If you supported the over a dozen US military bases in Syria at any point, you were complicit in undermining the sovereignty of Syria and helped justify this war.
If you have even been pro-YPG, do the right thing and commit seppuku you imperialist scum.
Other urls found in this thread:
pflp.ps
news.bbc.co.uk
aljazeera.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
...
Maybe if you donated money or something
Why are tank-fags so fucking retarded and devoid of nuance?
How would anyone on here be able to offer support to a base in syria?
I dont think they accept donations and you cant just post something to 'the dozen US bases in Syria'.
saying your ideological support of y.p.g. wasn't wrong because you didn't donate money is like saying this pundits and warhawks providing ideological justification for the strikes on CNN / MSNBC / Fox News aren't supporting the airstrikes because they're not donating money to the army (albeit taxes)
even if your platform is much smaller than pundits, what you guys have done is no different than Ben Shapiro shilling for the airstrikes.
FSA pls go
/thread.
When someone talks about support for particular military bases they are talking about material support such as food, money, weapons not ideological support.
Ideological support would be for the goal of the people who built the bases not for the bases themselves.
over a dozen US military bases in syria is a word filter for y.p.g. and r.o.j.a.v.a user
What the fuck is this filter?
BO has an awfull sense of humor, the only good filters are not socialist and british flags. All the others do more harm than good and make threads look retarded.
BO is a dumb ☭TANKIE☭
If you're an autistic larper like OP, KYS
Holy shit that is funny.
BO bans for geopolitics they don't agree with, the filters are a reminder
OP is right but instead of killing yourselves you should learn with your mistakes. In fact, start looking at more examples of when "progressive" causes were used for imperialist propaganda, like the Kibbutz in Israel or the Misquito in Nicaragua, and stop others from falling for the same trick next time.
But literally you're fucking wrong because I've been arguing with these people here for years and rarely have I seen an argument that raises above neocon-tier rhetoric about le evil dictator, and then just repeating "but didn't the Soviet Union accept american support?" when you confront them about who they accept support from. In peak over a dozen US military bases in Syria cheerleading times like 2015-16 they were always calling those of us who asked for skepticism Assad-loving ☭TANKIE☭s.
The reason they seem more nuanced now is simply because they're fucking embarrassed, so they're toning it down.
It's almost like socioeconomic systems can't be dealt with as abstractions where X is unconditionally better than Y but analyzed according to their respective historical and political contexts. Otherwise, there are plenty of post-war social-democrats in Europe that waged war against african dictators and african capitalists for you to hold high as an example of "good praxis".
I prefer socialism to Arab nationalism
Of course. But there's no conflict between the two in Syria right now.
Did you just forget that BO has been banning every Rojáva supporter since last summer (if I recall correctly)
And why do you leftists care about this? Isn't the whole point that all nations are capitalist devices, and that the working class has no nationality? Seems like the only thing that matters is whether R*java and/or the Syrian government are counteracting, or aiding the reproduction of the capitalist system. Still, this would probably be a good time for R*java to reconsider American aid, especially when they're already being thrown to the wolves, and Trump himself is (was?) pushing for a pullout.
The strikes were justified on the basis of "Muh WMDs", which the west could have reported to the OPCW before the attack. It's curious they didn't, considering the claim that there've been numerous violations since 2013.
As usual leftoids eat their own
Only utopians think we can be done completely with nation states at this stage of history.
BO's bans are how we stop this place turning into the absolute shitshow that is Zig Forums
The over a dozen US military bases in Syria tried to deal with Assad and Putin multiple times, and they refused, so the only ones available were the burguers.
Had Putin and Assad given them the bare minimum of help they'd not only have not to worry about the bases, because by being backed up by Russia, Turkey would never be attacking, so the only enemy the over a dozen US military bases in Syria would have would be Isis, which they have shown be to able to handle without billions of dollars in equipment.
How have the Kurds caused the missile strikes? Can someone connect the dots for me? Seems more like the US involvement there and the missiles have a shared root cause (the US), rather than one causing the other. Is there some information I'm missing on the subject?
Shut the fuck up you fucking liberal apologist, holy shit
Reminder that the ☭TANKIE☭s have not managed to win a single argument on this subject and thats why BO started banning people.
I'm trying to understand your position. The US is clearly at fault. I want to know where the blame on the Kurds comes from.
Me again. Obviously this is important to y'all. I'm open to being convinced. If you want to explain your position I'll be monitoring the thread.
