Middle East Conflict Megathread (Syria, Iraq, Yemen, etc)

[Pilarcraft]

The sad part is that I absolutely know they will do absolutely nothing. embezzlement was already at an all time high, even with the sanctions. With more sanctions, they'll need shadier ways of trading, which'll mean more Babak Zanjani type embezzlements, and what's more, the lower class might actually rise up again, given how the entire province of Kurdistan has been in strike for more than a month now.

Sounds rough. I was aware there had recently been civil strife, but I wasn't sure how much of a chance they really had and how much was just western journalists 'hopeful' for some sort of change in Iran, as I know that competence, goodness etc. very rarely correlate with a governments actual support. How bad could things get for the Iranian government, do you think?

The government? a lot worse than it already is right now. The people in charge? They're going to be fine. They have both the guns and international influence in the form of foreign 'allies'. What I'm scared of, honestly, is the Lower and the Middle Class, both of which are going to be inevitably screwed hard. Some workingmen haven't been getting paid for months now, and with the new sanctions? well, if the IR doesn't begin clearing its own messes, it's going to hit a r o u g h patch.

[Ascysia]

Nope. Thats why I said earlier we should strive to construct an orbital platform.

... which the Soviet Union already had. How much do you want to bet the Russians will beat you to it if a new Space Race starts? because the odds aren't really good for you lol.

Yes the Russians could definitely afford that

[The East Marches II]

"Endangering World Peace"

No such thing exists, infact it is considered to be the metier of that office.

Eh, I'm selfish. 'World peace' for me adequately describes the ~seventy years of peace we've enjoyed in the West under an American-led system. It's not been absolute, of course, but a period of 'peace' and prosperity this long is unprecedented. To pretend either that this move isn't a serious departure from the foreign policy followed by all US Presidents since the war or that we've all been toiling under violence since WWII is stupid.

For whatever reason, maybe to defend a garbage and naive worldview or perhaps simple dishonesty, you've ignored the last 73 years of what has been going on. Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, Iraq, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq 2 Electric Boogaloo, Libya, etc.

It isn't a departure from anything, it isn't new, it isn't unique. If you seriously think this is the case then you ought to re-evaluate your view on the matter. The only reason you think there is peace is because it isn't your home getting blown up, it isn't your government being toppled, it isn't your neighbor trying to kill you. So please spare me the sanctimonious garbage regarding threatening world peace. Go tell that lie to somebody dumb enough to believe it

[Thanatttynia]

Eh, I'm selfish. 'World peace' for me adequately describes the ~seventy years of peace we've enjoyed in the West under an American-led system. It's not been absolute, of course, but a period of 'peace' and prosperity this long is unprecedented. To pretend either that this move isn't a serious departure from the foreign policy followed by all US Presidents since the war or that we've all been toiling under violence since WWII is stupid.

1) For whatever reason, maybe to defend a garbage and naive worldview or perhaps simple dishonesty, you've ignored the last 73 years of what has been going on. 2) Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, Iraq, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq 2 Electric Boogaloo, Libya, etc.

3) It isn't a departure from anything, it isn't new, it isn't unique. If you seriously think this is the case then you ought to re-evaluate your view on the matter. 4) The only reason you think there is peace is because it isn't your home getting blown up, it isn't your government being toppled, it isn't your neighbor trying to kill you. So please spare me the sanctimonious garbage regarding threatening world peace. Go tell that lie to somebody dumb enough to believe it

1) Call me evil and inhuman all you want, but you're the one with a naive worldview. People are basically violent. Nations made up of people are basically violent. Moving past that and into a new age in which diplomatic routes are explored first before military action or war has been a great human achievement. Perfect? Of course not, but I wouldn't like to live in a world in which that wasn't mainstream thinking (read: literally any time pre-~100 years ago.)
2) Well aware of all those conflicts. As I said, my use of the phrase 'world peace' was to refer to what would probably more properly be called Pax Americana - the period we have enjoyed in the West of peace and prosperity relative to what we would have enjoyed had we been alive at any other point in history. I am grateful for that.
3) It is, it is, it is.
4) I can appreciate this. I recognise that if it were my home being blown up etc., I might have a different view on the matter, hence why I said 'we... in the West' - I was careful to couch that language in terms personal to myself. Just because I am in the West (and I am extremely lucky in that regard) that does not mean I can't or don't care about people in other countries. I do. But on another point of human nature: people are basically selfish. As a thought experiment - would you rather your family be killed or the family of someone else be killed? I don't like putting it into such stark terms, and we should of course work towards a world in which no families had to be killed, but you're going to choose to save your own family.

