Live Conflict Military Operations Syria

[Huelague]

obviously your not Turkish,

Why you think so?

 

[GoatsMilk]

Why you think so?

intuition. Much of what he types are narratives not really normal to Turks. Its a bit like if someone claiming to be a jew on here starts talking about how jews should be ok with hitler. Your instrict would tell you this guy cant be jewish.

Northern syria is a critical issue to Turkiye and he's bringing up "where were these guys for Gaza" its a foolish statement, but its as if the Turks are meant to bend over and get fucked by everyone so we can help a people that never really helped us. Iranians Shia types are like this where they act as if you are meant to do only whats good for them and anything you do that's good for yourself is haram.

I'm about 95% certain he's not ethnically a Turk. Maybe he has some connection to Turkiye and the Turks, but i doubt he's Turkish himself.

 

[Saithan]

If we're doing something and they (r bels) can see it, but can't prove it. Then we should continue as such. If we help, then they'll expect more and throw tantrum like a kid when it goes bad.

I think if we do what we always do then hitting PKK and getting rid of th trash would be best.

If PKK is given freedom to abandon Aleppo and travel back to Manbij, then we could hit those busses. If we're not part of the operation. Then we're not obligated to respect their deals either.

 

[Huelague]

intuition. Much of what he types are narratives not really normal to Turks. Its a bit like if someone claiming to be a jew on here starts talking about how jews should be ok with hitler. Your instrict would tell you this guy cant be jewish.

Northern syria is a critical issue to Turkiye and he's bringing up "where were these guys for Gaza" its a foolish statement, but its as if the Turks are meant to bend over and get fucked by everyone so we can help a people that never really helped us. Iranians Shia types are like this where they act as if you are meant to do only whats good for them and anything you do that's good for yourself is haram.

I'm about 95% certain he's not ethnically a Turk. Maybe he has some connection to Turkiye and the Turks, but i doubt he's Turkish himself.

Even our government is pro Palesine. The whole world is pro Palestine right now. Every disable human must be pro Palestine, no matter what Palestine government do/did to us.

 

[Asena_great]

trump invited mazlum kobani (real name abdi şahin) and other YPG/PKK leaders to the US presidential oath taking ceremony

 

[Oublious]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1863383861591203852

 

[Rooxbar]

Even our government is pro Palesine. The whole world is pro Palestine right now. Every disable human must be pro Palestine, no matter what Palestine government do/did to us.

Morality is a matter of scale. You can't have morality at the scale of a state, except for one overarching principle and that's survival. You can be pro-Palestine as a matter of personal moral principle; a state can be pro-Palestine for other reasons and pretend that it is due to moral principle. But a state cannot be pro-Palestine actually as a matter of moral principle.

Survival is the only principle guiding all other actions of a state and the best path to survival is power. This is why you maximise your power because that will guarantee your survival; and this is a moral principle (the only one in this large scale) because survival of a state for the coming centuries is about survival and prosperity of potential billions and that trumps losing power to be potentially moral about mere thousands.

This may sound blunt but this is the real principle by which states act (despite the moralistic facade of public relations side of it all). Any moralistic naivete in deviance from this law in a jungle where everybody plays by this rule will result in ruin. In a state of nature, which is the state of international relations, any moral action which does not maximise your power will hence reduce your power and reduce your survival chances.

Obviously seeming moral/amoral and trustworthy/untrustworthy is part of the payoff matrix, hence attempts at maximising your power can actually result in a reduction of your power if the attempts are not seen as acceptable (for moral or any other reasons); this is why states sometimes do the moral thing, as they calculate the amoral opportunistic move will reduce their influence and reputation, hurting their power maximisation in the long run. Of course sometimes the calculation is that you can afford the blow to the reputation as what you get in return will compensate it in terms of power maximisation. The world actors only understand of power; if you're powerful everybody will respect you.

 

[mehmed beg]

Even our government is pro Palesine. The whole world is pro Palestine right now. Every disable human must be pro Palestine, no matter what Palestine government do/did to us.

Someone can be pro Palestinian but to tell you the truth, I know from day 1, that over 90% so called pro Palestinian crowd is scum.
Many of them are Commies , many of them are just anti establishment, anti Racist etc .
I saw it in Bosnia 30 years ago. Just now it is a lot worse.
Can you see any " brothers" on this thread???

