The Syrian War

Remove this Banner Ad

In Australia, the fake left organisation "Socialist Alliance" is taking to its full limit the direction of imperialist propaganda with its latest article on the situation in syria, claiming that al-Jolani is a "revolutionary fighter who is leading the revolution to liberate Syria":


So yes, there is immense pressure being already exerted to convey the conception that HTS is a far more "benevolent" actor than previous versions of Islamic fundementalist militia which seized state power.
 
You're dealing with someone who has invented their own alternative reality where the entire world rises up as one to become a joint socialist project.
He doesn't actually believe any of it. Just following Putin and Xis talking points to create division across the world, and blame the US for everything while pretending it is just a coincidence that he repeats all of Putins justifications for his attack.

On SM-A136B using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

Log in to remove this ad.

There is a tendency in the mass media to suggest that they are more "moderate", "pragmatic", "more tolerant of religious beliefs" than before their split from Al Nusra.
Great, what does that have to do with anything in this thread?

Your claim that they are more "nationalist" than "jihadist"
No, I claimed they were more focused on their own country than in global jihad. They're still radical Islamists.

is hardly any reason to argue that they will be different from al-Nusra as far as the people in Syria are concerned.
Good thing I didn't argue that then.

They are different from al-Nusra in name and in rhetoric, but one should never judge any organisation on any other basis than its history and its political program. Its history is one of being al Nusra (al Qaida) until a split which has never been explained publicly on the basis of a change in political program nor political aims. So, the claim that it is in any way significantly different from al Nusra is simply unfounded.
No, they explained publicly very clearly why they split - to get the Americans and Russians to stop bombing them.


Why would those nations have stopped bombing them if they were still committed to global jihad, at least outwardly? They knew full well they had to change their focus if they wanted to escape the wrath of foreign air forces.

You yourself have admitted you really don't know what the basis of their split was.
Really? Where did I admit that? Above I said their refocus is probably one reason why they split, because I also think there were several others. But I also don't speak in definites because I cannot get inside the heads of radical Islamist warlords. Maybe you can, good for you in that case.

I don't really understand what you are arguing about.
I think there's a lot in this conversation you don't really understand.
 
Great, what does that have to do with anything in this thread?
if you can't see what it has got to do with this thread, then you aren't looking hard enough.
No, I claimed they were more focused on their own country than in global jihad. They're still radical Islamists.


Good thing I didn't argue that then.
So what is the point in bringing up that they are more focussed on national jihad rather than global jihad?
No, they explained publicly very clearly why they split - to get the Americans and Russians to stop bombing them.
That is not a serious political explanation. It tells no one anything about their political program or their political goals.

Why would those nations have stopped bombing them if they were still committed to global jihad, at least outwardly? They knew full well they had to change their focus if they wanted to escape the wrath of foreign air forces.
Because they thought hmmm...maybe we can use these opportunist jihadists as our proxies instead..... Which is now what is rapidly unfolding...
Really? Where did I admit that? Above I said their refocus is probably one reason why they split, because I also think there were several others. But I also don't speak in definites because I cannot get inside the heads of radical Islamist warlords. Maybe you can, good for you in that case.
I don't claim to get into their heads either. But I point to the historical record, and to their political program (pro capitalist, nationalist) to support my arguments. You simply guess.
I think there's a lot in this conversation you don't really understand.
🤣
 
Do you ever cite any credible sites that aren't part of Putins disinformation network?

On SM-A136B using BigFooty.com mobile app
Do you ever cite any credible sites that aren't part of the US imperialist disinformation network?
And if you do (because it is hard not to, given how ubiquitious they are ) do you have the necessary analytical skills to disentangle truth from fiction?

...thought not
 
Last edited:
I understand people who lack nuance think all jihadis are identical, but please try to actually analyse what's in front of you rather than the images in your head.


Completely irrelevant to the last two years, which was the context of my comment.


Also completely irrelevant to the conversation, because the Taliban have largely just stuck to their own country after many years of war.

Seriously, at least try to engage which the context I'm speaking in instead of inventing your own.
You're all over the place and seem upset I'm skeptical of the latest regime change project. History says I'm right to be sceptical.

You brought up the Taliban as redirecting their focus to Afghanistan as if they once had global ambitions. Don't get upset when I pull you up on it.
 
You're all over the place and seem upset I'm skeptical of the latest regime change project.
No, you've written a bunch of irrelevant nonsense and then are declaring other people are upset, a common troll tactic.

