What happened was that after the Arab League had normalized ties with Syria, Erdogan wanted to normalize the ties with Assad. But Assad declined:

On several occasions, Erdoğan called for a meeting with Assad to discuss normalizing ties, which Ankara severed after the 2011 Syrian war. But, Assad has said such talks could only happen if the neighbors focus on core issues, including the withdrawal of Turkish forces from the north of Syria.

Finally Erdogan got enough of this and let HTS go on the offensive alongside the Turkish sponsored Syrian National Army. And then the house of cards that was the Syrian Arab Army collapsed, even if there was some actual fighting.

Now Israel has made about 500 strikes and the US 75 strikes in Syria. Idea is to destroy everything that is left from the equipment of the Syrian armed forces. It had for example about 3 000 tanks at the start of the war, and likely has lost well over half of that during the war.

Very likely the idea will to make Syria a state like Lebanon or simply keep it as a failed state. Israel has been far too successful now to pause here.

2. It is very much possible that Mearsheimer is picking only the Russian arguments that better support its claims ignoring, omitting, downplaying others which do not add up with his general views, in other words its theory may bias his views . — neomac

Actually, he has stated himself that he only looks at the issue from his own theoretical perspective, which doesn't take into account Russian domestic politics. Hence such things that Russia has annexed Ukrainian territory and Putin has repeatedly made it clear what an integral part Ukraine itself is of Russia is not relevant for Mearsheimer. Which makes it so biased.

And the rest of your comments, spot on! :100: :up:

We should really compare the CSTO to NATO. And CSTO seems really to operate quite in a similar fashion like the Warsaw Pact did. Did Russia come to the aid of Armenia when Azerbaijan attacked it? Of course not, Armenia had made openings towards the West, why would it have? Yet if a country like Kazakhstan has internal protests, does Russia help it. Certainly, root out the "color revolutions" where ever they emerge! CSTO, just like the Warsaw Pact, is a tool for Russian control. NATO on the other seems like a huge pain in the ass with it's "free riders" for the US. I've not yet heard of NATO countries invading a member state to put down internal strife. This of course would go against NATO's article 1.

This is a wildly inaccurate statement. — boethius

Political power, be it democratic or autocratic, is dependent on domestic political support, be that needed support of the voters or the security apparatus. Foreign policy is to serve those goals, just like defense policy or energy police etc.

for example that US foreign policy remains extremely consistent throughout wildly different administrations. — boethius

So does every policy in the US that enjoys the support of both political parties. For example, just where the US spends it's government income has been extremely stable without not much differences between administrations: wealth transfers (welfare and pensions), health care, defense and education (and then the interest on debt). In fact, there isn't anything for politicians to decide as the usually these spending has been announced to be mandatory. What has approval of both parties, doesn't create much debate, as foreign policy does, especially when it's usually the last refuge that US Presidents then try to mingle after their domestic campaign promises have withered away.

This is such a strange line of argument to assert that what people explicitly say, such as "Ukraine will join NATO" — boethius

Just look at the Charter of NATO itself: every country has to be ratified by each member state. For example Hungary has said that it doesn't want Ukraine in NATO. And prior the invasion, member states like Germany opposed this. This is why NATO has often irritates American Presidents as the organization won't go the way as they plan. The really ignorant and naive idea is that the US can push anything through NATO. It cannot. It couldn't do that either in CENTO and SEATO, as these are organizations made up of member states.

Yes, the members can say that Ukraine will be in the future a NATO member, just as the European Union can say that the door is open for Turkey to join the EU.

and there is a bunch of proximate causes, such as there already being a war in the Donbas regularly killing ethnic Russians that ethnic Russians in Russia want and expect something to be done about it. — boethius

This was a war started by the Russian Intelligence services with and controlled by the Kremlin. Even the annexation of Crimea, which The real goal for Russia is to get Ukraine back into Russia as it sees the country as a natural part of Russia, Novorossiya. And with Ukraine it has the what it considers much needed resources. The main objectives are pure imperialism, because Russia is an empire.

But isn't the whole argument that the war is irrational for Russia premised on Russia being weak and the war therefore too damaging? — boethius

Just ask yourself, what if Russia wouldn't have annexed Crimea, which doesn't bring enormous riches to Russia, but more problematic backward economy. If it hadn't done this, the European countries would have continued to dismantle their defenses, Russia would enjoy large support in Ukraine (and hence have a say) and Ukrainian NATO membership would be one silly thing that some US presidents would have said. Ukraine would seem quite dubious candidate with it's frequent revolutions etc.

Just look at what happened in Central Asia. After 9/11, American had several military bases all around Central Asia, even with Tajikistan holding both an American and a Russian military base. Now...NOTHING. Russia had just to wait for the neocon dream to implode, which it did. Now Russia has a firm grasp on the area, even with countries needing Russia help to put down their demonstrations... without invading anybody.

in defending the idea that NATO in Ukraine is not a threat to Russia your methodology is that nothing anyone explicitly says matter, but then when it comes to Russia threatening Europe you beseech us to take every little word as seriously as possible and also "know what they mean" even if they didn't say anything. — boethius

Russia has nuclear deterrence. Without that nuclear deterrence, it's likely that NATO would have created a "no fly zone" over Ukraine and been one actor in the war, just like it was for example in the Libyan Civil War.

And isn't then also the European Union is also a "threat to Russia"? As we can see from Ukraine and where the revolution of dignity started and now are seeing in Georgia, where the Georgian dream as backtracked it's election promises.

But isn't the whole argument that the war is irrational for Russia premised on Russia being weak and the war therefore too damaging? How does that square with symultaniously presenting Russia as this unstoppable force that would roll over all of Eastern Europe, and maybe even Western Europe, if not for NATO and also stopping this unstoppable Russian army with the unmovable might of NATO in Ukraine? — boethius

I'm really confused what you are aiming here for. First, NATO is a security arrangement for Europe and an obvious issue is actually Article 1, that it keeps member states in not having conflicts themselves. NATO membership has at least for now made Turkey and Greece to avoid a war. Then NATO was wholeheartedly seeking for a mission and thus concentrated on "new threats", but Russia's actions has made it to focus in it's original mission, which in the 1990's and 2000's was a relic of the past for many.

For, you will not actually find any of this threatening language before NATO escalated with Russia in pushing into Ukraine ... — boethius

That simply is a lie.

Just against my country, Russia made threats far before this, basically starting from the 1990's, first by Russian generals and Russian politicians. First hybrid attacks of sending migrants of the border into Finland and Norway happened in 2015-2016. The real breach already happened during the Kosovo war. There Russian forces faced British NATO forces and the rhetoric from Yeltsin was already very aggressive. That was before Putin. And of course there's the famous Putin at Munich in 2007 well before the Russo-Georgian war.

Moral relativism and cultural relativism aren't synonyms.

I think you are talking more about moral relativism than cultural relativism.

I don't think there's anything essentially wrong with Mearsheimer's analysis as it paints the one-sided viewpoint of Russia — Benkei

Well, I do.