Please, though, don't misinterpret my views; I'm not a hawk, I'm not a warmonger, I don't feed on human misery. I'm surprised by the tone in your comment, to be honest, since I don't think I necessarily said anything to indicate that I did. A world without war would be brilliant, but it's not going to happen. Treaties like this which decrease the likelihood of (nuclear) war breaking out are the best option we currently have, and denigrating them or laughing at them falling apart is, again, stupid. They protect you from annihilation.

[Auze]

... which the Soviet Union already had. How much do you want to bet the Russians will beat you to it if a new Space Race starts? because the odds aren't really good for you lol.

Yes the Russians could definitely afford that

I see you haven't heard of Mir.

[The East Marches II]

1) Call me evil and inhuman all you want, but you're the one with a naive worldview. People are basically violent. Nations made up of people are basically violent. Moving past that and into a new age in which diplomatic routes are explored first before military action or war has been a great human achievement. Perfect? Of course not, but I wouldn't like to live in a world in which that wasn't mainstream thinking (read: literally any time pre-~100 years ago.)

Oh goodie, the Fukuyama lie again. The diplomatists have nothing to do with the threat of nuclear annihilation. The nativity of your worldview is that you are under the mistaken belief that the 90s has continued successfully and we're all living in peaceful liberal democracies (or soon to be them). That isn't the case.

2) Well aware of all those conflicts. As I said, my use of the phrase 'world peace' was to refer to what would probably more properly be called Pax Americana - the period we have enjoyed in the West of peace and prosperity relative to what we would have enjoyed had we been alive at any other point in history. I am grateful for that.

Then perhaps you should have said Pax Americana instead of world peace.

3) It is, it is, it is.

How? How is it different than Bush deciding Iraq has been canceled, or Clinton throwing cruise missles from the Balkans to Mesopotamia, or Bush and Columbia. Perhaps I need to bring up Reagan! It isn't new, it isn't unique. Its par for the course. "It is, it is" is meaningless drivel because you can't summon a real argument to throw back.

4) I can appreciate this. I recognise that if it were my home being blown up etc., I might have a different view on the matter, hence why I said 'we... in the West' - I was careful to couch that language in terms personal to myself. Just because I am in the West (and I am extremely lucky in that regard) that does not mean I can't or don't care about people in other countries. I do. But on another point of human nature: people are basically selfish. As a thought experiment - would you rather your family be killed or the family of someone else be killed? I don't like putting it into such stark terms, and we should of course work towards a world in which no families had to be killed, but you're going to choose to save your own family.

Please, though, don't misinterpret my views; I'm not a hawk, I'm not a warmonger, I don't feed on human misery. I'm surprised by the tone in your comment, to be honest, since I don't think I necessarily said anything to indicate that I did. A world without war would be brilliant, but it's not going to happen. Treaties like this which decrease the likelihood of (nuclear) war breaking out are the best option we currently have, and denigrating them or laughing at them falling apart is, again, stupid. They protect you from annihilation.

It is not a treaty, its an executive agreement with a middle eastern country. Not to mention, we've broken nuclear treaties and so have the Ivans without starting wars. Again more pearl clutching over nothing. You only couched it after the fact and in a mealy mouthed way. As for the insane assumption that Trump is threatening this so called Western peace by bullying another Middle Eastern country, I can only laugh. First you disconnect the ME and "Western" peace but now when it suits you, you connect them. You've earned that tone by spouting ideas that are both 20 years out of date and responsible for the largest chain of strategic failures the west has seen since the run up to World War 2.

[Negarakita]

Just read that there's still plenty of resistance by the YPG in Afrin after the joint Turkish/FSA invasion. Glad to know the Kurds haven't given up on that city and the region yet.

Speaking of that, did anyone see that Turkish propaganda video of the soldier giving chocolate and candy to a Syrian kid in that region? Fucking disgusting.

Being kind to the people you liberate from terrorists, how disgusting!

I guess you find publicity stunts by the kurds disgusting as well?

[Torrocca]

Just read that there's still plenty of resistance by the YPG in Afrin after the joint Turkish/FSA invasion. Glad to know the Kurds haven't given up on that city and the region yet.

Speaking of that, did anyone see that Turkish propaganda video of the soldier giving chocolate and candy to a Syrian kid in that region? Fucking disgusting.

Being kind to the people you liberate from terrorists, how disgusting!

>Calling the YPG terrorists

This is some deep levels of ideology, wew laddie

I guess you find publicity stunts by the kurds disgusting as well?

