Trump hands over Syria to Turkey then threatens to "totally destroy & obliterate" her economy if... - Page 23 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15047358
Hindsite wrote:
I understand. Archeology, if done correctly and interpreted correctly, can be helpful to better understand history. It has been helpful to prove Biblical events too, but it should not be used to rewrite the Holy Bible, like some liberals wish to do.



There's at least a dozen disciplines contributing to history.

I have no interest in your mythology.
#15047885
Rich wrote:It was wave after wave of epidemics, intra Indian and intra European war, combined with muskets and the unstoppable demographic tide of Europeans moving West that did for the Native Americans. Deliberate genocide by Europeans played only a very marginal role in their destruction.

And yet hundreds of years of North American history is filled with First Nations leaders being harrassed, arrested, and killed, involuntary sterilization (up to the 1980s), re-education campaigns, forced adoptions, forced evictions, re-settlements, destruction of communities...

This goes on for centuries, well past the initial-contact diseases, and even past the discrediting of the Scientific Racism "science" that had been used by the Elites to justiry their horrible behavior. (Scientific Racism was the Clash of Civilzations of its time)

By the way, the Spanish and Portuguese didn't get as far in their genocides as the British (USA, Anglo-Canada) because the Pope recognized the humanity of First Nations in 1537. This may be another reason why Protestantism was good for one's personal economic situation: it allowed you to kill First Nations with the Protestant God's continuing blessing.

To this day, Western money - respectful of no pope or any other institution - thinks it can simply erase First Nations governments like the one in Bolivia and still access heaven - or the Lolita Express - in the afterlife.
#15048227
New Gallup International Survey in Syria

Syrians across Raqqa and Hasakah show widespread support for Turkish intervention
but if Assad gains ground the majority would prefer a return to Daesh rule.


Three weeks ago President Trump announced the withdrawal of US troops from North East
Syria who had been supporting the primarily Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces in the fight
against Daesh. At the same time, Turkey’s President Recep Erdogan announced a military
intervention designed to create a ‘safe zone’ and push Kurdish forces out of the area.

Western media largely chastised President Trump for abandoning the Kurds while also
criticising President Erdogan for bombing those who have just rid themselves of Daesh.

But what do those on the ground think about the intervention? And what are their hopes
and aspirations for the future? Gallup International Research Institutes (London and
Damascus) have been tracking public opinion since the Syrian military conflict started in 2012
and over the last ten days has polled (face-to-face) a representative sample of 600 adults
across Raqqa and Hasakah, the two regions in which the Turkish intervention is focussed.
While unable to access those towns and villages currently under attack from the Turkish
intervention, we have also included 100 Kurds who fled these villages within the last week.

The findings reveal that three in five (58%) support President Trump’s decision to withdraw
troops from their areas, but among the Kurds opinion is unsurprisingly very different (33%
support, 67% oppose). But what may come as a surprise to many is that the same proportion
(57%) support Turkish military intervention. However, note here that while the Arab
population widely support this (64%), the Kurds are understandably less enthusiastic (77%
oppose it, but surprisingly 23% support it).


Based on our findings of previous polls and ongoing qualitative research we suggest there
are three possible reasons for a split in the Kurdish opinion on Turkish intervention.

Firstly, there is a deep intra-Kurdish divide. Many Kurds in Syria are ideologically at odds with
the PYD - a left-wing affiliate of the PKK with non-Syrian leadership. Many of these people
are currently displaced and await the successful conclusion of the Turkish operation so they
can return home.

A number of young Kurds fled to Turkey and the ‘Olive branch’ zones to avoid PYD
conscription. Turkish intervention designed to defeat the PYD/SDF is in their interest, yet
these people also do not welcome the Assad regime taking control of their territories because
they will also force people to fight with them. Turkish control is the safest means of avoiding
personal engagement in violence.

But more fundamentally many Kurds who joined the beginning of the Syrian revolution view
the PYD as collaborators with Assad and a group that has previously handed over many
activists to the regime. Turkey is now considered to be less close to the Assad regime than
the PYD
.

For many years now, public opinion has consistently shown that Turkey is considered the only
country that has a positive influence on affairs inside Syria. And many in Raqqa and Hasakah
speak about wanting to live under Turkish control, envious of their relative prosperity no
doubt, a strong nation that can stand up to Assad. Our survey shows 55% of those across the
two governorates believe Turkey is having a positive influence in the region which compares
favourably to the International Coalition against ISIS (24%), Russia (14%), the US (10%) and
Iran (6%).


The survey results also highlight a potentially disturbing consequence of the intervention.
Almost three in four (69%) agree that “if Assad gains more territory in the region then I
support the use of violence to defend our rights”. With the SDF now aligning themselves
with President Assad (an agreement which only 23% support) it seems inevitable that the
regime will control more of north east Syria. Indeed 79% of survey respondents agree that
“the withdrawal of US troops from Syria will increase the likelihood that Assad will gain more
territory”. Almost three in four (70%) also agree that “if the Assad regime gains more
territory Syria will effectively be controlled by Iran”.

But of more concern to seasoned observers will be the 57% of the population who agree that
“living under Daesh would be preferable to living under the control of Assad”. Gallup
International recently interviewed women who fled al-Hawl camp and most shared similar
views. It is Assad gaining ground more than the withdrawal of US troops itself that increases
the chance of Daesh (or something similar) returning.