The criticism is the one-sidedness of Mearsheimer's theory. He doesn't, and he has admitted himself, look at the situation from the Russian domestic political viewpoint. This is the theoretical flaw here. Domestic politics is absolutely essentially in every country: it drives foreign policy in every country. Then there is the idea that this, starting a huge conventional invasion, was a rational decision by Putin to thwart NATO enlargement. Yet the action lead to Finland and Sweden joining NATO, the NATO countries increase their spending and NATO getting back to the role that it had during the Cold War. It doesn't make any sense. Especially when just having large scale exercises would have made Ukrainian NATO membership as impossible as EU membership of Turkiye. (But as NATO follows it's charter, it could never say this out loud.) Hence the war cannot be explained only by NATO enlargement, which is now done by those willing to go with Putin's line. And that "only" changes a lot in the actual picture. Yet it make sense if Putin wanted Ukraine irrelevant of NATO.

It's accurate insofar it reflects Russian arguments and thinking and you can think about it what you want but it has been raised repeatedly as a reason. — Benkei

Yet it doesn't reflect accurately EVERYTHING. Yes, Putin says that he is in a war with NATO. So basically he is saying that Russia is also in war with your country, Benkei, and with my country. And I've been the first one here to remind even before the annexation of Crimea, the in the official military doctrine of Russia the first threat was NATO enlargement, when international terrorism (read Al Qaeda) was threat number 14 or so. Yet if you just repeat the Mearsheimer line, the logical system would be not to enlarge NATO or even get rid of NATO. But that wouldn't stop Russia! In fact that would simply make them be even more aggressive. If you think that's just a hypothetical, that also Russia could be totally passive and nice neighbor, that isn't the case when people like Putin run the country. You simply have to listen to what they really say, not just look at the US and the West and think that everything that other people do is just a response to your own actions. It isn't that way. That's the whole point here.

The argument NATO is purely defensive is merely theoretical as Kosovo and Libya have shown but even the treaty changes with respect to, for instance, space warfare. — Benkei

Hold on,
You are missing the biggest one, Afghanistan. Article 5 was actually used in the assistance to the US after 9/11. But this is actually the new NATO as intended[/b], and these were the kinds of operations that NATO intended to do BECAUSE there was no Russian threat. The territorial defense -idea of the Cold War was something antiquated and thrown to the dustbin! Best example of this was that there were no exercises in the Baltic States when the Baltic States got into NATO, not even operational plans to defend them, as that was too aggressive for the new NATO. Because Russia wasn't a threat. Hence when Trump says that NATO is antiquated and respond to new threats, he's repeating the OLD line of post-Cold War NATO.

Does Russia have a right to empire? No, but then no country does. Yet there were empires and there are empires; through military, economic or even cultural influence. Russia has the de facto power to project power in the near abroad as do other large powers (notably the US and China). — Benkei

Russia is an empire.

It acts like an empire and does what it does because it is one. It is inherently imperialistic, irrelevant of NATO enlargement or not. It's not a nation state. The idea of nation state is a threat to it. If part like Poland, Finland and the Baltic States flew out of it, how about the Checnya or Tatarstan? Are they Russia? What would be actual Russia? St Petersburgh and Moscow and surrounding areas? This is the fear that Putin bases his power grab on. You cannot have democracy while that could lead to parts of even the present Russia opting for secession.

Could it be democratic and not totalitarian? Austro-Hungary wasn't a totalitarian, but to be an Empire with truly a multicultural population is difficult.

After all, nobody gives a shit about the strategic relevance of the Netherlands for a reason! — Benkei

Really? I beg to disagree. You are in the heart of Europe. You have the largest port in Europe, which also is the largest one outside Asia. Paris is just 280 km from your border. You are next to the Ruhr region of Germany. An ordinary artillery missile fired from the Netherlands can hit London (just like V2 rockets did in WW2 that were first launched to London from the Hague). You have a lot of strategic relevance!!! It just isn't contested, but you are one of those central countries to any Western alliance.

Some of the responses to Harris' video reflect a moral view of international relations, which simply doesn't mean much in a world where international relations are preponderantly governed by real politk considerations. - The problem with the moral argument is also that it only works if you adhere to moral principles yourself; otherwise it's just another real politik tool "Do as I say (but don't do as I do)". — Benkei

Why oppose having morality in international relations? Aren't there morals that we all should adhere to? Or is everything just realpolitik, shit just happens? Well, what Israel is doing in Gaza is realpolitik too, so why do you anything to complain about that? Or is it that we pick what is realpolitik and what is morally wrong just because of our own likings? I think that's close to the argument that @BitconnectCarlos hurls at others on a constant basis.

I think countries should aspire to have sound moral foreign policies. It's a fairly decent objective and in the confines of even larger countries and a possibility to reach at least with functioning democracies. Will they reach that objective? Not always, but still it's an effort that ought to be made.

And while I agree Eastern European countries have the moral high ground; they are simply not the most relevant players between the proxy wars. — Benkei

Again I have to disagree with you.

The defense that Ukrainians have put up against Russia is the most relevant issue here and the Ukrainians are more relevant here than the aid the West has given. It is very telling here that NOBODY actually believed in Ukraine...except the Ukrainians. What I read was that Ukraine could possibly make a good insurgency battle against the Russian tide, but not stop it in it's tracks in an conventional war. That the US offered Zelensky to flee from Ukraine is very telling how "the most relevant player" thought things would go. Because these European countries don't matter. We Finns know this line. Should we too have been so reasonable as the Baltic States were in 1939? Or behave like Denmark in 1940, put up a discreet but not costly defense of six hours before surrender? After all, Ukrainians could have opted for the stance that the Czechs did in 1968: go to protest against the Russian tanks in the streets of their Capital, but otherwise lay down their arms. And then we would have been like, "Oh, too bad! But what could they have done against the Russian juggernaut?".

It is very fruitful as it doesn't give space to zealots where their arguments are prima facie engaged as if they are rational, reasonable or acceptable when in fact they have no argument. — Benkei

So better leave these "no sound arguments" unchallenged in a Philosophy Forum? Not everyone is a troll and I think trolls do get banned rather quickly.

Especially during the incoming Trump era, this engagement is necessary. The debate can get even more crazy and people will usually just stay in their camps. Yet not everything is disinformation and not everybody is a troll. I remember this during the War on Terror -era. Many came to the forum to defend Bush, and they were sincere in their views. Open discussion about were there actually WMD program in Iraq was useful. I find it good that you then pointed out the errors and didn't go with the crowd. And so it will be now.

Perfect example is the "NATO made Putin to do it"-argument that is typically rationalized by John Mearsheimer's views. Our current President Alexander Stubb, far before he was asked to be a candidate for the Presidency (which he won) was working as a professor in Italy and engaged in John Mearsheimers idea in a good academic way. This is interesting as now this man is in charge of Finnish foreign policy and hence wouldn't speak so openly or discuss Mearsheimer:



This kind of response is beneficial and informational. Stubb doesn't make ad hominem attacks on Mearsheimer. Yet it's important to discuss issues like this. Just last week, A popular Youtuber Johnny Harris put out a video seeking to tell "the other side"-view of the war in Ukraine and hence reurgitating the "NATO made Putin to do it" argument with interviews of a Pro-Russian academic. The video got such a devastating response that in one day he put it down and happily acknowledged his mistakes (see here).

There is the argument that one should not engage in disinformation, that engagement only then promotes the false idea. Perhaps with nonsense like Flat-Earth argument this works, but when people on this forum really think that there's something to it, it's not just disinformation, then the engagement is worth it. Especially Israel is an issue that is close to heart to many people, just as the Palestinian question is to others.

