Turkey Demands Syrian Army Exit Rebel Areas, Threatens Force

[MMM-E]

in the last 7 days over 2900 Tanks,Howitzers,MLRS,AFVs,IFVs entered Idlib .... and today more 300 Turkish Military Vehicles enter Idlib

https://twitter.com/x/status/1226894178103238657

Turkish Army never will leave Idlib ....unlike more Turkish Military Vehicles enter Idlib

 

[masterchief_mirza]

s. Let me explain it to you in simple terms.

1- A legal representative of a state (in this case Syria) has asked another nation (Iran) to come to its aid.
This means Iran's presence in Syria is legal. If this is going over your head, then I cannot make it any simpler for you.

Ok Mr clown college graduate, let's try once more.

I can stay here all night cutting and pasting your own mess of a discussion for you to repeatedly trip over.

I simply asked you in response to your above statement whether Assad was elected in a free and fair election.

To that you responded that the UN recognised HIM, NOT SYRIA, BUT THE LEADER ASSAD.

Me:
"And said "legal representative" was elected in a free and fair election to represent the Syrian people on whose behalf he invited Iran? Right??"

You:
"He is a UN recognised leader of Syria, that's what matters. We're talking about the legality of the issue, not feelings."

So there's no point denying that you
"stated UN recognition makes a difference in this regards" because that's exactly what you did.

Your response therein implied the UN gave him legitimacy and even "legality" (your word, not mine) to act on behalf of the Syrian people, at which point I showed you that the UN did no such thing.

There really is no need to trip over your own mess repeatedly just to try and legitimise Assad. He's a dictator by any definition! That's all I'm saying. I never said folks aren't allowed to support dictatorships, of course they are. I'm no moral authority. However it is reasonable to get our definitions right.

Apart from Assad's own government and its allies, he is defined as a dictator who was not elected by way of free and fair elections. This compromises his ability to carry out the mandate of the Syrian people in their interests. This is plain for you to see.

 

[Philosopher]

Ok Mr clown college graduate, let's try once more.

"Once more", you mean the petty insults?

I can stay here all night cutting and pasting your own mess of a discussion for you to repeatedly trip over.

So far repeating yourself is the only thing you've done anyway.

I simply asked you in response to your above statement whether Assad was elected in a free and fair election.

It's not your job to decide whether those were free and fair elections. Do you have evidence they were not?

To that you responded that the UN recognised HIM, NOT SYRIA, BUT THE LEADER ASSAD.

Playing with semantics now?

Me:
"And said "legal representative" was elected in a free and fair election to represent the Syrian people on whose behalf he invited Iran? Right??"

You:
"He is a UN recognised leader of Syria, that's what matters. We're talking about the legality of the issue, not feelings."

So you're admitting your main issue is the inability to analyse the comment correctly?

This part of the statement:

" We're talking about the legality of the issue"

Is the main part because Syria government invitation of Iran made it legal. You're obsessing over the "UN recognised" portion which does not change my statement in any way with regards to the legal argument.

So there's no point denying that you
"stated UN recognition makes a difference in this regards" because that's exactly what you did.

It makes zero difference, like I said above.

Your response therein implied the UN gave him legitimacy and even "legality" (your word, not mine) to act on behalf of the Syrian people, at which point I showed you that the UN did no such thing.

More strawman arguments. I am telling you exactly what I have said but you're trying to pretend as if I am saying something else.

There really is no need to trip over your own mess repeatedly just to try and legitimise Assad. He's a dictator by any definition! That's all I'm saying. I never said folks aren't allowed to support dictatorships, of course they are. I'm no moral authority. However it is reasonable to get our definitions right.

Dictator that was voted in? Go learn what the definition of a dictator is. Unless you can provide proof those election were "fake" then I suggest your cease making claims when you cannot back them.

Apart from Assad's own government and its allies, he is defined as a dictator who was not elected by way of free and fair elections. This compromises his ability to carry out the mandate of the Syrian people in their interests. This is plain for you to see.

As above.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Me:
"And said "legal representative" was elected in a free and fair election to represent the Syrian people on whose behalf he invited Iran? Right??"

You:
"He is a UN recognised leader of Syria, that's what matters. We're talking about the legality of the issue, not feelings."

Me a bit later:

"You claimed the UN authorised him."

You in response:
"I never made any such statement. I said, The Syrian government asked Iran to go into Syria hence it is a legal intervention. "

Now read the above. You clearly did make "such statement" as to imply UN authority. You misled your audience. I refuted your attempted misrepresentation of facts.

Now you seem to be denying ever attempting to muddy the waters in the first place by bringing "UN recognition" into the discussion.

Now you seem to fall back on Assad being legal by Syrian law alone (dissociating your current stance from what you said previously about UN recognition), which I wholeheartedly agree with. Assad is in line with Assadian law 100%. That is all that really matters.

 

[Philosopher]

Me:
"And said "legal representative" was elected in a free and fair election to represent the Syrian people on whose behalf he invited Iran? Right??"

Indeed, yes. I see no reason to believe otherwise.

Now read the above. You clearly did make "such statement" as to imply UN authority. You misled your audience. I refuted your attempted misrepresentation of facts.

I am telling you what I meant. You don't decide for me what I mean or do not mean. If I tell you that I don't think UN recognise is an important aspect, then this is what I am saying. If you want to believe otherwise, then you're basically resorting to strawman argument.

Now you seem to be denying ever attempting to muddy the waters in the first place by bringing "UN recognition" into the discussion.

No, you're the one doing that actually. Why? because I have told you multiple times already that I don't believe UN recognition is important in the legal aspect of my comment. Now, are you going to keep with the strawman fallacy?