 

[Huelague]

Morality is a matter of scale. You can't have morality at the scale of a state, except for one overarching principle and that's survival. You can be pro-Palestine as a matter of personal moral principle; a state can be pro-Palestine for other reasons and pretend that it is due to moral principle. But a state cannot be pro-Palestine actually as a matter of moral principle

That’s absolutely wrong and sounds like Western (Niccolò Machiavelli) „Reasons of State“ bullshit. Institutions, which a State is,-are lead by humans-, can tolerate Genozide or not.
Finding an excuse not to support Palestinians, just because of our history, his highly immoral. This kind of immoral are not in our Turkish veins!

 

[Huelague]

Someone can be pro Palestinian but to tell you the truth, I know from day 1, that over 90% so called pro Palestinian crowd is scum.
Many of them are Commies , many of them are just anti establishment, anti Racist etc .
I saw it in Bosnia 30 years ago. Just now it is a lot worse.
Can you see any " brothers" on this thread???

I meet many Palis, none of them were anti Turkish. We could have our differences (remember our close ties with Israel before AKP- which could be one reason of the differences). That doesn’t mean, a tolerance of any kind of Genocide against a People. You should adjust your morality compass new.

 

[Oublious]

I have read and listend various people on the internet, it seems that Russian airpower is drasticly down in Syria. They have 10 old fighters and most of them are not operational because of parts. They transfert most of ther fighters to Ukraine, so we will not see a lot of bombardment.

 

[Barry]

Someone can be pro Palestinian but to tell you the truth, I know from day 1, that over 90% so called pro Palestinian crowd is scum.
Many of them are Commies , many of them are just anti establishment, anti Racist etc .
I saw it in Bosnia 30 years ago. Just now it is a lot worse.
Can you see any " brothers" on this thread???

They're always pro-Kurdistan too, thinking all these PKK/YPG/etc terror groups represent all Kurds.

That's part of the racism these Western Marxists/"Leftists" love to peddle. They can't separate people into anything but broad, dumb buckets of white/black/this/that. They'll happily support a monolithic ethno-state at the expense of every other ethnic group or state in the region. What about Assyrians? Turkmen? Do they not deserve their own states, by these moral supremist's own logic?

What about the will of the Syrian people as a whole? Does that matter to them? No, you must carve up legal borders and territory for these specific people, because social media and the usual handlers of western leftism tell them. They'll ignore all the terror, the massacre, the butchery, the ethnic cleansing, the female genital mutilation, the human trafficking/paedophilia/kidnapping, the huge drug trade these groups partake in; instead it'll be "they're feminists," "they're social democrats," "they're western-aligned."

Western leftist morality is a toilet of contradiction, cognitive-dissonance, racism and opportunism to create layers of prejudice and victimhood under the guise of being progressive.

Sick of them.

 

[Rooxbar]

That’s absolutely wrong and sounds like Western (Niccolò Machiavelli) „Reasons of State“ bullshit. Institutions, which a State is,-are lead by humans-, can tolerate Genozide or not.
Finding an excuse not to support Palestinians, just because of our history, his highly immoral. This kind of immoral are not in our Turkish veins!

Corporations also are led by humans, but all these human actors are forced into the structure in which they maximize profit and do not act as individual agents but according to the rules and the forces of the market, hence all corporations converge in their behaviour in maximizing profits as if run by robots. Those who don't play by the rules of the market and scoff at market forces bite the dust. Same thing for inter-state relations.

 

[Deliorman]

obviously your not Turkish, just out interest what are you?

In the previous forum from which most of here migrated from his nickname was Ravenman and he claimed to be living in the Netherlands and to be a Zaza.

 

[Oublious]

No CAS hizbies and persian fighters running away.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1863692889907171829

 

[Tabmachine]

Morality is a matter of scale. You can't have morality at the scale of a state, except for one overarching principle and that's survival. You can be pro-Palestine as a matter of personal moral principle; a state can be pro-Palestine for other reasons and pretend that it is due to moral principle. But a state cannot be pro-Palestine actually as a matter of moral principle.

