Russia Mobilizes Against Turkey, Hizballah Reinforces Assad

[BigBallinStalin]

No no, sax. It's false because Gabon says so. Let us sit and watch as he asserts another opinion in order to advance his absolutely true worldview.

Maybe he'll teach us that intervention is not really intervention!

[BigBallinStalin]

Do you know what false equivalence means? Do you understand the problems of comparing apples to oranges?

I do

WW2 (two examples)
1) No nuclear deterrence. None. And no knowledge from others on the impact of nuclear weapons.
2) No substitutes for agitating states without going to full-scale war (i.e. the use of terrorism/insurgency)
(of course, there's more)

Comparing two scenarios where the institutions and incentives of the policymakers are completely different is fallacious. It's false equivalence.

And this tangent constitutes a red herring because it argues against a position I haven't taken, that being I've made a comparison between the state of things in Syria and Germany under Hitler. I mentioned the Third Reich only as an example of when earlier intervention would have likely saved lives to illustrate this kind of situation exists, not to say Syria is the same today.

You've committed fallacies with your false assertion towards me here, and in this post you've denied the antecedent and committed false pretense in the first two sentences respectively. I could find more examples of your looseness in this thread, but it takes too much time to illustrate it all...

With Saxi skittzing about Hezbollah and Syria not being able to reach the US (all nations can reach all other nations and have had this ability for some time), and others alluding that because I may say something invalid that the things I say are invalid, I care to give you little time as individuals because the things you say are off topic and ridiculous.

I have no desire to spend any significant amount of time addressing this bull shit. I prefer to exchange ideas with like minded people or at least with those who have appreciation than defend positions I haven't taken against endlessly divergent and fallacious arguments.

Sure, Gabon.

In 1936 Hitler violated the Treaty of Versailles by re-militarizing the Rhineland. Had the nations Hitler later declared war on (Britain, France, the US, etc.) intervened at this point they would have had a qualitative edge in weaponry as the industrial sector of the German war machine was not yet at peak production. While it's possible that for some unknown reason Germany may have been able to inflict more damage to the allies with a less developed military, it's much more likely that intervention at this point of qualitative military advantage for the allied powers would have saved the lives of countless civilians and service people.

'Intervention is necessary!'

Actually, there's no evidence that damns lack of intervention because you can't show the counter-factual. All we can say is, "wow, this intervention caused all this damage," and then we make comparisons of those consequences to speculated consequences.

This Gabon refutes.

But then, he does exactly what I'm talking about:

The point is simple. If conflict seems likely because enemies of a man or state proclaim their hatred and lust for violence against that man or state, action should be taken at a point of strategic advantage. This may come before an enemy acts in which case the action taken is preemptive. If it is deemed that a greater advantage may come at some point in the future it may be wiser to pursue a policy of postponement. To pursue postponement while such an enemy is gaining relative strength is foolish and will likely cost resources, lives, or both to correct, if such a mistake is correctable.

Take WW2 Hitler's rise, and argue that the benefits would've offset the costs had intervention occurred earlier. (this is using the counter-factual). He's doing exactly what I said he would, but he rejects that.

This is ridiculous.


Then there's still the problem of false equivalence. As he imagines the benefits of intervention at time X in a WW2 setting, he conveniently forgets that the world of WW2 and today involve different incentives, institutions, and organizations regarding conflict and peace. He's advancing an apples to oranges comparison while asserting that he knows what 'false equivalence' and 'apples to oranges' mean. He simply doesn't. This is evidence from his very words.

That and having hindsight is real cute, but then we have to ask, "how could they know that intervention at time X would be best? And if they did, was it even possible? " Knowledge isn't perfect, yet for Gabon, his case requires perfect knowledge (as shown through the argument he was advancing).

[saxitoxin]

Secular Turks who don't support the militant jihadist party governing Turkey blame their own government for stirring up trouble in Syria.

In an empty coffee house in Antakya, local tradesman Ahmet Sari's face crumples in anger as he speaks about Syria.

"What's happening in Syria is all part of America's great project to reshape the borders of the Middle East. America and its allies don't care about bringing democracy to the Syrian people. Look at what happened to Iraq!” he fumes. “The imperialist countries are only after oil and mineral resources.”

Nineteen months into Syria's conflict, resentment of Ankara and anti-US sentiment simmer in Antakya, which lies just over the border with Syria. The province is grappling with an ailing trade and tourism sector and an influx of refugees and rebel fighters. Locals blame the Turkish government for dragging them into the conflict by backing the Syrian opposition and aligning Turkey with the opposition's Western allies.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-E ... -implosion

The militant Jihadists in Turkey have only a sliver of a majority in parliament. The largest opposition in Turkey, the secular Republican Party, has denounced the militant Jihadists running the Turkish government for meddling in Syrian affairs.

