deny past indiscretions and continue to carry out things that if other ethnic groups had done it it would be called a Genocide.

[Kellhound]

Ethnicity and Language are largely the same thing in most cases. You would have to give everyone a nation-state or admit that the UN Charters most countries are committed to are not going to be followed.

- - - Updated - - -



Or, a more likely answer, Turks do not wish to admit to being exactly what they are. An understandable thing since its been State policy to deny past indiscretions and continue to carry out things that if other ethnic groups had done it it would be called a Genocide.

While language is a major glue that helps keeps a culture together, they are not even close to being the same thing.

[Kuntantee]

Or, a more likely answer, Turks do not wish to admit to being exactly what they are. An understandable thing since its been State policy to deny past indiscretions and continue to carry out things that if other ethnic groups had done it it would be called a Genocide.

Good thing you are out of arguments, I was too tired to prolong this pointless discussion which is off-topic anyway...

[Deleted]

These are very western, naive assumptions. Religion does not have to be separated from politics. It is a logical error in your arguments to assume that the converse is true. Yes, it is almost universally hated anywhere in the west. And i say almost, because we still want our leaders to be religious. In the middle east, the opposite is true. Religion is desired to be tied with the government. A lot of middle easterners (including non-muslims), believe morality to not just be universal, but derived from the word of God.

Now, you might tie these failed governments and unrest in the region to religion. But, this is false. No one alive in the middle east knows a theocracy. They know a lot about unrest, and they only know secular governments.

Your best argument to stability in the region is this: The only form of government the west will allow to be stable is the current regime. But this is a bad position to take. For one, it admits that the rulers of the country are not internal. This is not fair to the Syrian people, because it takes away their right to self-rule not because they are necessarily unable, but because we don't want them to for some arbitrary reason (namely Syria's location next to Israel). Second, it takes a near unarguable stance. This argument paves the way for the west to allow any form of government. If the west wanted the government to be ISIS, then it will be stable. Third, it is false. Even the might of the west cannot control millions upon millions with brute force, as evidenced by the civil war (and this would still be true even if other superpowers were not to be involved).

Religion has no place in legislating. Now this is the idea behind baahtism which is very local and not a western concept.

- - - Updated - - -

This is ignorant to argue this. He was not elected. Yes, he staged elections. But you cannot separate the word staged from the word elections. Any argument requiring him being elected is entirely invalid.



But, let's go on, because there is a logical error here that is getting on my skin. These forums commit this error all the time, and it needs to be corrected. Your definition of extremism is not absolute, but is inconsistent. Using your logic, all secular governments must be extreme, because they fall on the extreme other side of the scale to a religious person. It is inconsistent because all the evils done that shape what you would call extreme by one person, you excuse from another. Specifically, Assad has bombed 'his own' people. If beheading a CIA agent is extreme, then we need to invent a stronger word to describe Assad's heinous crimes.



While your argument is rendered invalid in sentence one, i want to point out another logical error in your argument. I get my information from FOX news? I assume you intended this as an insult on my person. While insults on my person are absolutely irrelevant (my nose could be on my shoulder, yet my argument will still stand), it is a baseless and contradictory one. While i do watch Last Week Tonight (and used to watch the Daily Show), i haven't watched any other forms of western news in at least a decade. But, if i did watch Fox News, how would you know my argument is theirs? Do you also watch Fox News?



I have no issues with contesting logically flawed arguments. However, i want you to grow in your ability to make more logically sound arguments. These arguments don't have to agree with mine. I just wish they stand on better ground.

My final issue with your argument is your last statement. While, yes, you have no basis for this last statement, let's assume it is actually true. Freedom of religion is a "problem" that need to be "fixed"? Why this tone? It does nothing for your argument, but it makes you sound childish. Your argument will still stand (well not the one you just made) no matter the tone you take, but it really wants to drive the argument away from one made from intelligence, and not feeling.

I apologize if me saying that i need to decipher your argument put you off. I was trying to echo that your original argument did not make sense.

What are you talking about.
He WAS elected. He WAS the most liked in the QATARI (want him gone) opinion poll.