(moved this to the Ukraine thread - seems that threads are getting a bit mixed!)

Cultural relativism is the view that objective goods are relative to social norms and values; and this line of thinking does usually cause anti-nationalist ideologies. — Bob Ross

I'm not so sure about this, I think here @flannel jesus is correct. Being critical about your own nation, it's democratic system isn't cultural relativism. It doesn't lead to cultural relativism or that cultural relativism would lead to self criticism. Self criticism can lead to anti-nationalism, if the society has believed in itself and it's values. Self criticism can lead to improving yourself, which is good, but it also can lead to self hatred and apathy.

moved to Ukraine thread.

Well, you could say I'm banging my head against a wall when discussing Ukraine with Tzeentch, but I think discussion is important. Especially with people with whom you disagree with. This way I can educate myself better of the reality and understand things far more better when I respond to arguments. Yes, it can get the thread to be put into "The Lounge" section. But now I've had to educate myself on what a genocide means and what actually Netanyahu was charged by the ICC. Thanks to Bitty, I guess.

Yet if I remember correctly, you even read through Ayn Rand, even if you knew what stupidities it would be. And it was indeed it. But since you know actually what Ayn Rand wrote, then you can better respond to someone who finds Rand's "objectivism" a great idea. Yet these people can indeed be sincere in their thoughts and be excited about libertarianism. A condescending attitude or the view "Why bother to respond?" simply isn't fruitful to anybody.

If a philosophy forum doesn't debate the hard problems of our time and sees no value in discussion about them, what does that tell of us ourselves?

The rout wasn't particularly different in kind from that the ANA suffered without US support, and that was also in a context where a stalemate had held by agreement with lower levels of conflict for a long period. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Exactly.

In many of these conflicts in countries that lack social cohesion and strong institutions, something like a collective "defending your country" won't happen. Why would put your life to danger for someone like Assad and his gangster family? Yet then there's the obvious question, do you think you can survive? Is your side capable of beating the opponent? Militaries are part of the society and they mirror the strengths and the weaknesses and also the structural problems of the society.

Above all, these armed forces don't embrace individual ability and soldiers and officers taking the initiative when it's needed, but simply total loyality and obedience to those in power. Promotions aren't based on merit, but on connections and loyalty. This all creates an atmosphere where people simply lie. The underlying reason for the crippling inefficiency that the armed forces itself pose a threat to power as totalitarian systems can easily be overthrown in a military coup or a palace coup. You can simply bribe officers commanding units or tribes to lay down their arms. Or as HTS did, simply tell that those who lay down their arms won't be killed.

What should also be noted is just how these issues can be changed. The performance of Hezbollah in the 2006 Lebanon war was telling: Hezbollah could act in small teams with the NCO-level using initiative. (That war didn't go so well for Israel, hence the IDF and Israeli Intelligence went back to think what went wrong and how to engage Hezbollah the next time.) Yet the best example of this is the Ukrainian armed forces or 2014 and the Ukrainian armed forces of 2022. In 2014 the admiral of the Ukrainian navy simply changed his job for a position in the Russian navy. That should tell all: not just surrender, but willing to join the ranks of the attacker. And this among other stuff then lead Putin to believe that the Ukrainian armed forces would be a house of cards as it had been in 2014, especially with the intel he was served was the ass-licking that dictators get when the want something. With the intel Putin had in 2022, a Blitzkrieg like taking Czechoslovakia was the benchmark for success of a "special military operation". Hence obviously armed forces, just like societies, can change.

But wait. The population of India and China is ~4x — BitconnectCarlos

Indeed. But for you 41 000 - 45 000 killed is a reason that it's not a genocide? Yes, it indeed isn't 100 000 or 400 000. Or at similar level that Bashar al-Assad's tyrannical regime killed. But just look up the definitions given, which can be read from the thread.

The point here is that Israel is considered to be part of the West. Not a place like Iraq, Syria or Egypt. Hence the criticism. But perhaps we ought to see the country as simply being part of the Levant, an Asian country that hasn't much to do with Western democracies.

Did Bibi specifically state he wished to destroy all Palestinians? I know of no such genocidal intent. — BitconnectCarlos

Oh that would be the evidence? Again, look up the definition. The public speeches after the attack give ample evidence of this, which btw have already been discussed in this thread.

For example, just read what the ICC found to be the reasons for the warrant for Netanyahu and Gallant:

The Chamber found that the alleged conduct of Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant concerned the activities of Israeli government bodies and the armed forces against the civilian population in Palestine, more specifically civilians in Gaza. It therefore concerned the relationship between two parties to an international armed conflict, as well as the relationship between an occupying power and the population in occupied territory. For these reasons, with regards to war crimes, the Chamber found it appropriate to issue the arrest warrants pursuant to the law of international armed conflict. The Chamber also found that the alleged crimes against humanity were part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population of Gaza.

The Chamber considered that there are reasonable grounds to believe that both individuals intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival, including food, water, and medicine and medical supplies, as well as fuel and electricity, from at least 8 October 2023 to 20 May 2024. This finding is based on the role of Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant in impeding humanitarian aid in violation of international humanitarian law and their failure to facilitate relief by all means at its disposal. The Chamber found that their conduct led to the disruption of the ability of humanitarian organisations to provide food and other essential goods to the population in need in Gaza. The aforementioned restrictions together with cutting off electricity and reducing fuel supply also had a severe impact on the availability of water in Gaza and the ability of hospitals to provide medical care.

The Chamber also noted that decisions allowing or increasing humanitarian assistance into Gaza were often conditional. They were not made to fulfil Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law or to ensure that the civilian population in Gaza would be adequately supplied with goods in need. In fact, they were a response to the pressure of the international community or requests by the United States of America. In any event, the increases in humanitarian assistance were not sufficient to improve the population’s access to essential goods.

Furthermore, the Chamber found reasonable grounds to believe that no clear military need or other justification under international humanitarian law could be identified for the restrictions placed on access for humanitarian relief operations. Despite warnings and appeals made by, inter alia, the UN Security Council, UN Secretary General, States, and governmental and civil society organisations about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, only minimal humanitarian assistance was authorised. In this regard, the Chamber considered the prolonged period of deprivation and Mr Netanyahu’s statement connecting the halt in the essential goods and humanitarian aid with the goals of war.

The Chamber therefore found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant bear criminal responsibility for the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare.

The Chamber found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the lack of food, water, electricity and fuel, and specific medical supplies, created conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of part of the civilian population in Gaza, which resulted in the death of civilians, including children due to malnutrition and dehydration. On the basis of material presented by the Prosecution covering the period until 20 May 2024, the Chamber could not determine that all elements of the crime against humanity of extermination were met. However, the Chamber did find that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the crime against humanity of murder was committed in relation to these victims.

In addition, by intentionally limiting or preventing medical supplies and medicine from getting into Gaza, in particular anaesthetics and anaesthesia machines, the two individuals are also responsible for inflicting great suffering by means of inhumane acts on persons in need of treatment. Doctors were forced to operate on wounded persons and carry out amputations, including on children, without anaesthetics, and/or were forced to use inadequate and unsafe means to sedate patients, causing these persons extreme pain and suffering. This amounts to the crime against humanity of other inhumane acts.