The retards here think that it's better to support non-US imperialistic dictators only by virtue of not being successful in building their empires. This is is the dumb part of the whole ☭TANKIE☭ mindset - if the countries they support would succeed, the only thing that would change is the colour of the flag of the biggest empire in the world.>>2484915
Now I don't think faux psychoanalysis helps here. I want to hear from the people who hold these opinions. It's clearly emotionally charged so I'm not gonna judge people for being angry or upset with people for disagreeing. There are plenty of opinions I'd have a similar response to from Zig Forumsyps.
supporting Syria is not revolutionary in any way. Assad is just a US oil baron with less power. On the other hand, by fucking over the Kurds, you lessen the possibility of their ideas spreading by virtue of, you know, actually succeeding. But by all means: better everything to be fucked rather than everything minus one place.
You're presenting a false dichotomy. Hafez al Assad supported and gave refuge to Apo for years, until Turkey threatened to invade. There has never been any Assad-YPG/PKK conflict beyond minor skirmishes, except between autists on the internet.
Second pic: Apo playing ball game in Damascus, 1994.
well, "for years" "until", and so on is the key here - temporary, conditional benevolence does not guarantee a life-time pardon. the fact that someone started out fine doesn't mean that they cannot turn to shit, imperialistic ambitions going to their head.
I agree it was Hafez al Assad's biggest mistake. But the threat was pretty serious. Turkey had a massive army, plus it was part of NATO. With the collapse of the USSR, Syria lost its main ally and supporter. They couldn't have lasted long against a Turkish-NATO invasion without any allies, as in 1998 Russia was on the brink of collapse.
I'm seriously struggling to understand your thought process here.
I doubt that NATO would have helped Turkey, if anything Turkey would have isolated itself if it invaded. That being said, I see your point, I can see it as a situation with no good choices in contet.
I don't think I implied that in any way
I'm probably stretching it, but why would you want to continue with a split fostered by Turkey?
BBC article from 1998 showing how serious the situation got
news.bbc.co.uk
Relations between Turkey and Syria deteriorated dramatically on Thursday, when the Turkish President, Suleiman Demirel, warned Damascus that patience was running out over alleged Syrian support for Kurdish separatists.
Israel would have absolutely joined though. Israel has technically still been at war with Syria since the '70s. Syria would resist for many years, but eventually Turkey and Israel would just carve up the country between themselves. Assad was already being portrayed as muh evil dictator back then, country would stand up to defend him.
Because I see no positive outcomes for Assad. He wants to further consolidate power, and just being undisturbed from West will not better the situation. Whereas if the Kurds are at least somewhat protected, there could be a promise of more international democratic federations in the future (if you don't care about the Kurds individually) by virtue of their thing being successful. It's a long shot, but better than just playing with your balls in a Cold War-type polarized world view
I completely misunderstood what you were saying in that case. Never mind, I'm an idiot.
Thanks, this is quite interesting. I do see the point of Assad initially needing to make the decision of betraying Apo and Kurds at that point to avoid war and invasion.
Proofs? As far as I know Assad offered significant support to R*j*v* early on (to try to get them away from the US) and Russia objectively has supported them
More proof most people on this board are brailnets
youtube.com
According to the interview with their top commander they are
1) Allied with Iran
2) Allied with Assad
Are the bases really that bad when they were Iran and Assad allies this entire time?
...
I think the reality for the Kurds along with everyone else in the Middle East is that relationships and alliances are more transactional / based on shared interests than ideological ones. The Kurds and Alawites have an interest in arming themselves and cooperating against the threat of Saudi-backed Sunni power. That's just how groups roll over there.
simply epic
The only problem is anti-Assad people who support sd*f
Do people seriously think its impossible to support both?
Syrian Democratic Forces did nothing wrong, my guy. Also
Their policies haven't changed brainlet. They are still Iran and Assad allies.
Watch the interview again. The Al Jazeera journalist is constantly trying to goad him into smearing Assad, but he refuses, bringing up the fact that Assad's "regime" protected Kurds, Christians, and other minorities.
Remember this was in 2012, when Assad was in deep shit. The "rebels" were threatening to overrun the entire coast. If they didn't betray Assad then, why would they do it when he's vastly more secure and powerful?
The Hoxhaist (aka Big Brain Communist) parties in Turkey all support the Kurds. Are they just a bunch of idiots?