Your leaps of logic are peculiar.
He does NOT excuse Assad.
Assad is the best choice AT THE MOMENT for Syria not because "he's good" but because Syria under him is stable. Look at Libya. This is what will happen if the SEVERAL islamist groups are allowed to have a say.
Another destabilising civil war.

By "fox news" he means stop watching biased shit propaganda news.
Because that's the ONLY WAY you'd say that Assad has to be removed. ONLY if you watch biased shit propaganda news.

Yes, he has plenty of basis for his last statement. That's how things are in reality. Saudi Arabia is a good example.
Saudi Arabia is regression in society. Not a progression.
Syria got away from that and does not need to be sent back years again having religion INFECTING politics.
Religion and politics don't mix. This is a Sunni thing and let me tell you. It's wrong. It has poor results.

[Deleted]

This is your opinion. You need to defend it. I believe religion has a place in legislation. So, when i read this statement, i have nothing to go against.

Opinions differs I guess. But I'm not talking about opinions. I'm talking about a nation that was run under a specific ideology.

There are two issues. The election was staged. He had something like 99% of the vote. That's what happens when you jail your critics. Second, the poll showed a 55% (?) favor to Assad. Huge drop for a legitimate election. But also, when was this poll taken? A quick search is yielding either 2012 or 2014 (maybe there are two). Those years are important as they are in the middle of the civil war. These polls are not to be taken seriously.

You make accusations about the elections not being valid. Have you proof of what you're claiming?
You also give no reason why these polls are not to be taken seriously. Yes they are in the middle of a civil war. So?

Now, i have explained why i believe the election and the poll are absolute rubbish. I need more from you. Why am i to take these seriously? Syrians don't. Why should i?

Who tells you Syrians don't take them seriously? You don't. That's different. You are not in any position to make such a statement.

I have stated what i believe the best form of your argument. How would you counter it? Because this point is something i have already dealt with. Syria is still currently under Assad, and yet they are in the worst civil war since Vietnam. This is clearly not stable.

That's incorrect. Parts of Syria are still currently under Assad, and those parts are the ones that still provide a home to the overwhelming majority of those 15 million people this precious little war displaced. The parts of Syria that arent under Assad are under either Islamists, Isis, and god knows who else. These, are not stable.

No. I get my news from my family, who is in the middle of the war and grew up with the Assads destroying their country. I know what he has done because i was in Syria in 2011, at the start of the war. When i say the Alawi are not Muslim, that is because they have forced people to swear by Bashar (and were not Muslim before this). If i am biased towards anything, it is the truth.

That's great and all, but you're not talking to a teenager here and your claims really do not carry any particular value to me NOW because you were in Syria in 2011. Being there doesn't mean you see things as they are. You're actually more likely to be affected by bias or propaganda.
No one is excusing Assad for what happened. However, we KNOW how things develop in such a scenario by looking at Libya. You want Syria to turn into an hopeless hellhole like Libya?

Syria was called "Little Japan" (or something to that effect) back in the '50s. They were posed to become an economically sound and strong country. The Baathists (especially Assad the elder) completely ruined this promising future for the sake of Israel.

What is this nonsense. Syria suffered 3 coups in 1948 only and one more in 1954. It was the instability and mismanagment of the economy that led to the growth of nationalist movements.

I have provided my fleshed out argument. Your argument is not fleshed out. When making a point, please defend it. If not, there is very little new things for me to add. I need something new from you.

Your words are empty, brother.

[Deleted]

These are very western, naive assumptions.

No they are informed western facts.

Religion does not have to be separated from politics.

Yes there does - "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"

It is a logical error in your arguments to assume that the converse is true. Yes, it is almost universally hated anywhere in the west. And i say almost, because we still want our leaders to be religious. In the middle east, the opposite is true. Religion is desired to be tied with the government.

Yes and that is a stupid desire, they are wrong -

A lot of middle easterners (including non-muslims), believe morality to not just be universal, but derived from the word of God.

Do you know what 'universal' means? (hint, they believe in different gods)

Now, you might tie these failed governments and unrest in the region to religion. But, this is false. No one alive in the middle east knows a theocracy. They know a lot about unrest, and they only know secular governments.