Many in the West argue that Daesh has been defeated – militarily for sure, but ideologically
there seems there is more to do. With 62% in the survey saying it is ‘very/somewhat likely’
that Daesh will increase their control again in the coming months, we would be naïve to
suggest Syria has rid themselves of Daesh.


http://www.gallup-international.com/wp- ... 2019-7.pdf

Quite informative.

Of course, for those who have eyes to see, ears to hear and brain to perceive.
#15048228
Vanasalus wrote:Of course, for those who have eyes to see, ears to hear and brain to perceive.


Before speaking, I declare that I do not have enough of a brain to perceive.

What intrigues me is that the reports seems exaggerating the significance of the 23%. In Hong Kong, if a yes-no question yields a 77-23, then the matter is pretty one-sided and requires no further explanation.

Meanwhile, I agree that the potential support of the Daesh is not surprising. Such a support is directly proportional to the barbarity of whoever coming in. It seems a fact that Erdogan being less brutal than Assad, which means many would perceive the victory of Assad worse than an Erdogan win. I can understand this feeling, for I myself believe that some kind of institutional (i.e. state) violence (e.g. those committed by Hong Kong police recently) can only be stopped by (targeted) violence of equal, if not bigger, magnitude.
#15048268
Vanasalus wrote:http://www.gallup-international.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Gallup-International-Poll_Syria_2019-7.pdf

Quite informative.

Of course, for those who have eyes to see, ears to hear and brain to perceive.

Conducting an "opinion poll" in an area that is being bombed, occupied, and terrorized, is such bad science that it shows both no respect to the people of Syria, nor to the readers of this thread.

It's like asking the recently-nuked people of Hiroshima what they think of American democracy... as their ears are melting off, and their kids are still trapped under rubble.

Or why not go into a school that's experiencing a school shooting and ask students what they think of the new math text that they have been given. "I... uh... love it?" *bang! bang!*
#15048369
QatzelOk wrote:Conducting an "opinion poll" in an area that is being bombed, occupied, and terrorized, is such bad science that it shows both no respect to the people of Syria, nor to the readers of this thread.

It's like asking the recently-nuked people of Hiroshima what they think of American democracy... as their ears are melting off, and their kids are still trapped under rubble.

Or why not go into a school that's experiencing a school shooting and ask students what they think of the new math text that they have been given. "I... uh... love it?" *bang! bang!*


This logic seems the same as "Hong Kong citizens are being terrorised by Chinese corruption and violence. It is disrespectful to survey them on their opinion of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics".

They are still people and their opinion should be heard. As long as we have good knowledge of the circumstances I do not see this result inaccurate or the methods bad science.
#15048434
QatzelOk wrote:Conducting an "opinion poll" in an area that is being bombed, occupied, and terrorized, is such bad science that it shows both no respect to the people of Syria, nor to the readers of this thread.

An opinion poll should never be considered science at all. It is just opinions.
HalleluYah
#15048528
Negotiator wrote:Err yes of course opinion polls are science.

Not hard science, aka physics, chemistry, medicine etc.

But for psychology and the like, opinion polls is a perfectly valid tool.

Opinion polls like the one cited above are a way for corporate media pundits to pretend to know (or care) what the actual living people of the countries we bomb and sanction really think.

This premits "West African studies" graduates living in Virginia to comment about "what should be done about country X to help the people" without ever having to set foot there or really know the locals.
#15048530
QatzelOk wrote:
Opinion polls like the one cited above are a way for corporate media pundits to pretend to know (or care) what the actual living people of the countries we bomb and sanction really think.

This premits "West African studies" graduates living in Virginia to comment about "what should be done about country X to help the people" without ever having to set foot there or really know the locals.



Polls are useful. Politicians, businesses etc use private polling all the time to gauge the situation they find themselves in.

They have limits to their usefulness, and if you were trying to say there are a lot of bad polls out there, that is certainly true.
#15048535
You know what else is a sign of propaganda besides fake polls? A fake vocabulary.

We're seeing a lot of female designations for nation-states in media lately. In this thread title, for example, we see Trump threatening to destroy "HER" economy, meaning: "the economy of the Turkish nation state." It would be more accurate, modern, and non-gendered to say "ITS" economy. So "HER" was a tactical choice of word.

In wars, nation-states are frequently referred to as if they were matrons that mama's boys better go off and protect. Nations are "she." Tanks are "she." Aircraft carriers are "she."

This is also one of the reasons why Queen Victoria and Queen Isabella were such successful genociding leaders. The best ever in human history even. Both figure-heads made it clear to all those hungry young cannon fodder that they were really fighting for something female - which they all sub-consciously desired enough to kill for.
#15048538
The only reason "her" was used to refer to the country is because it was written by myself and countries are female in the Greek vernacular. That has been standard practice for me. In the OP's media article itself Turkey is referred to as "it". In my -and more generally our Greek- thought-process "it" would have been insulting to Turkey, so yes it was chosen tactically but not for what you thought though.

Well spotted however, your logic is good.
  • 1
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23

Thank you for your interest in this tread, SSDR. […]

The answer is a hybrid economy. All vital service[…]

Capitalism is failing to solve climate change. I[…]

Ukrainegate

"The intent makes the crime." You can […]