Also worth watching: 1998 interview with Apo as he's relaxing in Damascus and enjoying all the amenities Hafez al Assad provided him. This was months before the Turkish threats mentioned here:
Hoxhaism is just Stalin-friendly Leftcom/Trotskyism at this point.
Those are the biggest brainlets of them all. They were duped into supporting an Axis of Resistance member this entire time.
Found the brainlet. Read:
Already did, Assad has his problems but there's a reason the two sides never openly clashed after al Hasaka. Neither want to.
More proof the Kurd-Assad dichotomy is literally an invention of autistic imageboard dwellers.
Pic is “Syrian Resistance” (Communist group that fights for Assad) HQ in Latakia, showing their leader with Abdullah Ocalan. The Communists in that region all have huge respect for the Kurds, in fact it was the PKK that trained, armed, and uniformed all the Turkish communist groups Finnish Bolshevik mentions in this video:
Hoxhaists have been proven correct by everything that happened in the past 30 years though, like the collapse of the USSR (due to revisionism)
Hoxhaites have always been ultra-left, dude.
Hoxhaism is the only branch of ML for which opponents have no counter-arguments. There are counter-arguments to Maoism, to orthodox Marxism, to Trotkyism. But no counter-arguments to Hoxhaism. Really makes you think.
Pic: Assad's Mukhabarat officers chilling with some PKK/PYD counterparts
You mean, you never listen to any.
The over a dozen US military bases in Syria are unironically hero's and true revolutionaries using the best available praise to ensure their own survival, i.e. using the Americans as political tools to protect themselves from outside aggression.
Not that it's doing them that much good anyways since they lost Afrin.
Assad started this war by shooting civilians in the streets when they protested his regime. He is about as "socialist" as the CCP and his only real redeeming quality is that he is better than ISIS.
Before I get banned for wrong think someone please tell me how exactly Assad and his Imperialist capitalist allieallies, the Russians, are any better than the over a dozen US military bases in Syria and their capitalist imperialist allies, the Americans.(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
But Hoxha's Albania wasn't any more politically sustainable than the USSR. Makes you think.
Dude, there's been a guerilla campaign. It's been pretty successful too, everyday more Turks and jihadists are dying in the hills
Such as?
this
0.5 $ were transfered to your account, thank you for doing business with the pentagon
actually looking at the conflict history and interests plus acknowledging national liberation struggles and souvereignity would help but when basic theory isn't there the only thing to fix it is putting a bullet in to fill that void in your head
liberals get the bullet first
0/10
drop that stache, albania poster
nobody takes proponents of revisionist ideas such as "social imperialism" serious
you are as cancerous as khrushchevites and maoists
one of you fags was literally shilling for dubcek, the later head of the social democrats
premature ejaculation of a gorbachev dream
you guys are ridiculous and pathetic
Mods need to kill themselves. Every day they kill Zig Forums a little more
you know your place, just fuck off back there, faggot shill
Read Stalin. In "Foundations of Leninism", he points out how the Second Internationale were social imperialists, professing to believe in socialism while in reality allying with imperialism. This is no different from what the revisionist did after Stalin.
It's you who should remove that moustache flag. Stalin would hate to see what became of the USSR under Khruschev. He wouldn't call it socialist at all, in fact he would probably call it social-fascist.
retarded/10
He wouldn't have called it any of that because he's not a trotskyite tier retarded faggot like you hoxhaite little shit
there's already a term to describe it accurately: revisionism
look it up, it's something he wrote and talked about quite a bit
What's it like being a revisionist? You're claiming Stalin's definition of social imperialism is wrong and doesn't apply to Khruschev because of muh feels. Pure revisionism. Literally revising a core element of Stalin's contribution to ML just because you feel like it.
Assad lets them use his roads. But as a """""libertarian """""" socialist you dont acknolegde roads
Based BO
You realise in the real world all the ☭TANKIE☭s are pro over a dozen US military bases in Syria and if you had actually ever talked to somebody who had been there it is more less only die hard ☭TANKIE☭s with a smattering of anarchists. You would also realize that the PKK is run on democratic centralism and every major group is some variant of Leninism. You don't have the first fucking clue. The Soviet Union allied with the US to defeat Hitler. Was the USSR imperialist then? Fucking mug
Why the fuck are people still memeing about this dichotomy when there have been almost no clashes between S D F and Assad?
There have been no real clashed between them, but the US has attacked SAA (affiliated) forces just for operating close to the S D F occupied areas. It does not speak well of them.
can you get more khrushchevite?
anarchist argumentation 101