The Chamber also found reasonable grounds to believe that the abovementioned conduct deprived a significant portion of the civilian population in Gaza of their fundamental rights, including the rights to life and health, and that the population was targeted based on political and/or national grounds. It therefore found that the crime against humanity of persecution was committed.

Finally, the Chamber assessed that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Gallant bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population of Gaza. In this regard, the Chamber found that the material provided by the Prosecution only allowed it to make findings on two incidents that qualified as attacks that were intentionally directed against civilians. Reasonable grounds to believe exist that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant, despite having measures available to them to prevent or repress the commission of crimes or ensure the submittal of the matter to the competent authorities, failed to do so.

Israel ethnically cleansed Gaza in 2005 of all Israeli presence. — BitconnectCarlos

Just like in the case of Sinai earlier, withdrawing settlers from newly established settlements isn't the same thing. And these people live in Israel, they weren't deported somewhere else and aren't refugees outside Israel.

In the seven years between 1978 and 1985, 11,500 acres of land were confiscated by the Israeli government for the establishment of settlements. By 1991, the settler population in Gaza would reach 3,500 and 4,000 by 1993, or less than 1% of Gaza's population.

And these were evacuated into Israel. Not like there was a large Jewish population living in Egyptian controlled Gaza prior the Six Day War.

I think you're right. I'll add this about the majority of Republicans in Congress: they embraced Trump in order to enhance their own power (better a Republican President than a Democratic one). The question is: how far will they bend toward Trump's will, in order to effect the policies THEY hope for. — Relativist

With the Republicans, the fear of Trump is actually a fear about the MAGA crowd and the voters in the next election. How will that go if inflation picks up and the economy goes south? This might alienate especially the part of the voters who voted for a better economy, but aren't in the MAGA cult.

We've learnt from the UK experience of Brexit that just like the Brexiteers were in denial about the negative consequences of the Brexit deal, likely so will be the MAGA crowd if the economy tanks thanks to Trump's actions. First of all, the economy is so complex and understanding of economics so little, that obvious reasons can be hidden from plain sight. Just think of the huge transfer of cash to the population during Covid and then the obvious effect of inflation next year. People still say that the reason was Ukraine war and everything else than money transfers to the public. Deportations and trade wars won't have an instant effect (assuming Wall Street doesn't panic), they economic effects take half a year to a year to be seen and then the public discourse has moved on.

Then there's inherent complex problems in this situation. And here issue like the oil fields. With oil fields now controlled by the SDF is something that Turkey (Turkiye) won't like. If the US withdraws totally from Syria and loses interest, there's a big potential danger that basically Erdogan goes after the Kurds in Syria as Netanyahu went after Hezbollah in Lebanon and the rest of Syria being bystanders, just like the Lebanese Army is in the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict.

The US-backed SDF controls a quarter of Syrian territory, including the resource-rich area east of the Euphrates, which holds 90% of Syria's oil and more than half of its natural gas fields, as well as infrastructure owned by foreign companies through contracts signed with Damascus.

The SDF's pumping and production of the oil is illegal and contrary to international sanctions but nevertheless continues, with ordinary Syrians yet to benefit.

Because of the sanctions, this oil cannot be sold on international markets so is sold on the black market at a fraction of its real value, reported to be around $15 per barrel.

On 15 August 2023, officials from the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (the political wing of the SDF) claimed they controlled less than half the wells and fields in its areas of influence.

* * *

The natality rate for Palestine is 24 births per 1000 population. If Gaza has 2 million people, then if I can count right, there should be about 48 000 children born every year. Estimates of those that have been killed in Gaza is something like 41 000 - 45 000 now. That would be in the US perspective like 7,4 million Americans having been killed. Yet by your argumentation, 7,4 million killed Americans wouldn't be a genocide, if the population through immigration and population growth would counter this! Well, your "open" southern border isn't giving you so many new immigrants and Americans aren't having as many babies as Palestinians, the US population growth is just 0,5%.

But think of the happy side to this. When Trump kicks out every 33rd person living in the US, your population count will actually decrease! :grin:

And please learn the actual definition of a genocide. For example what Azerbaijan did in Nagorno-Karabakh can be viewed as a genocide, because ethnic cleansing (without killing) is still considered a genocidal act. Yet unlike Bibi's administration, they publicly denied of any such intent.

Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements:

1) A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; and

2) A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:
a) Killing members of the group
b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

Time to leave Artsakh! Genocides can happen this way too.

ssu What's the likelihood the buffer zone they just took in Syria won't be all that temporary? — Benkei

Sigh.

That's the real problem here. First it's a security zone. Intended to create a distance between the now annexed Golan Heights and possible mortars and small rockets fired from Syria (hypothetical that is, because nobody has been shelling Israel from Syria proper). Perhaps then the crazy fanatics in Bibi's administration will have dreams of enlarging the Golan Heights to have new settlements. But before that, it's going similar to Lebanon south of the Litani river, a low intensity conflict with some brief eruptions here and then. A "cease fire" here is something that there are only some, perhaps under ten, occasions or strikes or artillery firings.

The heavy handed and violent response of the IDF will create firefights and a tit-for-tat low level conflict will prevail, because those IDF forces surely won't act (as never have acted) with rules of engagement like the US armed forces does in the area. The IDF rules of engagement are very low on using deadly force. Israeli tanks firing on UN bases shows this attitude. Now IDF is trying to destroy that few remnants of Syrian military, like going after the navy, also shows that there's no trust here.

And this is a basic worry with Syria. Syrians left alone (like Trump said) could really win the peace, but too many actors can be totally satisfied if Syria is the next Lebanon: a country that you can bomb, put your own or proxy troops into and play the great Middle Eastern game. We have to remember that Syria itself occupied for some time Lebanon, so the Syrians weren't innocent in this either. It might not be just Israel, but Turkey and Erdogan might also be happy to have the ability to attack the kurds in Syria an have a proxy army inside the country.

This is the real threat, not the whimsical idea that ISIS will take over Syria or that the Syrians would want to spread Jihad be sponsors of terrorism. For the real ISIS, the HTS are already apostates, that have to be fought.

I'm not saying that they may have stopped this eventual outcome, but rather I'm questioning why it crumbled like a crouton, which is ahistorical - armies don't just evaporate under normal wartime circumstances. — Tzeentch

No. This is quite historical. When there is nobody willing to fight for something, then the whole thing simply comes down. Armies can simply unravel and the soldiers just walk away. It has happened many times in history.

It can happen to whole states even without a war. This happened with the Soviet Union. People simply didn't believe in it. It's people like Putin that have to see a culprit behind this.

And this is something that the so-called "realists" are so surprised to see when authoritarian tyrannical regimes falter. The regimes looked to be so in control just moments earlier.

we must ask ourselves: What do we gain by celebrating violence? What message do we keep in our minds and in those of our descendants? — Alonsoaceves

Do we really celebrate violence?

Usually we remember those that have perished wars, which makes the remembrance not a happy celebration anniversary in the typical way. Dying in wars is seen as an unnatural death by everybody. It is seen as a sacrifice or a tragedy when you have had to suffer a war. The message in the remembrance many times is "never forget". Above all, people who have seen war aren't so enthusiastic about it. I've never met a veteran that would be happy about war, that would celebrate the violence. On the contrary. So it's curious that you see this as being celebratory. Not everything we remember has to be happy and positive.

