skinster wrote:Yes it was and anyone reading this thread can see that.
It wasn't. I know what the intentions of my post was.
The people of Daraya are not a rebel group. And you're accusing me of removing the agency of regular Syrians while dismissing the support for the government and army amongst the people in Daraya.
They don't support the government considering that they literally rebelled against and fought them. Do you know anything
You act as though I've never heard of this woman before. If you want to trust her blog on anything, that's your problem.
You think that a Syrian who criticizes the government is suspicious for hiding her identity even though she lives in Syria?
This is you being dishonest again. I responded to you scoffing at the idea that British intelligence is involved in war on Syria and pointed out someone who works for British intelligence who is also the man behind White Helmets.
Oh shit you're right my bad.
But you also said that Leila is part of the M16 which is laughable at best.
She's a Brit-Syrian, claiming to be an "aid-worker", is pro regime change and we don't know much more about her except the name she gives isn't her real name and we don't really know where she lives or anything
How do you even know she's Brit?
And I'm basing this on what you said. You agreed with me that it makes sense for a Syrian criticizing the government to hide their identity.
I'll just take this as you not being able to name these rebels you want people to support.
I did name them. The people of Daraya. You just have no idea what I'm talking about.
Like, this is the equivalent of saying that Rojava aren't rebels because they're a nation and not a "rebel group".
You seem to very narrowly define what a rebel is for some reason.
How odd, because you were claiming not long after that something about the evidence you had to prove what you said "surrounded" you or something.
It was metaphorical.
OK, so I'll accept you conceding that the Syrian government didn't use chemical weapons on its people like the psychopathic "moderate rebels".
How odd then that the vast majority of the Syrian people consistently flocked to the areas that were controlled by the army/government or liberated by the army/government throughout the war.
Considering that the choice was between either death by the government, death by Islamists, or keeping their ground, I think it's obvious why. The revolution has basically beem coopted by counter-revolutionary forces by this point.
I don't, I gave a list of the countries involved.
Then you must include Syria as well.
1. I think you made up a word here.
2. I'll ignore this since I don't know what it is I said that makes you think any of the above.
1. It's not my fault English is irregular. If something like sovereignity is allowed then foreignity is allowed too.
2. You're just being intentional obtuse here.
I'll ignore this since I don't know what it is I said that makes you think any of the above.
Well it's things you've said earlier.
Well yeah, duh. Syria asked her allies to help defend herself from foreign aggression. She as a soverign state is entitled to such and also, it was a good thing.
No it isn't, states are entitled to nothing. Syria is a dictatorship and does not operate upon the consent of the people. Russia and Iran don't care about Syria, they only care about their own interests. Assad only let them in because he was desperate and was afraid he would lose power.
Of course you don't really care about that, nor do you care about the state of Syria after the war.
Turkey is also occupying land in the north. There is a difference between those countries that were invited by the Syrian government and those that weren't. One is legal and the other isn't.
Something being "legal" doesn't make it right.
You don't seem to care about any of this.
I said I don't recall saying that thing you were accusing me of, that the war was bloodless or some shit. Are you high?
I wasn't accusing you of anything, I just asked a rhetorical question. Nothing everything is an accusation.
Yeah, actual leftists opposed the war on Syria because actual leftists oppose wars of aggression. But their numbers in media were small and really nothing compared to the liberals/conservatives who were claiming the war was for democracy/freedom or whatever. Especially in the first 3 or 4 years of the war.
It wasn't just opposing the war, it resulted in the demonization of all rebels as just American puppets which didn't help the Syrian cause at all.
Yes, the leftist position was opposed to the regime-change war - duh - but again, they didn't have much of a voice in media compared to the liberal/conservative view. What changed mainly was that the "moderate rebels" began showing themselves to be fascists, promoting sectarianism amongst a secular state and barbarically killing ordinary Syrians for not confirming to their worldview.
Which leads me to the point I had in the beginning, you can oppose US backed Islamists while also supporting actual rebels.
Anyway, nobody believes you're 16. I'm not even sure you're Syrian at this point. You might be a fraud like "Leila Al-Shami" for all I know...
Yeah I'm actually a 50 year old CIA agent with elephantitis.
I feel like me being 16 is the most believable part of all of this no?
I didn't say anything about the Syrian protests. I said the war on Syria was a regime-change war and you making a strawman out of that because you're dishonest.
Ok, you know what? I need you to define regime-change. Like, would you call the French Revolution regime change or what the US did in Iran regime change.
Lol @ the Westerners support for "us". If you're in the pro-regime-change version of Syrians, like that phoney Leile al-Shami, then I don't care about you. There are plenty of Syrians who oppose the foreigners making war on them and that's who I'm with. You act like they don't exist but the vast majority of Syrians support their government and army.
1. I don't want foreigners to come in and institute their own government. I want to start my own revolution without foreign interference.
2. The only people by this point who actually support the government (and don't just pretend so that they don't get killed) are the upper class.
Even the middle class (or what remains of a middle class) absolutely hates the destruction caused by the Civil War including by Assad.
I'd support it if it came from the people rather than neoconservatism/wahabism/zionist/etc.
Yeah, that's what it started as. That's what Daraya is and, to some extent, Rojava is.
Pretending that "there are no other options" so you can justify your support for Assad is ridiculous.
That was my way of stating I don't know what you mean when you say:
Yeah, like I said:
Do I need to spell everything out for you
I don't recall saying anything about "any Syrian blah blah" and I'll ignore the off-topic stuff, even though I'm correct about those protests being influenced by America.
None of it off-topic. This isn't just a conversation about Syria, it's about your entire agenda of which is highly contradictory.
Also they aren't influenced by America. HKers holding America signs isn't proof.
Which anti-American country? China isn't anti-American. Syria was actually working with the Americans on some awful things pre the war.
Also, I don't really think you made much sense in that observation.
Well, it certainly comes across like that. You support China despite it putting Muslims in concentration camps, fucking Tibet, and making Pakistan it's vassal.
Why do I take the positons I do? From reading stuff, you know, like you.
People have a tendency to read what they like. You are no different.