Turkish operation started against Assad's forces

[masterchief_mirza]

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.

Post 47: you denied dropping the "UN recognition" phrase:

Me. "You dropped "UN recognised" from your definition."
You. "Nothing was "dropped", You appeared to lack the ability to understand the main context, so I had to simplify it for you"

So is it dropped or not?

 

[Philosopher]

Post 47: you denied dropping the "UN recognition" phrase:

Me. "You dropped "UN recognised" from your definition."
You. "Nothing was "dropped", You appeared to lack the ability to understand the main context, so I had to simplify it for you"

So is it dropped or not?

See? This is why I say the main issue here is your ability to engage in a discussion. I put dropped in "" for a reason. In that I removed it not because I did not believe in it, but I removed it to make it easier for you to understand the main portion of my original statement. I even told you that in the comment you just quoted. You're choosing to ignore it it seems. I am not here to teach you such basic things like how to read comment and analyse. Furthermore, you're now frankly just wasting time with such repetitive comments. I have already made it clear to you what my meaning was. Whether you decide to accept it or not is not my problem, so unless you want to actually discuss what I am telling you is my point, then this discussion is serving no purpose.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

See? This is why I say the main issue here is your ability to engage in a discussion. I put dropped in "" for a reason. In that I removed it not because I did not believe in it, but I removed it to make it easier for you to understand the main portion of my original statement. You need to learn how to analyse comments properly. I am not here to teach you such basic things. Furthermore, you're now frankly just wasting time with such repetitive comments. I have already made it clear to you what my meaning was. Whether you decide to accept it or not is not my problem, so unless you want to actually discuss what I am telling you is my point, then this discussion is serving no purpose.

Is it dropped or not?

Do you wish your original statement to read:

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

Or:

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

?

 

[Philosopher]

Is it dropped or not?

Do you wish your original statement to read:

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

Or:

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

?

I am not here to spoon feed you, I have made it clear already what my meaning is. So I take it you don't have anything constructive to discuss and you're just repeating and spamming in the thread?

 

[masterchief_mirza]

I am not here to spoon feed you, I have made it clear already what my meaning is. So I take it you don't have anything constructive to discuss and you're just repeating and spamming in the thread?

You have stated both positions as your true stance in different posts, hence it is not clear.

To me, the two statements have different inferences.

I'm simply asking for confirmation of your true stance.

Feel free to report me if you think I'm derailing the thread.

 

[Philosopher]

You have stated both positions as your true stance in different posts, hence it is not clear.

To me, the two statements have different inferences.

I'm simply asking for confirmation of your true stance.

It is very clear if you actually paid attention to the previous comments I have posted.

 

[cabatli_53]

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.

Talk about yourself instead of people. We are here to tell about the truths revealed by Turkish and international sources. You are not obliged for anything. Stop flooding thread in order to proceed your endless ego war with members. Noone asked you about what you believed or not. Just share your source and go your own way and let the people decide whose truths reflect the truths.

 

[Philosopher]

Talk about yourself instead of people. We are here to tell about the truths revealed by Turkish and international sources. .

This is the point, I am asking for the sources pointing to what I asked. Have you given me any sources?

Just share your source and go your own way and let the people decide whose truths reflect the truths.

This is how discussions are done, you make claims, I ask for sources. I am only asking you for your sources for your claims. There are much misinformation in this conflict, so finding good sources is important.

 

[cabatli_53]

This is the point, I am asking for the sources pointing to what I asked. Have you given me any sources?



This is how discussions are done, you make claims, I ask for sources. I am only asking you for your sources for your claims. There are much misinformation in this conflict, so finding good sources is important.

Ok! End this nonsense in here.

 

[Philosopher]

Ok! End this nonsense in here.

Why are you getting angry? We're just having a discussion. Relax!

 

[masterchief_mirza]

It is very clear if you actually paid attention to the previous comment I have posted.

I will take that as you having dropped or removed (or any appropriate synonym of your choice) the phrase "UN recognised" since that was your most recently held position.

Thank you.

Your original statement is now a more accurate reflection of reality, which is that Assad acts on Assadian authority alone, with the approval of Syrian state allies. I agree with you that this represents the extent of the legality of Assad's actions with regards to inviting Iranian proxies onto Syrian territory to engage or attempt to engage in military action against both Syrians and other nation states' military personnel.

 

[Philosopher]

I will take that as you having dropped or removed (or any appropriate synonym of your choice) the phrase "UN recognised" since that was your most recently held position.

Thank you.

Nothing has been "dropped". Once again, go back and read the previous statements.

Your original statement is now a more accurate reflection of reality, which is that Assad acts on Assadian authority alone, with the approval of Syrian state allies. I agree with you that this represents the extent of the legality of Assad's actions with regards to inviting Iranian proxies onto Syrian territory to engage or attempt to engage in military action against both Syrians and other nation states' military personnel.

My original statement has been the same since the beginning. It is your interpretations that has changed (finally!).

And yes, Assad does indeed have the right to invite whomever he wants on his soil. Iran of course had a defence pacts with Syria, so Iran's presence is not surprising.

 

[cabatli_53]

Why are you getting angry? We're just having a discussion. Relax!

Who said I am angry ? Do you suppose we are playing a discussion game ? You have totally drailled thread with nonsense arguments and you think you have an upperhand ? My friend! It is enough. This thread is opened to follow the insidents related with tittle, not for endless responses spreaded with non-stop quotes with anybody who objects to your idea so Let the members follow the matters instead of your ambitious to get the winner in debates.

 

[Philosopher]

Who said I am angry ? Do you suppose we are playing a discussion game ? You have totally drailled thread with nonsense arguments and you think you have an upperhand ? My friend! It is enough. This thread is opened to follow the insidents related with tittle, not for endless responses spreaded with non-stop quotes with anybody who objects to your idea so Let the members follow the matters instead of your ambitious to get the winner in debates.

You're getting the wrong idea. I am not interested in getting upper hand or not. Like I said, I simply wanted some sources to go by that were reliable. As I already said, there is much misinformation around. Anyway, clearly this discussion is not going anywhere, so we'll discuss more when more information is out.

 

[cabatli_53]

You're getting the wrong idea. I am not interested in getting upper hand or not. Like I said, I simply wanted some sources to go by that were reliable. As I already said, there is much misinformation around. Anyway, clearly this discussion is not going anywhere, so we'll discuss more when more information is out.

Ok! If you are not satisfied with Turkish sources, You have to find alternatives who proves otherwise. Until someone disproof Turkish source, We accept them as the truth. You are free to believe on what Asad sources are spreading so No need to proceed this nonsense because It is said that noone make you pressure to believe what is shared by Turkish members. End this behavior in here. What you are doing is actually a systematic trolling to drail the thread into nonstop and baseless debates.