Reply With Quote
Are youn the gr
he never asked for this.
Mother er just wanted to stay the away from politics and be an eye doctor, but when his older brother died he was called back to Syria and had this life thrust upon him.
Now he's trying to hold together a country that is being ripped apart by fanatical Muslim death cultists, using justifiably brutal means to beat back several different insurgencies and armed militant groups who'd like nothing more than to decapitate him on live television and continue their march towards the rest of the Middle East.
And to top it all off, every western media group is vilifying him as though he's the next Hitler, and that he needs to "step down". Which is really code word for getting locked away for the rest of his life, or getting butchered.
So the country that he never really wanted to rule is getting war-raped by a dozen different armed insurgent groups, each funded as a proxy by numerous regional and global powers, and the media is working day and night to make sure history remembers HIM as the monster.
Guy really got the ty end of the stick.
Are you
bashar assad. he is the killer of many many many innocent people.
Says who, erdogan? Dude when the war started you were allowing Isis to seek safety, medical care, and resupply over the Turkish border. If they started getting their asses handed to them they'd just retreat into turkey. Turkey is a terror state not Syria. The people he is fighting aren't even Syrian.
Same thing can be said of most western leaders tbqh
it is lie. as a principal, turkey opened his border every men in need in 2012-2014. 2 millions of syrian people ( arab, kurd, turkmen, ezidi etc.) come to turkey to save their life. it s not so possible to find diffirence between isis members or another. also yo should know not only isis in syria, free sryian army, other islamic self defense groups and pyd. turkey let pesmerhge pass in turkey againts ISIS to help kurdish force. everyone tried and could not find a proof a turkey's help to ISIS. turkey are interested in the groups (like ceyhsul islam, ahrarussam) in war againts both ISIS and BESHAR assad. they r both (isis-assad) son of a . they re brothhers. they re feeding each other.
turkey warned beshar assad before the war began to be more democratical. he didn't listen and began massacre. minimum 60000 civilizans are killed by regime airforce (barrel bombs, chemical weapons). you re talking withiout knowing anything and just listen your media.
watch this until end https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3sO7ByVNow (how did it begin? )
it is easy to talk far from here.
Last edited by turkish spurs fan; 09-13-2015 at 09:05 AM.
Assad was going to be toppled with help from Saudi and US if he didn't fight the revolutionaries. Lets not forget they started attacking ppl and Saudi sent their guerrillas into the country long before the bullet was fired.
Syria was a target of Saudi and US. Plain and simple.
He was going to fall like Mubarak or he was going to fall like Gadafi. But he was planned to fall. Assad said no and Russia and Iran stood beside him.
https://twitter.com/Conflicts/status/643086854636576768
IT'S HAPPENING IN TURKEY
TURKISH POLICE FIRING AT KURDS
It looks like Assad isn't the only one "firing on protestors"
turkey facing pkk terorism for 40 years. first time in erdoğan era turkey began solution process with kurds. begin giving their rights. but know pkk looks excited to make what happened in syria and tryin the same in turkey.
solution process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solution_process (erdogan started)
but as solution process, pkk didn't do what they have to. they didn't go out of country as they promised. in 2013 pkk leader ocalan asked pkk give up weapons and go out. but they did'nt. now w r seeing they put big bombs under the highways while solution process. they shot 2 police officer when they r sleeping and started war again. turkey want to solve the all problem in parliament, but pkk looks like dont want it. 80 members of parliament kurdish party (hdp) have more than turkish nationalist party (mhp). before erdogan you can not imagine anything like this.
we want kurdish party hdp to criticise pkk terorism. pkk are harming not only turkish soldiers / police officers but also kurdish people (civil).
Those Turks have a pretty pristine record when it comes to "fighting" domestic "terrorists," amirite guize?
Turkey treats the Kurds like Saddam used to tbh. No surprises here
Especially those domestic Armenian terrorists. They did a great job "fighting" all those Armenian terrorists disguised as women and children
Lol Turkey, the great genocide-denying humanitarian enclave that still imprisons journalists who call the state out.
You live in a Glass House
US War Theories Target Dissenters
When the U.S. Department of Defense published a new Law of War Manual (LOW) this past summer, editorialists at the New York Times sat up and took notice. Their concern was that the manual stated that journalists could be deemed “unprivileged belligerents.” The editorial explained that as a legal term “that applies to fighters that are afforded fewer protections than the declared combatants in a war.” In fact, it is far more insidious than that innocuous description.
Here is the manual’s definition: “‘Unlawful combatants’ or ‘unprivileged belligerents’ are persons who, by engaging in hostilities, have incurred one or more of the corresponding liabilities of combatant status (e.g., being made the object of attack and subject to detention), but who are not en led to any of the distinct privileges of combatant status (e.g., combatant immunity and POW status).”
The key phrase here is “being made the object of attack.” For slow-witted New York Times editorialists, that means journalists can be killed as can any enemy soldier in wartime. “Subject to detention” means a journalist deemed an unprivileged belligerent will be put into military detention if captured. As with any enemy belligerent, however, if “capture is not feasible,” they would be killed if possible, by drone perhaps if in a foreign country.
Currently, most U.S. captives deemed “unprivileged belligerents” are imprisoned in Guantanamo although some may be held in Afghanistan. It must be noted that the United States deems as an “unprivileged belligerent” anyone they target for capture or choose to kill.