Saudi Arabia and Iran are 'secular' - ?
They only know dictatorships.

Your best argument to stability in the region is this: The only form of government the west will allow to be stable is the current regime. But this is a bad position to take. For one, it admits that the rulers of the country are not internal.

If the rest of the world had stayed out of Syria the war would have been over five years ago.

This is not fair to the Syrian people

There is no such thing as the 'Syrian people' - There are people who have Syrian citizenship.

, because it takes away their right to self-rule not because they are necessarily unable, but because we don't want them to for some arbitrary reason (namely Syria's location next to Israel).

No the west does not give a fuck about that - What they do care about is democracy, freedoms and a secular state (because a non secular state cant be 'free')

Second, it takes a near unarguable stance. This argument paves the way for the west to allow any form of government. If the west wanted the government to be ISIS, then it will be stable.

but our highest goal is not a stable state - its a state that wont commit genocide.

Third, it is false. Even the might of the west cannot control millions upon millions with brute force, as evidenced by the civil war (and this would still be true even if other superpowers were not to be involved).

You do know there are only western superpowers?
Russia is a western 'superpower' - And also you should have a look at world history, because there are only one country that at some point have not be ruled by a European state - that's Ethiopia.

[Kellhound]

No they are informed western facts.

Yes there does - "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"


Yes and that is a stupid desire, they are wrong -

Do you know what 'universal' means? (hint, they believe in different gods)

Saudi Arabia and Iran are 'secular' - ?
They only know dictatorships.

If the rest of the world had stayed out of Syria the war would have been over five years ago.

There is no such thing as the 'Syrian people' - There are people who have Syrian citizenship.


No the west does not give a fuck about that - What they do care about is democracy, freedoms and a secular state (because a non secular state cant be 'free')


but our highest goal is not a stable state - its a state that wont commit genocide.

You do know there are only western superpowers?
Russia is a western 'superpower' - And also you should have a look at world history, because there are only one country that at some point have not be ruled by a European state - that's Ethiopia.

While I generally follow the idea of the separation of church and state, it is a decision for each country to make themselves and not something to be forced upon them. Besides, religion comes in many forms, including nationalism.

[ParanoiD84]

Turkey and the Kurds in northern syria have agreed on a ceasefire to focus on daesh, lets see how long that lasts.

[Deleted]

While I generally follow the idea of the separation of church and state, it is a decision for each country to make themselves and not something to be forced upon them. Besides, religion comes in many forms, including nationalism.

Syria decided already though.

[GennGreymane]

@Djalil

Did your staff/magic influence this in any way?

[Mavett]

Turkey and the Kurds in northern syria have agreed on a ceasefire to focus on daesh, lets see how long that lasts.

They might shoo away ISIS elements that creeped up while those two were busy with each other, but any major moves against ISIS are over.
There was a planned push on Al-Raqqa with the Kurds in the spearhead, but following the stab in the back and the twist by the US the Kurds turned down the US request to do it,the US might have pleased Erdogan by threatening the Kurds with ceasing the supplies if they don't retreat, but lost probably the most capable and numerous fighting force in Syria.

[Kellhound]

Syria decided already though.

When dealing with Middle Eastern countries, it as not as easy as that.

[Deleted]

@Djalil

Did your staff/magic influence this in any way?

Unfortunately I have no powers in the real world.

- - - Updated - - -

When dealing with Middle Eastern countries, it as not as easy as that.

Yes, because of your foreign policies in most cases.

[Kellhound]

Unfortunately I have no powers in the real world.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, because of your foreign policies in most cases.

The issues in the region are more the fault of France and the UK than the US.

[Mafic]

The issues in the region are more the fault of France and the UK than the US.

The region started to mellow out but the U.S. and USSR interfered and set the region back for the next 100 years.

[Deleted]

The issues in the region are more the fault of France and the UK than the US.

This sentence of yours does not connect at all with the short exchange we had.
You simply came up with "standard apologetic defensive response N.39". Unfortunately in this case, it really stands on its own with no link whatsoever with anything we said.