However, the continued reminder of violent dates and events only makes it more likely that violent events will occur in the future. — Alonsoaceves

Many times it is said to be the contrary. We can make the same mistakes of the past when we have forgotten that we made them earlier.

.

Some suggestions for days to celebrate with harmonious intention are: Humanity Day, Inclusive Society Day, Scientific Discoveries Day, Technological Advances Day, World Peace Day, Hunger Eradication Day, and Equal Opportunities Day.

What else do you suggest? — Alonsoaceves

The sad truth is that new celebrations are at the present are advanced by commercial interests and by consumption. A day that you have to BUY something, hopefully for others as a gift. Or then a day that you can have a party! Again something that has a commercial interest in it. I've noticed that this has happened especially with American holidays being pushed into the European scene. There's little of the collective celebration, other than celebrating with your family and friends. Or then a formal celebration of something is just a holiday that you don't have to go to work or to school. Which is fine, but do people really celebrate the celebration on those particular days? Usually not.

And the types of examples you give, well, there are many similar to them, not just peace day as @Tom Storm mentioned. But usually there's not much that makes them a celebration. With "Scientific Discoveries Day" or "Technological Advances Day" you might have museums open, but these kind of celebrations would clearly raise opposition from those who don't see the issues as overtly positive. Do we now have to celebrate Elon Musk and the other tech gurus that are insanely rich? Aren't tech and science worshiped enough already? Who would be doing the celebrating? Big multinational companies? Ivy League universities? So something that might seem for the people purposing a new celebration positive might seem for others as negative.

Not to be a downer, but simply having new positive celebrations is difficult. Usually the best way is something that comes up from bottom up, not something that those in power decide us to celebrate.

Unlike you portray it, both politicians and the media are extremely heedful as what comes of the HTS. One is what you say, other what you do. HTS have to show their real colors by the actions they take. This is totally obvious. Didn't take long for the Taleban to show their real colours. But still, they aren't attacking the US (as they didn't attack the US on 9/11 anyway).

Alse we also shouldn't forget that the genocidal regime that was the Assad regime, which killed hundreds of thousands of people, justified it's genocide by saying it was "fighting against the islamists". The Assad regime captured the Alawites and other minorities by similar narrative. Also Ghaddafi portrayed every opponent of his to be part of the Al Qaeda. And seems you are promoting this view. Well, we will see what happens in the future. Yes, everything can indeed can go to hell in a handbasket.

Yet I see no reason to promote dictators like Ghaddafi and Assad to save us (or the US) from the ghost of Osama bin Laden.

* * *

This whole thing btw will be a real pain in the ass for Tulsi Gabbard, the former democrat now turned a Trumpist, as she faces congressional hearings. The problem is that she just loved, or so much understood, president Bashar al-Assad as a so-called "realist".





The thinking of Tulsi Gabbard is the reason why the US loses wars and why this thinking leads to self defeat. And thus every Putinist will promote Gabbard. Now I don't think she is taking money from the Russians (even if that might be a possibility). Likely it's just the fact that when you are against your own country (meaning that you are overtly critical about anything your country does), then you will talk the same narrative as the enemies of your country. When everything happens because of the evil doing of the US, you will repeat the narrative of Russia, North Korea and Iran. And actually of Assad's former Syria.

When listening to Tulsi, she is the best thing ever that could happen to Putin, especially if she will lead the US intelligence community.

Also Talibans when they came back in power talked about peaceful relations with other countries , women's permissions to work and study "within the framework of Islam", granted a general amnesty, etc. — neomac

Indeed they did. And indeed they also showed very quickly there own side. But in Afghanistan, there was just one actor that took power. Also, notice how any military opposition to the Taleban fizzled out in a few days. The sheer number of actors, of foreign forces now in the country (including IDF that just enlarged it's zone from the Golan Heights) makes this all very difficult.

At least for now, there are some promising signs, for example how HTS has dealt with religious minorities in the places they have controlled. The interview with the bishop of Aleppo is telling.



It was the Assad regime that basically had the narrative that they are protecting the minority from the Jihadists. And even if HTS will keep to it's promise of not being a monster like Al Qaeda or ISIS, it may be that women will feel the sharia law quite quickly. Even if now they seem to celebrate the passing of Assad regime. Still, let's not forget that the vast majority of all the deaths in this Civil War have been perpetrated by the Assad regime.



Best thing would be: If there's no news from Syria. That's usually a sign that things actually would be positive. Time will tell.

This is just the umpteenth attempt at disqualifying opinions that disagree with your own by accusing others of partisanship. — Tzeentch

I'll just say it again:

Yet I think that unlike mr Mercouris claims, I think that Russia has indeed been involved in Syrian politics and has supported extensively the Assad regime right to the collapse. :snicker:

It's just whimsical to say that a guy that has now since the start of the war said how Ukraine is collapsing and how victorious the Russians are would be something other than a shill.

But please inform us when the guy has criticized Putin. Does he criticize Putin for attacking Ukraine? Or for assisting one of the most bloodiest tyrants in Syria? We are now seeing what the reality of the Assad regime was.


https://www.aljazeera.com/program/newsfeed/2024/12/8/video-detainees-released-from-notorious-syrian-prisons

This above is what Putin defended until it collapsed. And now Putin gives safety to this mass murderer.

The immediate jump to accusations of partisanship again? I really don't understand what has gotten into you. — Tzeentch

Well, he said that

And just look at the guys videos! Positive commentary on Russia, Russia and Russia. This guy is really a spokesman for Putin's Russia. Just look at his videos. Always positive on everything that Russia does, never even the faintest criticism of Putin.

Here are wonderful picks from this Putinist to prove this:

First he, of course, attacks Navalny on many videos, just like this one:

Navalny, the fraud, was "allegedly" poisoned and so on...

This one is great: Invasion Hoax Disintegrates as Scholz Meets Putin, Russia Winds Up Belarus/Crimea Drills

"A warscare based on Nothing!" comments Alexander the Putinist.

Alexanders take on then when Russia attacked: "The fault is the West!" Then blames Ukraine for antagonizing Russia. And comments that now Russia will overrun Ukraine!


And then his commentary on the war in Ukraine. Huge losses for Ukraine! Russia makes huge advances! Does this commentator discuss military failures or Russia when they happen? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Just looking at the bullshit commentary he gives, it's obvious that this is a Putin shill parroting the line that Kremlin wants him to speak of. So I'm not jumping to accusation, see for yourself.

Alexander Mercouris goes deep into the subject in his latest update. — Tzeentch

Thanks for the Pro-Kremlin Putinist line. :wink: :up:
(No seriously, naturally the Russian line here is interesting.)

Yet I think that unlike mr Mercouris claims, I think that Russia has indeed been involved in Syrian politics and has supported extensively the Assad regime right to the collapse. :snicker:

(I think with claims like that everybody ought to understand to what camp mr Mercouris belongs to.)