That the New York Times’ concern only arose with publication of the new LOW manual suggests they may have been in a deep sleep since 9/11 as the Department of Defense (DOD) has openly worked to impose limitations on information sharing and news gathering since that event gave them a pretext. It is now a well-established pattern of the U.S. government to suppress rights guaranteed by the First Amendment whenever they can get by with it, as was seen with the New York Times own James Risen.
But the New York Times colluded with the CIA in censoring Risen’s reporting. Furthermore, they seemed to have ignored the U.S. government’s momentous argument of the unlimited power of the President to target journalists and activists for “expressive activities,” as the Department of Justice stated in the case of Hedges v. Obama, as described below.
It has frequently been noted there’s been an ongoing “war” against journalists since 9/11. The new DOD Law of War manual makes that official and potentially takes it to the highest level of conflict. While expressing concern, the Times’ editorialist does not seem to realize or care how ominous it is that the
DOD now openly declares that journalists may be deemed “unprivileged belligerents,” unlawful combatants, as the DOD manual provides, instead of hiding the fact in coded language as done since 2001. Inherent to those classifications is that they represent the “enemy” and can be killed by U.S. officials.
That will come as no surprise to those acquainted with the foreign journalists who have been targeted and killed by drones in places such as Pakistan. Nor will it surprise Sami al-Hajj, the Al Jazeera journalist who was held in Guantanamo for years. But now it is clear that the same fate could be in store for U.S. journalists.
That coded language is embedded in the claim by Military Commissions prosecutors and the Justice Department that there is a “U.S. domestic common law of war.” What they claim is entirely based upon martial law orders of the Civil War and the military’s orders to remove Japanese-Americans from the their homes on the West Coast in World War II. All the cases they rely on for a “domestic law of war” today were judicially condemned during or almost immediately after the wars in which they were a part of.
U.S. Domestic Common Law of War
U.S. Military Commissions Chief Prosecutor Brig. General Mark Martins and his staff invented what they call the “U.S. domestic common law of war” in filings to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. That invention consists only of the martial law precedents of the U.S. Civil War and the removal of the Japanese-Americans from the West Coast at the direction of General DeWitt. Both were later seen as examples of military despotism.
The American people have been inured by a deliberate effort of the U.S. military to accept invocation of the law of war as a talisman to permit any act by officials which would have been known as illegal before 9/11. But as the manual states: “Although the law of war is generally viewed as ‘prohibitive law,’ in some respects, especially in the context of domestic law, the law of war may be viewed as permissive or even as a source of authority. For example, the principle of military necessity in the customary law of war may be viewed as justifying or permitting certain acts.” (Emphasis added.)
“Military necessity” was the law of war basis for removal of the Japanese-Americans. Military necessity though indisputably a part of the law of war is a totalitarian precept when applied to a civilian population.
The LOW manual explains the object of war by quoting George H. Aldrich, Deputy Legal Adviser to the U.S. Department of State during the Vietnam War. He wrote of “a general acceptance of the view that modern war is aimed not merely at the enemy’s military forces but at the enemy’s willingness and ability to pursue its war aims. . . . In Viet-Nam political, rather than military, objectives were even more dominant. Both sides had as their goal not the destruction of the other’s military forces but the destruction of the will to continue the struggle.”
The “destruction of the will” of the adversary is always the object of war, according to Clausewitz and adopted by the U.S. military. But this has a totalitarian element to it; the adversary’s reciprocal object is to destroy our will. Consequently, “our” will must be protected by suppressing any dissent which could harm morale and the population’s willingness to “continue the struggle.”
That was the foundational belief underlying martial law during the Civil War. The Cons ution was an obstacle again to suppressing dissent to a degree after the Civil War, but with the invention of a U.S. domestic common law of war and legalistic word play, this obstacle has once again been removed as the Justice Department argued in Hedges v. Obama.
The claim of being at war with internal and external enemies is always made by totalitarian states to justify their suppression of speech and a free press through repression. For a brief period in U.S. history, the Civil War, the U.S. military adopted military repression through martial law to suppress any dissent to its war practices.
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/09/1...et-dissenters/
turkey threats kurds genocide so welcomed 250 000 kurdish refugees to turkey from kobane.
you should check your news sources and dont believe all you hear, may advise
Last edited by turkish spurs fan; 09-13-2015 at 05:12 PM.
Lol buttons, king of the false dichotomy
I'm pretty sure what BD presented was not a false dichotomy.
Did he consider the option that one can criticize both the U.S. and Turkey? Or did he assume that being anti-Turkey had to mean being pro-US?
M>S supporting war criminals like Assad and Hitler because it fits his white Agenda.
Very blood thirsty poster imo.
How does Assad represent a "white agenda?" How is survival an "agenda" anyway? You're sick in the head off my race were awake and in fight mode. People are about to see we mean business.
M>S supporting the death of Innocents. Supporting Assad who kill pregnant women and kids and Hitler that tried to commit genocide against the jews..
Shut the up with your outlandish claims. Assad is the only one fighting Isis who are the ones committing all the atrocities. If Assad falls Isis takes Syria.
Assad has been killing civilians long before Isis came to Syria..You just like him cause he kills muzzies. You want people's blood. You are blood thirsty. You want to kill.
I shouldn't be surprised since you support someone who tried committed genocide. You like seeing people who don't align with your views dead bro..
You're like to see people die. It feeds your soul.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