History says I'm right to be sceptical.
Stupendous. Be as skeptical as you like.

You brought up the Taliban as redirecting their focus to Afghanistan as if they once had global ambitions. Don't get upset when I pull you up on it.
Nice to see you know nothing about the Taliban either. Perhaps you could try gaining even the first bit of knowledge on them before arrogantly trying to pull up other people? You're the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.
 
if you can't see what it has got to do with this thread, then you aren't looking hard enough.
I don't need to look hard at nonsense arguments.

So what is the point in bringing up that they are more focussed on national jihad rather than global jihad?
I've told you why. You're the one who leaped from to the straw man argument that others were claiming HTS have no issues.

That is not a serious political explanation. It tells no one anything about their political program or their political goals.
To you. Others can tell that if they're trying to avoid raising the ire of the major powers, they're clearly confining the scale of their ambitions. This is not hard to work out.

Because they thought hmmm...maybe we can use these opportunist jihadists as our proxies instead..... Which is now what is rapidly unfolding...
Oh really? So Russia is using HTS as a proxy after HTS threw them out of multiple military bases? The US are using HTS as a proxy after their actual proxy Israel just bombed the shit out of HTS? This makes no sense whatsoever.

At best HTS are a Turkish proxy, but Turkey wasn't bombing them before, the US and Russia were. And even then I'm skeptical that the interests of HTS and Erdogan will align forever.

I don't claim to get into their heads either. But I point to the historical record, and to their political program (pro capitalist, nationalist) to support my arguments. You simply guess.
No, you're guessing, and getting basic facts wrong. The others in this thread were right, arguing with you is a waste of time if you extrapolate from basic inaccuracies.
 
I don't need to look hard at nonsense arguments.


I've told you why. You're the one who leaped from to the straw man argument that others were claiming HTS have no issues.


To you. Others can tell that if they're trying to avoid raising the ire of the major powers, they're clearly confining the scale of their ambitions. This is not hard to work out.


Oh really? So Russia is using HTS as a proxy after HTS threw them out of multiple military bases? The US are using HTS as a proxy after their actual proxy Israel just bombed the shit out of HTS? This makes no sense whatsoever.

At best HTS are a Turkish proxy, but Turkey wasn't bombing them before, the US and Russia were. And even then I'm skeptical that the interests of HTS and Erdogan will align forever.


No, you're guessing, and getting basic facts wrong. The others in this thread were right, arguing with you is a waste of time if you extrapolate from basic inaccuracies.
You guess reasons and claim them to be true, then accuse others who disagree with your guesswork as "extrapolating from inaccuracies"
A pathetic way to argue
And of course, join the usual suspects here who can't tolerate anything that challenges their ingrained outlook.
 
Convenient way to simply dismiss anything you don't agree with.

You've received quite a bit of feedback, but continue to dismiss it, and continue to utterly fail to get any traction.

I get the feedback, but I don't agree with it, so I explain why I think their feedback is wrong.

That's when they get upset. If their view is not accepted, then they consider the discussion as a waste of time.

In other words, they don't want a discussion, they want to hear approximations of their own views bounced back.

Finally, I don't tell any other poster to argue or not to argue with any other poster.

I''m not the judge of who is worthwhile and who isn't, but there are many here who think they are.

As for traction...the truth always starts off slow, but in the end it wins the race. Time is my friend.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I get the feedback, but I don't agree with it, so I explain why I think their feedback is wrong.

That's when they get upset. If their view is not accepted, then they consider the discussion as a waste of time.

In other words, they don't want a discussion, they want to hear approximations of their own views bounced back.

Finally, I don't tell any other poster to argue or not to argue with any other poster.

I''m not the judge of who is worthwhile and who isn't, but there are many here who think they are.

As for traction...the truth always starts off slow, but in the end it wins the race. Time is my friend.

Time isn't your friend, because your packaging is poor. You dismiss feedback 'because it's wrong' and say 'they get upset' yet somehow think you'll win a heap of people over? 🤣

Glorious lack of self-awareness here.
 
Time isn't your friend, because your packaging is poor. You dismiss feedback 'because it's wrong' and say 'they get upset' yet somehow think you'll win a heap of people over? 🤣

Glorious lack of self-awareness here.
You missed an important part of the wording. I said: "I tell them why I think their feedback is wrong". It is an important difference. I tell them my view of their feedback, and by telling them why I think their feedback is wrong, they are then free to reply and explain why they think I'm wrong, etc.


