Turkish operation started against Assad's forces

[masterchief_mirza]

None of this actually provides any proof does it? All the actual proof point towards the rebel i.e terrorist inflicting the casualties so far.





You're obviously getting emotional. I think all rational people understood the purpose of the Iranian attack. The few hour warning Iran gave them is a big hint, no? The incredible thing of course is despite the few hour warning they got, this still happened:

More Than 100 Troops Have Brain Injuries From Iran Missile Strike, Pentagon Says

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/10/world/middleeast/iraq-iran-brain-injuries.html

Of course, the purpose of that attack was to show how accurately Iran could have targeted them and killed them if it wanted it. Clearly Iran did not want to start a major conflict. Yet we cannot ignore the fact the Americans stated that any attack by Iran will face a major retaliation, yet Iran openly attacked their air base, yet nothing in retaliation. And don't forget, these Americans are the one you Turks will be relying on if a major conflict breaks out!



Fake news. There was no evidence that happened. As for backtracking, I seem to remember you running away from the discussion last night.

You're a really great guy yknow.

Here's what I said to you:

"What you talking about you deluded idiot? You dropped "UN recognised" from your definition. It is you who got it. The rest of what you said in that post is fine as it is purely subjective. Assad is acting within the confines of Syrian law. He was elected in a Syrian election. Now you and I will differ on whether that process was free and fair or transparent but that's subjective opinion. Fair enough.

Once again, thanks and well done."

To which I .expected a reply along the lines of your usual whining that you never said UN recognised or meant it or whatever. I have received no reply as of yet.

Fake news. There was no evidence that happened.

Waiting for UN recognised Assad to release footage are we?

 

[Philosopher]

Here's what I said to you:

"What you talking about you deluded idiot?

So resorting to insults again? Not surprised.

You dropped "UN recognised" from your definition.

Nothing was "dropped", You appeared to lack the ability to understand the main context, so I had to simplify it for you.

Assad is acting within the confines of Syrian law. He was elected in a Syrian election. Now you and I will differ on whether that process was free and fair or transparent but that's subjective opinion. Fair enough.

Once again, thanks and well done."

Well done, so you're finally getting it. Good for you.

 

[cabatli_53]

None of this actually provides any proof does it? All the actual proof point towards the rebel i.e terrorist inflicting the casualties so far.

Do you really suppose I have an obligation to convince you with showing proofs about any subject whenever you spread a BS to feel better? Play your own propaganda game however you want. I am just making fun with your nonsense.

 

[Nasr]

Turkey is writing the recipe of its own disaster. The lines will be drawn in the Muslim World, and those Muslim World that support Turkey in it's blatant aggression in Syria, will find themselves on the short end of the proverbial stick. Their ignorance will cost them dearly and Turkey's true colors will unveil to the world. Needless to say, this Turkish aggression will cost it, it's existence.

The true nature of Turkey is clearly visible, where Trump Administration is on the cusp of handing Israel a free license to exterminate Palestinians and annex the entire West Bank. If Turkey really had any true allegiance toward the Muslim World, then it would have have openly, militarily challenged Israel by deploying troops in the West Bank, and not Syria or Libya.

I call Turkey's acts as pure bull$hit to fool the Muslim World into believing that it is the Bastion of Islam. It's not and Erdogan doesn't fool me or those of us Muslims who are able to see past the apparent and pierce through to the actual truth of the matter.

 

[Philosopher]

Do you really suppose I have an obligation to convince you with showing proofs about any subject whenever you spread a BS to feel better? Play your own propaganda game however you want. I am just making fun with your nonsense.

Sorry, but we will not obliged to believe something because you want us to. I have no reasons not to believe it if you could actually give me a proper reason to. I am following the situation in Syria and minus the Turkish backed terrorist/rebels causing causalities to SAA, I have not seen anything from Turkey directly. That may change, but I am talking as of now.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

So resorting to insults again? Not surprised.




Nothing was "dropped", You appeared to lack the ability to understand the main context, so I had to simply for you.





Well done, so you're finally getting it. Good for 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 have within that paragraph declared his "UN recognition" as "what matters" (I.e. what is important or relevant to the point you're making). Your immediate next sentence declares the context as being the "legality" of his asking Iran to enter Syria. You have directly connected Assad's UN recognition with his legal capacity to ask Iranians to enter Syria.

If you remove the phrase "UN recognised" from your statement, it simply becomes an issue of Assad following Assadian laws, which is a different statement. You inserted "UN recognised" to lend credibility to your comment because everyone will laugh if you declare Assad has a legal right to invite Iran as per his own laws. Your attempt to misappropriate the UN is exposed as misleading.