No, because they're not going on an imperialist Jihad through northern Syria and murdering civilians. :^)

[El-Amin Caliphate]

No, because they're not going on an imperialist Jihad through northern Syria and murdering civilians. :^)

No one's doing a jihad.
Also, the Turkish invasion of Afrin went wrong. The Turks started looting the city. So my Torroca is right to be upset. Also, aren't YPG munafiqeen (hypocrites)?

[Torrocca]

No, because they're not going on an imperialist Jihad through northern Syria and murdering civilians. :^)

No one's doing a jihad.
Also, the Turkish invasion of Afrin went wrong. The Turks started looting the city. So my Torroca is right to be upset. Also, aren't YPG munafiqeen (hypocrites)?

Well the Turks with their FSA/ISIS buddies sure are being conquering dickheads regardless.

The YPG aren't hypocrites, though. They're fighting for democracy and for freedom. Nothing hypocritical about that.

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

No one's doing a jihad.
Also, the Turkish invasion of Afrin went wrong. The Turks started looting the city. So my Torroca is right to be upset. Also, aren't YPG munafiqeen (hypocrites)?

Well the Turks with their FSA/ISIS buddies sure are being conquering dickheads regardless.

The YPG aren't hypocrites, though. They're fighting for democracy and for freedom. Nothing hypocritical about that.

He means hypocrites in the Islamic sense. Munafiqun. It's the term for people who claim to be Muslim but act otherwise.

[Torrocca]

Well the Turks with their FSA/ISIS buddies sure are being conquering dickheads regardless.

The YPG aren't hypocrites, though. They're fighting for democracy and for freedom. Nothing hypocritical about that.

He means hypocrites in the Islamic sense. Munafiqun. It's the term for people who claim to be Muslim but act otherwise.

... Pretty sure they don't act like non-Muslims (bar the Kurds that aren't Muslim).

[New Bradenia]

The Syrian Democrats defeat the Syrian Government and became true allies of NATO, USA and Israel with Libya, Egypt and Tunisia (They were in the "Arab Spring")

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

The Syrian Democrats defeat the Syrian Government and became true allies of NATO, USA and Israel with Libya, Egypt and Tunisia (They were in the "Arab Spring")

Syrian Democrats? Who are you referring to? The SDF? Lol good luck. That coalition would fall apart the moment they defeated the government. Not to mention that they would still have to defeat the Turkish-backed forces and Daesh.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

He means hypocrites in the Islamic sense. Munafiqun. It's the term for people who claim to be Muslim but act otherwise.

... Pretty sure they don't act like non-Muslims (bar the Kurds that aren't Muslim).

Do they fight for Al-Islam or for their own political gain?

[Torrocca]

... Pretty sure they don't act like non-Muslims (bar the Kurds that aren't Muslim).

Do they fight for Al-Islam or for their own political gain?

Just because they fight for their own political gain doesn't mean they're not Muslims.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Do they fight for Al-Islam or for their own political gain?

Just because they fight for their own political gain doesn't mean they're not Muslims.

1: You didn't answer the question
2: Never said that
Also, I found some stuff in human rights stuffs from the YPG and SDF: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_r ... d_militias (scroll down to "DFNS-associated militias") (Also open up " Human rights under the DFNS Federal Government")
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People' ... tion_Units (open up "Allegations concerning violations of international law")

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

Just because they fight for their own political gain doesn't mean they're not Muslims.

1: You didn't answer the question
2: Never said that
Also, I found some stuff in human rights stuffs from the YPG and SDF: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_r ... d_militias (scroll down to "DFNS-associated militias") (Also open up " Human rights under the DFNS Federal Government")
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People' ... tion_Units (open up "Allegations concerning violations of international law")

How does that make them as a whole munafiqun, though? They have not advocated those actions as a group compared to groups like Daesh that actively call for the slaughter of Shia and unbelievers.

[Negarakita]

Being kind to the people you liberate from terrorists, how disgusting!

>Calling the YPG terrorists

This is some deep levels of ideology, wew laddie

I guess you find publicity stunts by the kurds disgusting as well?

No, because they're not going on an imperialist Jihad through northern Syria and murdering civilians. :^)

1. They are directly affiliated with the PKK, who are terrorists no matter what your ideology. That makes them terrorists to me.
2. They are murdering civilians. That is war. And turkey, despite the wet dreams of islamists, is not acting in the name of Islam. They are simply getting rid of an entity that is affiliated with a terrorist group that attacks them. Plus, they are supporting the democratic forces that actually represent Syrian people.

[Kubumba Tribe]

>Calling the YPG terrorists

This is some deep levels of ideology, wew laddie



No, because they're not going on an imperialist Jihad through northern Syria and murdering civilians. :^)

1. They are directly affiliated with the PKK, who are terrorists no matter what your ideology. That makes them terrorists to me.