But in the end, unless you believe that there is no truth, of all views there must be one that's closest to the truth. How can it be ascertained? It will only be ascertained by those who are willing to discuss why their own viewpoint might not be accurate.
 

A decade ago, Russia deployed troops to Syria to support Bashar al-Assad, motivated in large part by its gas interests. Two major pipeline projects posed significant threats to Russia’s dominance in the European gas market:

Moscow’s approach was clear: foster sufficient military and political instability to render pipeline construction infeasible. By ensuring that no infrastructure could be safely built in a conflict zone, Russia achieved its objective: maintaining control over all gas flows to Europe, either directly or indirectly.

Türkiye plays a complex game in Syria. At its heart lies the Kurdish question: while Syria’s Kurdish population is smaller than those in neighboring countries, their control of territories along the Turkish border makes them a critical concern for Ankara.

After all, both modern Syria and Iraq were once Ottoman territories. Through this lens, Türkiye’s patient maneuvering in Syria looks less like opportunistic intervention and more like a modern version of historical Turkish influence in the region.
 
Turkey and Erdogan does seem to have ambitions of resurrecting some form of its previous empire.


If the new Syrian government decides it wants relations with Turkey and that provides some sort of stability that can only be a good thing.

The only question is Kurdistan and how Turkey deals with Kurds. Right now Turkey declares that Kurds are not real people nor should there ever be a Kurdistan state.

Perhaps Turkey, Iraq, Iran all agreeing a Kurdish state will increase stability in the region.
 
What steps can be taken now in the power vacuum left by Assad fleeing that mitigates against Syria becoming a shitshow of various extremists factions holding & fighting over Syrian territory?

Syria's a huge place. Apart from the likes of Russia & Iran + proxies it's in the interests of everyone that there is a stable Syrian state plus possibly a Kurdish state.
 
What steps can be taken now in the power vacuum left by Assad fleeing that mitigates against Syria becoming a shitshow of various extremists factions holding & fighting over Syrian territory?

Syria's a huge place. Apart from the likes of Russia & Iran + proxies it's in the interests of everyone that there is a stable Syrian state plus possibly a Kurdish state.

International support for rebuilding, as was done with Germany and Japan post-WWII along with a secular, democratic Government would be the 'ideal' scenario IMO.

I doubt we'll get the secular Government, or the truly democratic one. So there'll likely be some level of uncomfortable compromise where the UN engages with HTS despite the terrorist organisation thing (as they've done with the Taliban in Afghanistan) and other nations will look the other way on the human rights issues so long as there's a level of stability there.

Saudi Arabia never really got cut off despite some pretty bad human rights issues, Qatar has managed a pragmatic balancing act between maintaining functional relations with basically everyone including the US and Iran despite their human rights issues.

Syria occupies a pretty key demographic location, so will any of the major powers actually leave them alone to self-govern and hope they're able to be worked with, who knows.
 
Carl Bildt writes about the future here:
 
Turkey and Erdogan does seem to have ambitions of resurrecting some form of its previous empire.


If the new Syrian government decides it wants relations with Turkey and that provides some sort of stability that can only be a good thing.

The only question is Kurdistan and how Turkey deals with Kurds. Right now Turkey declares that Kurds are not real people nor should there ever be a Kurdistan state.

Perhaps Turkey, Iraq, Iran all agreeing a Kurdish state will increase stability in the region.
Turkey is fiercely nationalistic. They're not giving up Kurdish areas of Turkey, and they know that if a neighbouring Kurdish state is founded that the terrorists they fight will be better supported. If a Kurdistan were to be founded, it would probably have to be agreed to by Turkey and that would include them officially giving up any claim to Turkish territory.

Iran is the same, they're not giving up any land. Iraq and Syria probably not in a position to oppose it if the Kurds in their territories declare it.
 
No, you've written a bunch of irrelevant nonsense and then are declaring other people are upset, a common troll tactic.


Stupendous. Be as skeptical as you like.


Nice to see you know nothing about the Taliban either. Perhaps you could try gaining even the first bit of knowledge on them before arrogantly trying to pull up other people? You're the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.
What nonsense? If you focus on insulting people rather than addressing the comment then yes you are going to appear as if you're upset. If you don't like the word upset then let's say peeved.

What did I say that is controversial?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

The Syrian War

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top