Please ask any scholar of English grammar or syntax or linguistics to review the above paragraph if you don't believe in my argument. Once you've done that, remove the British flags from your profile until your English proficiency is improved.

 

[dBSPL]

Q: Why are more and more Syrians getting radicalized every day?

A:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1227242632511971328

Today, more than 30 civilians have died, mostly women and children. Dozens of people die every day under russian or assad's strikes. Dear PDF, you may have gotten used to this situation and may not feel anything anymore. However, everyone should be afraid of the wrath of those who lost their beloved childrens and families and those who no longer have anything to lose.

 

[Genghis khan1]

Turkey is writing the recipe of its own disaster. The lines will be drawn in the Muslim World, and those Muslim World that support Turkey in it's blatant aggression in Syria, will find themselves on the short end of the proverbial stick. Their ignorance will cost them dearly and Turkey's true colors will unveil to the world. Needless to say, this Turkish aggression will cost it, it's existence.

The true nature of Turkey is clearly visible, where Trump Administration is on the cusp of handing Israel a free license to exterminate Palestinians and annex the entire West Bank. If Turkey really had any true allegiance toward the Muslim World, then it would have have openly, militarily challenged Israel by deploying troops in the West Bank, and not Syria or Libya.

I call Turkey's acts as pure bull$hit to fool the Muslim World into believing that it is the Bastion of Islam. It's not and Erdogan doesn't fool me or those of us Muslims who are able to see past the apparent and pierce through to the actual truth of the matter.

Israel is not dropping barrels bombs on its people. Assad has killed more Syrians than Israelis in 70 years.

 

[Philosopher]

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 have within that paragraph declared his "UN recognition" as "what matters" (I.e. what is important or relevant to the point you're making). Your immediate next sentence declares the context as being the "legality" of his asking Iran to enter Syria. You have directly connected Assad's UN recognition with his legal capacity to ask Iranians to enter Syria.

You're coming up with your own interpretations. That's not what I meant in that statement. My "legal" argument has nothing to do with him being UN recognised. The importance of Syria being UN recognised and its leader by extension (although perhaps not legally as far as UN is concerned) is important in the sense of the legitimacy
of Syrian political systems i.e election.

You're basically resorting to straw-man argument.

If you remove the phrase "UN recognised" from your statement, it simply becomes an issue of Assad following Assadian laws, which is a different statement. You inserted "UN recognised" to lend credibility to your comment because everyone will laugh if you declare Assad has a legal right to invite Iran as per his own laws. Your attempt to misappropriate the UN is exposed as misleading.

Once again, straw-man argument. See above.

Basically what you're trying to do pretend as if you decide more than I what my comment were suppose to mean. This is a rather weak and desperate strategy.

Please ask any scholar of English grammar or syntax or linguistics to review the above paragraph if you don't believe in my argument. Once you've done that, remove the British flags from your profile until your English proficiency is improved.

I think what you need most of all is a simple lesson in learning in how not to resort to logical fallacies such as:

1- Ad hominem
2- Strawman

Also, I have already make it clear to you that I am the one that decides what I meant by my statement. You don't choose that. Doing so, is what we call strawman argument (see point-2 above).

 

[masterchief_mirza]

I call Turkey's acts as pure bull$hit to fool the Muslim World into believing that it is the Bastion of Islam. It's not and Erdogan doesn't fool me or those of us Muslims who are able to see past the apparent and pierce through to the actual truth of the matter.

What's it got to do with bastions of Islam? Turkey needs to secure Turkey's borders from multiple threats in the rogue failed state next door.

 

[Genghis khan1]

عملية عسكرية جديدة لفصائل الثوار بدعم تركي على مواقع نظام الأسد بريف
A new military operation by NSA factions with Turkish support on the Assad regime's countryside locations

https://twitter.com/x/status/1226803376224133120

Pakistan could have used some millions of tons of soon to be outdated Ammo and cruise missiles, siting in storages to help out Turkey in Syria. Hell if Pakistan acted properly when Saudis asked for alliance few years ago, Pakistan could have milk Saudis to restock it ammo depot with some fresh inventory. But unfortunately we got Iranian sympathizers in media n politics.

 

[cabatli_53]

Sorry, but we will not obliged to believe something because you want us to. I have no reasons not to believe it if you could actually give me a proper reason to. I am following the situation in Syria and minus the Turkish backed terrorist/rebels causing causalities to SAA, I have not seen anything from Turkey directly. That may change, but I am talking as of now.