The obvious question to ask is how a regime that withstood years of heavy western pressure suddenly crumbles like a crouton, because that already fails the common sense test. — Tzeentch

If an army doesn't have the will to fight, then it will collapse. Totalitarian dictatorships fall in the end rather quickly once people understand it's over. Who would stand up for family that has clinged on power ruthlessly and extremely violently, milked the country like a mob family, and then flees to Moscow with it's millions? Once the panic sets in, when the officers suddenly change into civilians clothes and flee, do you think the soldiers will continue the fight to the death? Nope.

Above all, the Syrian army wasn't good from the start as it inherently was weakened by the Assad dictatorship itself:

“The Syrian army has never been very good – it ruled by fear and terror, bolstered and backed up by Russians since 2015 who provided firepower and direction. Most of the officers were selected because they were close to Assad,” said Hamish de Bretton Gordon, a retired British army colonel and a chemical weapons adviser to NGOs working in Syria and Iraq.

“The commanders… are more focused on smuggling and extortion than on actually creating defensive positions and leading their troops,” said Greg Waters, of the Middle East Institute.

The army has largely avoided heavy combat since a ceasefire was struck with the rebels in 2020 at the start of the pandemic.

This was a huge humiliation for Russia. Putin really messed up with this one. Something like the collapse of Afghanistan was for the US. The parallels are obvious with the exception that Putin never gave a stab in the back to Syria as Trump did with the Doha agreement with the Taleban to the Afghan Republic. In the end, the Russian Air Force was the last one to fight for the Assad regime (that mr Mercouris got right).

Self-determination is something that some nations seem to appreciate differently. — Alonsoaceves

If we really believed in what the UN stands for, and didn't treat it like rubbish.

If country or a region collapses in a way that it cannot take care of it's borders, doesn't have a functioning goverment and the internal strife leads to violence, otherwise quite friendly neighbors and Great powers seem to become these vultures circling around.

To say that this just because people in the Middle East are so, we should notice how actually universal this is.

Just to take an example I know, when my country, Finland, became independent after the collapse of the Russian Empire: a) Sweden occupied for a brief moment the Åland Islands (only to pushed away by Imperial Germany), b) There were both French and British troops in Finland (a few, but still), c) Finnish volunteer forces tried to stir up secession also in Eastern Karelia, d) Finnish volunteers fought in Estonia for Estonian independence.

When the Soviet Union collapsed and when the Baltic States gained their independence again, Finnish volunteer reservist when to train the new Estonian army while there still were Soviet troops in Estonia. Even a former head of the Finnish Military Academy (an institution that trains all Finnish officers) went to train the new Estonian military. When he asked the government would this be OK, he got a very Finnish answer: "Of course we cannot say anything in public, but it's great that you go!". Now this just shows that once a country is destabilized even in Europe, but then on the other hand, just think of war of Independence of the US. Notice that there was the French intervention into what basically was a British colonial war. And later you had a continuation of the conflict in 1812, which didn't go so great.

Now when 50 years of Assad family rule is over, the internal strife can continue continue as the country is already in pieces. Also in the case of Syria, the neighboring countries of Syria do have legitimate concerns for the country. Lebanon has a million refugees, Jordan has also and Turkey has about three million Syrian refugees. Then the country is engaged in a long insurgency with it's Kurdish population, which we have views about, which obviously has an effect on this equation as large parts of Syria are now controlled by the Kurds.

I doubt that. — neomac

Firstly,

1) They showed cooperation. That's a big issue.
2) At least what I've noticed, there hasn't been atrocities against minorities done in the liberated cities.
3) At least the leadership clearly is speaking the correct terms in a way that he's at least had thought what the future would be. Worth to watch, look at the surprising CNN interview of HTS leader, Abu Mohammad al-Jolani:



There's an obvious difference in the message that Al Qaeda and ISIS are saying...

What they say doesn't matter so much as what they do. In fact in Joe Biden's answer it's clear that the US is also waiting what will happen. Is there a hand over of power? Is there a coalition formed? Do the groups refrain from fighting each other now? Are there elections?

In fact, one of the more positive tweets from Trump on the issue:

Opposition fighters in Syria, in an unprecedented move, have totally taken over numerous cities, in a highly coordinated offensive, and are now on the outskirts of Damascus, obviously preparing to make a very big move toward taking out Assad. Russia, because they are so tied up in Ukraine, and with the loss there of over 600,000 soldiers, seems incapable of stopping this literal march through Syria, a country they have protected for years. This is where former President Obama refused to honor his commitment of protecting the RED LINE IN THE SAND, and all hell broke out, with Russia stepping in. But now they are, like possibly Assad himself, being forced out, and it may actually be the best thing that can happen to them. There was never much of a benefit in Syria for Russia, other than to make Obama look really stupid. In any event, Syria is a mess, but is not our friend, & THE UNITED STATES SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. THIS IS NOT OUR FIGHT. LET IT PLAY OUT. DO NOT GET INVOLVED!

Of course Tartus naval base (now empty) was very important for Russia, but if Trump does stay away, likely better.

Now, of course everything can go to hell in a hand basket. In the end they can go the way like Libya or Sudan, but then again, it doesn't have to be so bad. Sometimes it's good to be a bit of an optimist.

(and btw there's a thread for Syria... this is the Ukraine thread)


Perfect place for Assad, there with Putin. So nice that the Russian officials accepted the ex-dictator for "humanitarian reasons". :vomit:

or more signs that it's not only the US that is overstretching, but also Russia and Iran? — neomac

Or simply once when the insurgents clearly showed sings that they wouldn't be genocidal lunatics as ISIS was in wanting to create an international Caliphate, then those soldiers fighting for the dictatorship of the Assad family simply laid down their arms and took off their uniforms. Because the obvious reason why Alawites and Christians etc. would support the Assad regime was for the fear what the Sunni majority, lead by violent Sunni extremists, would do to them. That was the way the Assad family ruled. If there were no Syrians willing to fight for Assad, doesn't matter how much support Russia or Iran would give to them. The will to fight was lost.

A bit different situation in Ukraine.

Now as the Assad regime has fallen, the question of this thread is extremely important. It also shows how the US stance, which is still tied to 9/11 and the Bush era Global War on Terrorism, means that the US is totally out of the political scene. The victorious rebels, largest HTS group is on the US terror list and it's leader has a 10 million dollar bounty from the US. This is the ludicrous situation that the US is in. The Syrian rebels have ousted the largest ally of Iran, the sole ally of Russia in the region. And now...they should be against this, even if HTS tries to unify the country and wants a proper handover from the remains of the Assad regime and isn't wanting to create an Islamic Caliphate. Because of something that happened 23 years ago by a small cabal of terrorists that have nothing to do with Syria?

What countries are more important are Turkey, Iran, Israel and Saudi-Arabia. And naturally Russia, which still has troops in Syria. It seems how they handle this situation is crucial. The US is just a looker on the side.

The most ethical policy would be for all foreign powers to withdraw from Syria, to respect it's sovereignty, help it restore it's institutions and help in the reconstruction and not to support their own proxies as countries did in Libya. Libya is a case example WHAT NOT to do in this kind of situation. In Libya you have already seen nominal allies, NATO member states, supporting different sides. My real fear is that some outside actors will want the Syria to stay as a failed state, where they can have influence on a tiny area held by their proxies. The real question is, is the World capable of coming together with sound policies in this situation?