Yeah, the PKK is bad, but that doesn't make the YPG bad (aside from potentially not governing according to the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah)

2. They are murdering civilians.

Are you referring to the PKK, the YPG or both?

That is war. And turkey, despite the wet dreams of islamists, is not acting in the name of Islam.

Oi, I only partly thought that

[Negarakita]

1. They are directly affiliated with the PKK, who are terrorists no matter what your ideology. That makes them terrorists to me.

Yeah, the PKK is bad, but that doesn't make the YPG bad (aside from potentially not governing according to the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah)

2. They are murdering civilians.

Are you referring to the PKK, the YPG or both?

That is war. And turkey, despite the wet dreams of islamists, is not acting in the name of Islam.

Oi, I only partly thought that

If you give your brother weapons knowing he will use it for terrorism, you too are a terrorist. And both kill civilians.

That last remark is more directed to the people I met online who praise Erdoğan as though he is the caliph.

[MERIZoC]

>unironically arguing terrorist groups in and of themselves are bad things in the MEC megathread

the absolute state of things

[Kubumba Tribe]

Yeah, the PKK is bad, but that doesn't make the YPG bad (aside from potentially not governing according to the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah)

Are you referring to the PKK, the YPG or both?

Oi, I only partly thought that

If you give your brother weapons knowing he will use it for terrorism, you too are a terrorist. And both kill civilians.

I'd go with calling them "enablers of terrorists", and not "terrorists" themselves. Also, proof that the YPG killed civilians? The most I've found was of them persecuting non-Kurds and evicting people from their homes.

That last remark is more directed to the people I met online who praise Erdoğan as though he is the caliph.

Oh ok.

[Torrocca]

>Calling the YPG terrorists

This is some deep levels of ideology, wew laddie



No, because they're not going on an imperialist Jihad through northern Syria and murdering civilians. :^)

1. They are directly affiliated with the PKK, who are terrorists no matter what your ideology. That makes them terrorists to me.

"I ignore the context of a situation and just take the labels applied by governments to organizations to see whether they're bad or good!"

Someone hasn't been keeping up with the Turkish oppression of the Kurds. =^)

2. They are murdering civilians. That is war. And turkey, despite the wet dreams of islamists, is not acting in the name of Islam. They are simply getting rid of an entity that is affiliated with a terrorist group that attacks them. Plus, they are supporting the democratic forces that actually represent Syrian people.

Evidence of the YPG murdering civilians?

I, meanwhile, can give you evidence of Turkish soldiers (AND the former ISIS/FSA goons now on their payroll) murdering and mutilating Kurdish people in Afrin like utter savages (mind you, the city was evacuated by the YPG, and Kurdish fighters fought outside the city to prevent harm to non-evacuees), such as the female YPG fighter whose corpse was mutilated by them that made rounds in the news.

And Kurdish Syria isn't democratic? lmao

[Negarakita]

1. They are directly affiliated with the PKK, who are terrorists no matter what your ideology. That makes them terrorists to me.

"I ignore the context of a situation and just take the labels applied by governments to organizations to see whether they're bad or good!"

Someone hasn't been keeping up with the Turkish oppression of the Kurds. =^)

2. They are murdering civilians. That is war. And turkey, despite the wet dreams of islamists, is not acting in the name of Islam. They are simply getting rid of an entity that is affiliated with a terrorist group that attacks them. Plus, they are supporting the democratic forces that actually represent Syrian people.

Evidence of the YPG murdering civilians?

I, meanwhile, can give you evidence of Turkish soldiers (AND the former ISIS/FSA goons now on their payroll) murdering and mutilating Kurdish people in Afrin like utter savages (mind you, the city was evacuated by the YPG, and Kurdish fighters fought outside the city to prevent harm to non-evacuees), such as the female YPG fighter whose corpse was mutilated by them that made rounds in the news.

And Kurdish Syria isn't democratic? lmao

1. I don't deny that that happens. However, it has definitely been declining in recent years. Much of the oppression stems from terrorist groups being heavily present among the kurds, and while I disagree with discrimination it is not impossible to see where it comes from and that the kurds have not helped their case.

2. https://www.dailysabah.com/columns/nage ... n-advances, http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/pydypg ... ry--113107. I accept that you won't accept these sources, because they are from the other side, but that's online political discussion.

3. It's democratic, but not representative of the Syrian population who are for the most part conservative muslims. The YPG rely on foreign fighters , because they know that they don't have enough appeal.