You are talking as if Turks are obliged to show you some proofs to convince you. Who cares you or the people like you ? Besides, Who said You are obliged to believe what we are talking. At the end of the day, You will get the reality of the ground. You can believe whatever you want.

 

[Philosopher]

You are talking as if Turks are obliged to show you some proofs to convince you. Who cares you or the people like you ? Besides, Who said You are obliged to believe what we are talking.

You're not obliged to do anything, just don't expect people to take your statements seriously if all of them are based on unsubstantiated beliefs.

At the end of the day, You will get the reality of the ground. You can believe whatever you want.

Tag me whenever that happens.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

You're coming up with your own interpretations. That's not what I meant in that statement. My "legal" argument has nothing to do with him being UN recognised. The importance of Syria being UN recognised and its leader by extension (although perhaps not legally as far as UN is concerned) is important in the sense of the legitimacy
of Syrian political systems i.e election.

I already debunked your opinion that UN recognition of a nation state confers validation of electoral processes. The UN has no authority to declare any election as valid or otherwise. I provided that link previously and am not repeating it.

Therefore even your supposed context is incorrect.

Whatever your intention was, inserting the phrase "UN recognised" has misled your audience. Any normal English speaking person reading that paragraph will reach the conclusion I reached. You're backtracking to avoid this issue. Your assertions that "you know what you meant" are irrelevant as we can only interpret what you put in front of us. You could write gobbledygook and claim you know it means x or y - we will still see gobbledygook.

This is why if you actually meant "UN recognition" had no relevance, you should remove it from the paragraph such that the corrected text better reflects what you meant. Otherwise I am correct to say you are attempting to mislead the reader.

The conclusion is simple. If you truly felt UN recognition conferred legitimacy on either Assad's election or his invitation of Iran, you're factually wrong. If you felt that UN recognition actually had nothing to do with your immediate following statement "we're talking about the legality...", then your statement does not reflect that stance based on the sentence constructions used hence you're misleading your audience.

You actually flip flop between both positions regularly, lending further credibility to my conclusion.

Find an English teacher to corroborate the above but please remove the Union Flags in the meantime - this is again misleading your audience into thinking you can speak English.

 

[Philosopher]

I already debunked your opinion that UN recognition of a nation state confers validation of electoral processes. The UN has no authority to declare any election as valid or otherwise. I provided that link previously and am not repeating it.

Irrelevent. Read my previous comment again, and this time carefully.
This is exactly why I removed the UN part of my comment later on, because you lack the ability to understand the main context of that comment.

Therefore even your supposed context is incorrect.

That's because you're misinterpreting the context.

Whatever your intention was, inserting the phrase "UN recognised" has misled your audience. Any normal English speaking person reading that paragraph will reach the conclusion I reached. You're backtracking to avoid this issue. Your assertions that "you know what you meant" are irrelevant as we can only interpret what you put in front of us. You could write gobbledygook and claim you know it means x or y - we will still see gobbledygook.

All you have to do is ask for the persons meaning. You could have done that instead of resorting to strawman arguments continuously.

This is why if you actually meant "UN recognition" had no relevance, you should remove it from the paragraph such that the corrected text better reflects what you meant. Otherwise I am correct to say you are attempting to mislead the reader.

I did remove it in the end to help you understand, but clearly you missed the point of that.

The conclusion is simple. If you truly felt UN recognition conferred legitimacy on either Assad's election or his invitation of Iran, you're factually wrong.

And I have told already that regardless of the ability of UN to recognise government, I consider the fact that Assad is representing the state of Syria in UN an important factor. That part is still secondary to the main point of my statement. The point is:

"Syria asking Iran to intervene is what makes Iran presence legal".

Now, do you want me to continue repeating this? Another few dozen times?

If you felt that UN recognition actually had nothing to do with your immediate following statement "we're talking about the legality...", then your statement does not reflect that stance based on the sentence constructions used hence you're misleading your audience.

And once again, if you have difficulty understanding statement, the problem lies with you. As advised, next time ask for clarification.

You actually flip flop between both positions regularly, lending further credibility to my conclusion.

My stance has not changed one bit. I have only tried to make things simpler for you. But apparently you still don't understand.

Find an English teacher to corrborate the above but please remove the Union Flags in the meantime - this is again misleading your audience into thinking you can speak English.

When you resort to multiple forms of fallacy, you lose any credibility. My English is perfect. Your ability to engage in a proper discussion is the main barrier here.