The leader of the Republican People's Party (CHP), Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, on Wednesday criticized the Justice and Development Party's (AK Party) Syrian policy, accusing the government of interfering in the internal affairs of the crisis-hit country.

http://www.todayszaman.com/news-288970- ... fairs.html

Gabby - it seems unlike you to throw an anti-Islamist, pro-secular party under the bus and rally behind a militant gang of wild-eyed jihadists waving swords over their head and shouting ululations. But I understand why you are, however. World Zionism can realize a short-term gain by backing lunatic jihadists with 5-foot long beards over secularists. If Syria falls to the jihadists, the country will be a basketcase racked by communal violence and militarily impotent to Israel. Then a wave of Zionist settlers can safely start setting up camp in the Golan Heights. Often the cause of Israel is advanced by jihadism. For instance, because of 9/11, the U.S. created casus belli to castrate Iraq. The U.S. didn't benefit, Iraq didn't benefit. But Israel sure did - and without spending $1. The Zionists will happily lead the U.S. on a leash into war with Russia without batting an eye.

Meanwhile -

Hundreds of activists in just one small border village in Turkey, from Freedom-Solidarity - the Turkish libertarian party - rallied against their jihadist government and in support of Syria and Bashar al-Assad.

Young Syrian-Australians (and a creepy guy with a mustache) in Sydney denounce any attempts at western intervention and declare unwavering support for President Assad, and the Ba'ath Party. They declare the U.S., Qatar and Saudi Arabia are fueling regional instability.

[thegreekdog]

With Saxi skittzing about Hezbollah and Syria not being able to reach the US (all nations can reach all other nations and have had this ability for some time), and others alluding that because I may say something invalid that the things I say are invalid, I care to give you little time as individuals because the things you say are off topic and ridiculous.

I have no desire to spend any significant amount of time addressing this bull shit. I prefer to exchange ideas with like minded people or at least with those who have appreciation than defend positions I haven't taken against endlessly divergent and fallacious arguments.

Is this the more wordy equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "NO NO NO NO!" over and over again?

What is the purpose of posting if not receiving and responding to comments on your post? If, as you later put, you just want to "inform" then why would you respond to others in the first place?

But let's go back to something basic and see if we can understand. Let's assume that enough Muslims in enough countries hate the United States such that they would like to do us harm. What caused that animosity? Was it US intervention or was it something else? If it was US intervention would a viable alternative to further US intervention be non-intervention? Of course, I type that ignoring the valuable sundries certain people receive from US intervention, like power and money, and focus instead on what is best for US security, so let's table the discussion of war as corporate welfare.

[Guderian09]

In 1936 Hitler violated the Treaty of Versailles by re-militarizing the Rhineland. Had the nations Hitler later declared war on (Britain, France, the US, etc.) intervened at this point ....., I hope that illustrates the point to some of you.

Who declared war to whom??? France and GB did in 1939.

Only the war on the US was declared by Germany in 1942, anyway US was already waging war by sending war material to England and airforce pilots to RAF.

Mentioning the treaty of Versailles, who was one of the most shameful documents ever produced to impose on to a defeat nation.

Anyone has ever found the WMDs in Iraq??

Hundreds of thousands of deaths occurred for no reason and u still want to speculate on the reason hatred is upon US policies?

Mcfly think

[chang50]

In 1936 Hitler violated the Treaty of Versailles by re-militarizing the Rhineland. Had the nations Hitler later declared war on (Britain, France, the US, etc.) intervened at this point ....., I hope that illustrates the point to some of you.

Who declared war to whom??? France and GB did in 1939.

Only the war on the US was declared by Germany in 1942, anyway US was already waging war by sending war material to England and airforce pilots to RAF.

This factual error was pointed out earlier but no retraction was forthcoming making it difficult to take anything Gabon writes seriously..

[saxitoxin]

Laughing off the western "boycott" of Iran, a delegation of the Bundestag arrived in Tehran today for discussions on how to strengthen trade relations between Iran and Germany. The delegation included members of all the major parties including both the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats. The trip is being led by Bijan Djir-Sarai from the right-wing Free Democratic Party. Israel's panties are wound super-tight over the trip, of course, but no one is paying attention to them as their Chicken Little act has essentially guaranteed their irrelevance.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-ne ... es-in-iran

[Dukasaur]

Found it.

TURKEY (supported by Gabby)
"A woman without a headscarf resembles a house without curtains. A house without curtains is either for sale or for rent."

• - Naim Köse, J&D Party (Turkey)

some Turk - probably the chief justice of the Turkish Supreme Court

[patches70]

That picture looks familiar, can't place it though......

[DoomYoshi]

As I said earlier:

James Jeffrey just gave me some weird advice. He said "Quit your EU faggotry and embrace Erdogan as America's best hope to beat Russia".

I didn't see how this was feasible since Syria is pretty much a foregone American defeat. His proposed solution had nothing to do with Syria though.

In the end, I definitely could see a full-scale bait-and-switch by invoking NATO wrath via Russia invading Turkey.

I guess Erdogan isn't such a terrible ally after all. He is the closest thing to Putin the rest of the world has.

Let's do this!