Now you seem to fall back on Assad being legal by Syrian law alone (dissociating your current stance from what you said previously about UN recognition), which I wholeheartedly agree with. Assad is in line with Assadian law 100%. That is all that really matters.

I am not "dissociating" with anything. You simply were misinterpreting (whether deliberately or due to inability to comprehend) my statement.
Well of course, the government of Syria and its legislative branch decides the law of Syria. And Iran and Syria had a defence pact. Hence my main and initial statement that this makes Iran's presence in Syria, completely legal.

 

[500]

Assad was actually voted in, hence why he is in office. If you're against it, go write a letter to the UN about it. You're using the word hypocrisy out of context and inaccurately. I am not here to teach you basic English though.

Assad inherited his throne from his dad who took a power in military coup.

Iran is represented by the president, when did the president ever deny this incident? Even if one person made a statement, that does not equate to "Iran denying it". Do I need to teach you elementary reasoning?

Iranian chief leader is Khamenai not so called president.

A nation, invading and bombing another nation is by definition illegal unless UNSC votes for it.

Nonsense. Accoring to UN countries have right for self defence.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Assad inherited his throne from his dad who took a power in military coup.

Regardless, SAR flag flies at UN headquarters. So it is internationally recognized as legitimate.

 

[Philosopher]

Assad inherited his throne from his dad who took a power in military coup.

And state of Israel was invented by the British, that does mean you don't hold elections?

Iranian chief leader is Khamenai not so called president.

He is the spiritual leader, not the political representative. That's the presidents job.

Nonsense. Accoring to UN countries have right for self defence.

What self defence you taking about here?

 

[masterchief_mirza]

I have told you multiple times already that I don't believe UN recognition is important in the legal aspect of my comment.

Your original statement that I feel conflicts with your current opinion... "He is a UN recognised leader of Syria, that's what matters. We're talking about the legality of the issue, not feelings."

Let the reader decide whether or not you originally implied "UN recognition" of said leader carried any degree of importance in terms of the legality of Assad asking Iran to intervene.

The rest of your post is obfuscation to avoid addressing this glaring inconsistency.

 

[Philosopher]

Your original statement that I feel conflicts with your current opinion... "He is a UN recognised leader of Syria, that's what matters. We're talking about the legality of the issue, not feelings."

Your interpretation does not dictate my meaning. I have told you what I meant in that statement multiple times already.

Let the reader decide whether or not you originally implied "UN recognition" of said leader carried any degree of importance in terms of the legality of Assad asking Iran to intervene.

That's not how this works. I am the one that decides what my comment meant, not you or anyone else. Now if you actually want to engage in a discussion, learn how to avoid strawman fallacy etc. Otherwise these discussions serve no purpose.

The rest of your post is obfuscation to avoid addressing this glaring inconsistency.

Your entire comments were basically copy and paste of the same thing. There is only so many ways I can explain something to you. That is not "obfuscation".

 

[500]

And state of Israel was invented by the British, that does mean you don't hold elections?

Israel has free transparent elections, free press, independent courts... None of it exists in Syria.

He is the spiritual leader, not the political representative. That's the presidents job.

LOL guy who writes day and night about Iran knows nothing about Iran.

What self defence you taking about here?

For example organizations threatning Turkish security. Also Assad regime threatened to take Turkish Hatay.

 

[Philosopher]

Israel has free transparent elections, free press, independent courts... None of it exists in Syria.

Go ahead and prove it.

LOL guy who writes day and night about Iran knows nothing about Iran.

You need to pay attention to comments more closely before ranting like a child.

For example organizations threatning Turkish security. Also Assad regime threatened to take Turkish Hatay.

Sorry, not good enough. Sending tanks on another sovereign nations soil without its permission because some "organisation were threatening Turkey". What's next? some people were looking at them the wrong way?

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Israel has free transparent elections, free press, independent courts... None of it exists in Syria.


LOL guy who writes day and night about Iran knows nothing about Iran.


For example organizations threatning Turkish security. Also Assad regime threatened to take Turkish Hatay.

So? And Estonia threatens to take Ivangorod? What's your point? Every country tries to take over the world for themselves.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Your interpretation does not dictate my meaning. I have told you what I meant in that statement multiple times already.

So you're correcting your previous implication that the UN recognition of Assad is of importance when determining the legality of Assad's actions in inviting Iranian proxies into Syria?

To remind you, here's what you said:

"He is a UN recognised leader of Syria, that's what matters. We're talking about the legality of the issue, not feelings."

You agree with me that UN recognition of Assad as the leader of SAR doesn't actually matter?

 

[500]

Go ahead and prove it.

Right now prime minister of Israel is being prosecuted.

You need to pay attention to comments more closely before ranting like a child.

Again desperate personal attacks. Here some titles of Khamenei:

• the Commander of the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran
• the Commander of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army
• the Commander of the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy
• the Commander of the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force
• the Commander of the Islamic Republic of Iran Air Defense Force
• the Commander of the IRGC
• the Commander of the IRGC Ground Forces
• the Commander of the IRGC Navy
• the Commander of the IRGC Aerospace Force
• the Commander of the IRGC Quds Force
• the Commander of the Basij Organization
• the Commander of the Law Enforcement Force
• the Heads of the Counter Intelligence Units
• the Heads of the Intelligence Units
• approves elected members of the Assembly of Experts.

he is just spiritual leader, not political. LOLZ. I cant believe that person who is soi obsessed with Iran literally knows nothing about it.

Sorry, not good enough. Sending tanks on another sovereign nations soil without its permission because some "organisation were threatening Turkey". What's next? some people were looking at them the wrong way?

If u think its not good enough - complain to UN.