That Assad falls shows just how the US has totally failed in it's policy towards Syria. First Obama failed after drawing a red line in the sand which didn't mean anything as he hadn't consulted US allies first. Then trying to assist Syrian rebels was a total farce as the Americans, consistent of their GWOT objectives, seem to have feared far more those opposing Assad's regime than Assad himself. And then it has declared that it's only in Syria to fight the tiny remnants of ISIS.

Yet I think Americans don't even notice how adrift their policies in the Middle East are from if the only consistent and clear policy is defending Israel. If that's the only policy, then why and what are they thinking of doing in the larger area where everything isn't about Israel?

At such a happy time of an overthrow of a dictatorship, these question should be quickly answered and obvious pitfalls have to be avoided. Assad kept control of minorities like his on Alawite sect with the fear that they would face genocide if they wouldn't stand by him. It's the moment to show that it won't go that way. There exists a way to have proper justice: either in the legal system of Syria or then in institutions like the ICC.

Yes, the Syrian Army is collapsing and I presume Damascus will soon fall. What happens in the coastal area of Syria where you have the Alawite minority is the real question now.

Around 2,000 Syrian army soldiers crossed to Iraq on Saturday, Turki al-Mahlawi, the mayor of Al-Qaim border town, told Reuters on Saturday.

Earlier on Saturday, two Iraqi security sources told AFP said Iraq has allowed in hundreds of troops from the Syrian army, some of them wounded, amid a lightning offensive by armed opposition forces.

After half a million people have died in this civil war, I have no sympathy for the gangster family that has ruled Syria.

A lot of people are saying the Trump is first pushing the MAGA crazies first and thus to see who goes through, and only then gives other candidates. I disagree with this. First of all, in the second Trump administration will likely come and go just like in the first administration. They will want to implement the crazy stuff Trump has said he wants to do, then when they either fail or create a huge mess (like Liz Truss), then they have to go. This creates a revolving door. And Trump is Trump, he won't change.
The idea that Trump is playing some 4D Chess is only the wishful thinking of the Trump cult, just like is the idea of his other superb capabilities. A great populist orator he his, no doubt about that. But otherwise.

Just like Trump sees himself:


So with the trade wars and the deportations, it's going to be a Brexit-like experience for Americans.

According to Central Command these were show of force flights, which doesn't involve attacking anything. They could be lying, but those are very common. — Count Timothy von Icarus

At least on the video footage, you could hear the ominous and very distinctive sound of the GAU-8 gun going off. That's more than show of force.

I wonder if this gives Putin any pause as he continues to push low morale conscripts into frontal assault with civilian passenger cars and golf cart style ATVs. Things often break all at once. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well, the Russian people think of those going to the front as contract soldiers, as a volunteer force that has chosen the pay for the risk.

Yet also financial problems to mobilize troops has been a problem for Assad also. He has had to demobilize part of the Syrian Army as there simply hasn't been the ability to pay them. Even if Assad is now promising a 50% pay increase, this might be far too late.

It's also noticeable that the insurgents themselves haven't fought each other (Kurds vs Sunni Arabs).

From what I understand the current situation makes defending Damascus extremely difficult, so barring some major reversal Assad would have to flee to Alawite stronghold areas with more defensible geography and people actually motivated to resist. But it's hard to see how, given his failures, he would actually remain the leader of such an Alawite rump state. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Two credible commentators have given the line that Assad fucked up really badly in the international field, both Turkey and Saudi-Arabia were willing to talk to Assad, but Assad didn't budge. So they let the rebels loose. Hezbollah reeling from the fighting with Israel, and Putin fixated on Ukraine, Assad's friends don't seem to be coming for support. The rebranded "Al Qaeda-light", the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), is at least communicating the right things. They pledge that they won't kill Assad regime fighters if they surrender, they are talking about even dismantling them when this is over and then accepting that Syria is a multiethnic state. The strategy is basically mimicking the Taleban offensive.

The cacophony of Syria has to be that while the Russian air force is attecking the HST, then US aircraft are also operating in the country and attacking Iranian backed militias. So both Russia and the US are fighting in Syria, just like the statement from four days ago from CENTCOM shows:

(Dec 3rd) This morning, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) forces successfully destroyed several weapon systems in the vicinity of Military Support Site Euphrates that included three truck mounted Multiple Rocket Launchers, a T-64 tank, an armored personnel carrier, and mortars that presented a clear and imminent threat to U.S. and Coalition forces. The self-defense strike occurred after the truck mounted Multiple Rocket Launcher, armored personnel carrier, and mortars were fired toward U.S. forces.

The U.S. mission in Syria remains unchanged as U.S. and Coalition forces continue to focus on the enduring defeat of ISIS.

Referring to defeating ISIS is whimsical here, because the idea of ISIS going around with MLRs, tanks and ACPs is crazy, as the group has basically gone underground and holds tiny patches of territory in Syria. But hey, seems as for long the US is just "defeating ISIS", it's OK to have such a situation in the country. But this is putting proxy-warfare to the tip of the point where you cannot say it's just "proxy warfare". Yet so it has been since Trump's first administration.

American A-10s attacking ground target over Syria from a few days ago:

I take the voters seriously. This is no longer a country where belief in democracy prevails. — frank

At least South Koreans take democracy seriously:



(btw, not just a women as the caption says, Ahn Gwi-ryeong, the spokesperson for the main opposition party in South Korea)

Ah, yes, there's plenty to say about the continued carte blanche support and how our president, as representative of the Netherlands - the country hosting the ICC - is looking for possibilities of Netanyahu to visit the Netherlands without him getting arrested. — Benkei

:grin: The problems of the present day politicians.

Looks like at least one president is going to be impeached. And very quickly. After your own party is against you, not much to do then.

People Power Party (PPP) leader Han Dong-hoon, who had earlier said he would oppose efforts to impeach Yoon, said on Friday that “newly emerging facts” had tipped the scales against the president.

“I learned last night the president ordered the defence counter-intelligence commander to arrest major political leaders, characterising them as anti-state forces, and mobilised intelligence institutions in the process,” Han said.

“I have said that to prevent this country from descending into further chaos, I would try to stop the impeachment bill from passing this time,” he added.

“But based on what has been revealed, to protect South Korea and our people, I believe it is necessary to stop President Yoon from exercising his powers as president promptly.”

Even if this thread is 9 years old, I think it's now time to revive this and debate the thread started by @BC

The Assad regime is now collapsing. The Russians seem to be withdrawing and the Russian embassy stated that Russian citizen should think about leaving:

The Russian Embassy in Damascus has issued a reminder to Russian citizens about the “option to depart the country on commercial flights through functioning airports,” citing the “complex military-political situation in Syria.”

Hence the question that @BC stated in the OP will be very important, even if now in a different situation. Can a new Syria emerge or will it become even more failed state that it has been, something between Somalia and Libya, or worse? The backers of Assad, Russia and Iran, have had their problems elsewhere and Hezbollah isn't there to consider. Likely the next round of various states backing various groups will emerge to fight for power in Syria. But of course, things might also stabilize. The real fear is that many might be more happy to have Syria as a failed state.

But to the Assad regime and the Assad family, good riddance.

Patel won't be able to do jack shit by himself. He needs a cadre of Federal employees willing to do his bidding, particularly if investigations are initiated in the top-down fashion of William Barr.