Survival is the only principle guiding all other actions of a state and the best path to survival is power. This is why you maximise your power because that will guarantee your survival; and this is a moral principle (the only one in this large scale) because survival of a state for the coming centuries is about survival and prosperity of potential billions and that trumps losing power to be potentially moral about mere thousands.

This may sound blunt but this is the real principle by which states act (despite the moralistic facade of public relations side of it all). Any moralistic naivete in deviance from this law in a jungle where everybody plays by this rule will result in ruin. In a state of nature, which is the state of international relations, any moral action which does not maximise your power will hence reduce your power and reduce your survival chances.

Obviously seeming moral/amoral and trustworthy/untrustworthy is part of the payoff matrix, hence attempts at maximising your power can actually result in a reduction of your power if the attempts are not seen as acceptable (for moral or any other reasons); this is why states sometimes do the moral thing, as they calculate the amoral opportunistic move will reduce their influence and reputation, hurting their power maximisation in the long run. Of course sometimes the calculation is that you can afford the blow to the reputation as what you get in return will compensate it in terms of power maximisation. The world actors only understand of power; if you're powerful everybody will respect you.

I'm reading into structural realism right now, although in terms of directly reading from books I've decided start more historically with Machiavelli.

I am beginning this journey with a measure of skepticism of the black-box approach to formulating a general theory of state behavior because I find it counter-intuitive to formulate arguments at a macro-level without "micro-foundations", however even in these early stages I can recognize there are obvious and good reasons why this is not done, chiefly I think this is somewhere between very difficult to impossible. I refer to the categories of structural-realist (Waltz, Mearsheimer) arguments about why this "blind-ness" is necessary like so:

1) The argument of inevitability (which you're making): that the pressures/forces of the anarchic international system force states to behave according to their "structural imperative" or optimally for their survival

2) The argument of simplicity/generalizability: that it is not sensible to attempt to account for every factor, and that one can restrict variables in order to feasibly formulate a general theory which is a sufficient approximation of state behavior to be useful as an explanatory vehicle.

A quote from The Tragedy of Great Power Politics: "“States are influenced by the international system, but this does not mean that leaders, ideologies, or domestic politics are irrelevant. They can matter at certain times and in certain cases. Nevertheless, systemic factors tend to dominate because the pressures of anarchy constrain what states can and cannot do”".

What I take away from this is that the pressures of international anarchy function as constraints, but not the entirety of the variables influencing state behavior, and that in the eyes of structural realists, analyzing state behavior according to these constraints as a best approximation has explanatory power.

Looking at the world around me, I just don't see a world insulated from beliefs, and identity complexes in the political realm. Whether it is in the solidarity that countries exhibit with one another, who they choose to form deeper partnerships with, how they structure and select the multi-lateral institutions they participate in.

Would Turkey and Malaysia be signing technological co-operation agreements if not for their shared religion? Would there be an organization of turkic states, without a shared identity complex, cultural practices, and beliefs? Would the EU be possible without the same, or the general solidarity between all the Western countries be possible without the same? On the tin, I think phenomenon like these point to the influence of socio-cultural factors, however constrained by the realities of state-interests within international anarchy.

To be clear, I'm seeking a counter-argument from you oh wise Rooxbar.

 

[GoatsMilk]

When I was a kid and I read "the prince" it had that mind opening feel. When i read it now it just seems like really obvious common sense stuff. In the preamble to the copy i had it said something like people at the time didn't really rate it. And honestly if your a ruler most of that shit would become pretty obvious pretty quickly.

Like the section about making sure to completely ruin your enemy, otherwise he will recover and come back at you. Back then it seemed quite harsh and sinister, but these days it seems like basic obvious stuff. If your going to go to war there can't be any half measures, because those people will take the first opportunity to strike back at you. In essence "finish the fight."

As a kid growing up in england and getting into street fights you learn this stuff pretty quickly. I remember the first time i went easy on a guy who started a fight, in essence i let him off the hook. Within a week one his mates attacks me over the incident, this time i make an example of him. After that none of his crowd wanted to mess around with me. The first time wasnt good enough, it made my "enemies" think they could harm me. The second time it created so much fear that none of them wanted to risk it happening to them.