That is where the proposal to end background checks by the Trump team kicks in. If one fills the ranks with people outside the meritocracy of working experience, then anybody can run any part of government. The last vestige of professional conduct will join the other extinct species. — Paine

FBI directors are given a ten year tenure for a reason: that they wouldn't be political appointees that are replaced as the administration changes. It's very telling here that @NOS4A2, for whom Kash Patel is a good pick, gives no reason why the present FBI director that Trump has appointed has to be fired.

If that doesn't matter, why then wait for supreme court judges to die, why not simply replace those who Trump doesn't like, who aren't loyal enough for Trump? Trump has already shown that he doesn't care a rats ass about the separation of powers in a democracy. At least the Trump team is totally transparent here: they want Kash Patel to be the FBI director that they can go after the opponents of Trump (including the media) and to have an FBI director that is totally loyal to POTUS Trump. This has been the already the real job of Kash Patel in the previous Trump administration. It was Kash Patel who tried to find the anonymous Trump official who wrote the famous "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration" article. Did Kash Patel find Miles Taylor, who wrote the piece? Of course not, but his loyal devotion of being an unwavering sycophant to Trump is now awarded.

And if Patel, author of Trump children books, get's the job, then there's the obvious "And then what"-question. Just think how the outsidersthat Kash Patel picks to do the work inside the FBI will be looked inside the bureau. Even the "Whizkids" of McNamara were likely seen in a more positive view by the military than the "Patelists" in the FBI creating havoc in the bureau, which is the sole intention in the end.

* * *

Lastly, Trump's second term will follow similar roads as the last year of Trump in the previous administration. By manning his administration place with sycophant loyalists, that not necessarily have other credentials than being loyal Trumpists, will simply fail. Basically the start of the Trump administration will be a combo of "Brexit" and "Trussonomics" with steroids.

Trying to deport every thirty third inhabitant from the US will create huge supply-chain problems, far more than just when UK decided to kick out few hundred thousand Polish immigrants. Then have at the same time trade wars with other countries. Then cut trillions from the Government budget, which likely means to go for Medicare and Medicaid and raising the pension age many years simply won't pass. There simply isn't trillions being wasted, only perhaps just some hundreds of millions wasted. Great to get that into order, but it won't mean anything in the bigger picture.

Great! Somebody understood me. :smile:

Suppose true randomness exists such that event 1 occurs without reason. — A Christian Philosophy

I wouldn't say this.

Randomness doesn't meant that there isn't any reason. Randomness simply means that there isn't any self repeating pattern or patterns to be found. That there is no pattern doesn't make reason to disappear, what it means that the only correct model is the patternless entity itself. You cannot perfectly model in it a shorter way, like saying that there's an algorithm that can explain it shorter. Basically this idea comes from Algorithmic Information Theory.

My reading is, Soon had a very small majority in Parliament, and every move he tried was being blocked by the Opposition, so he basically tried to ride a tank over them, and failed. — Wayfarer

This is how it seems to have gone. An attempt of a self-coup, when everything else has not worked...

South Korea's President Yoon Suk Yeol ordered the arrest of his own ruling party's leader Han Dong-hoon when he declared martial law on Tuesday night.

The arrest list also included the leader of the main opposition Democratic Party, Lee Jae-myung, as well as three opposition lawmakers, the National Intelligence Service deputy director said.

The president tried to "use this chance to arrest them and wipe them out", said director Hong Jang-won.

The revelation came as the country's political parties held emergency meetings throughout Friday, with MPs planning to bring a vote to impeach Yoon. The motion, which is scheduled for Saturday, will pass if two-thirds of MPs vote for it.

So the positive side here might be the democratic system in South Korea prevailed. At least for now.

Yes, this is a small forum.

You haven't once mentioned the hostages. It's like they're invisible to you. — BitconnectCarlos

Quite a strawman argument. The hostages, just as killing of civilian families, is evident, as I referred to Al Aqsa Flood having been a military-terrorist operation. The killing of as many people and the capture of hostages was obviously the objective of the operation. Just as is the destruction of Ukrainian infrastructure the objective of the Russian forces. It was an intended warcrime.

It's also, in a way, been overshadowed by events in Syria. — BitconnectCarlos

Let's put things into some context, the Syrian war has gone on for some time, about half a million have been killed. But as I said, nobody has claimed that the Assad-family run state has ever been a democracy. It's been a totalitarian state at least from the 1980's. Why no ICC arrest for Assad. The ICC has asked to do this, but Syria is not a party to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC, meaning that it has not been possible to bring an international criminal case against its government.

Now it indeed might happen that the Assad regime falters. Hopefully the end state isn't then a totally failed state like Somalia or Libya.

Yep. There are ambiguities here that formality might serve to iron out. — Banno

I've been thinking that what logic is missing is some kind of axiom of uniqueness, which would give the logical foundation for subjectivity. What this means is still difficult to explain. You see, randomness or statistical "White Noise" is a very special type of uniqueness, which cannot be forecasted. Yet the opposite of random or being without a pattern, patternless, is something that is predictable, calculable, systematic and organized.

Perhaps something that can be modelled precisely in an objective manner: we can look at it from the outside and if we have all the data at hand, we can perfectly forecast it's actions or how it is going to develop.

So here's my five cents: Subjectivity is something that makes an entity unique and uncomputable in an precise way. Something being computational has to be an entity that can be modelled in an objective way. There simply has to be a link between objectivity and computability. Something that is unique doesn't have a computable pattern is somehow linked to the subjective.

How?

That's a great question to be answered.

What's worse, we place a great deal of emphasis, ordinarily, on the concept of a "fact" as being objective, something independent of individual viewpoints. — J

This is the real problem in uh... modern science, logic, philosophy.

As I said, we can see this in how lost we are when the issue is subjectivity itself and when we simply cannot avoid it. As the example I gave: what else would consciousness be related to than subjectivity? That my heart beats isn't something that I can by my will simply stop, but to write an answer to this thread is an option I can choose to do.

I'm not suggesting any solution to this concern. I think we should treat it rather as a koan, something we're aware is not comprehensible to us at this moment, but stimulates thought. — J

To say this in another form, there are still basic elementary truths that we can discover in philosophy and logic that still are a mystery to us. This is one of them.

Sure, your experience of the world has changed. But the world hasn't. The set of facts concerning the world remains unchanged, ex hypothesis, despite a change in the facts concerning your experience.

Or if you prefer, the facts that change are those that are subjective, while the facts that do not change are those that are objective.

No contradiction. — Banno

I agree here with Banno.

There's no contradiction, even if Alexa would refer to the cloud-based voice server. Then there's obviously a huge difference with being a human called Peter and being a machine that uses software and is linked to the net. An objective world view simply doesn't take into account subjectivity at all. Me being in a room with Peter and Alexa and you being either Peter or Alexa doesn't simply matter in an objective viewpoint where there is Peter and Alexa and a third person in the room. That's it. The subjectivity of doesn't matter, it cannot matter because the viewpoint is objective, not subjective. Hence no contradiction.

You simply cannot get from an objective viewpoint to a subjective viewpoint. In my view, the hard problem of consciousness is a perfect example of this.

The real problem here is that this hasn't been described in a formal logical or mathematical theory that it is so.