Ceasefire in Turkey-Syria


Guest MormonGator
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

I disagreed with Obama on 85% of the issues but thought he was a highly decent man personally

I used to kinda sorta think this, too. Kinda sorta. No more. During his eight years and since, it has become apparent that Obama is a political animal through and through. He has no moral foundations at all outside of what gains him political power and popularity. Remember his "evolution" on homosexual "marriage"? The man stands for exactly nothing except his own power and influence. I think that's despicable.

What's that, you say? That's how 95% of politicians are? Okay. I grant you that argument. I think 95% of politicians act in a despicable manner. I'm no great fan of Rand Paul, but at least I can honestly respect the man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

You are probably right. After all, he's taken credit for things he hasn't done 981 times before, so the 982nd time will be different. And those bottles of whiskey you found when you helped me move? They were really just for a friend. I swear. 

Name 1 of the 981.

 

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

No worries bud, I didn't take it that way at all!. And for the record, I disagreed with Obama on 85% of the issues but thought he was a highly decent man personally. I disagree on Trump on 25% of the issues, but I think he's a corrupt and immoral man. I think part of my issue with Trumpers is that they don't understand Bill Clinton supporters. Many, many democrats also thought that Bill Clinton was a highly corrupt and immoral man yet they voted for him because they agreed with him on the issues. Trumpers do....the exact same thing but claim not to understand why democrats supported Bill Clinton during the 90's. Basically, it all depends on your political views.

Now, I will say that most LDS Trumpers would openly admit that Trump is a very, very troubled man morally. If @MormonGator was openly cheating on his wife with a mistress, got the mistress pregnant and married her-he'd be disfellowshipped, probably excommunicated and rightly so. Virtually no LDS would talk about my high character and moral  choices. But, if I ran for office and they agreed with me on the issues, I do wonder if they'd vote for me. I know I'm stereotyping, and I apologize-but the Evangelicals I've heard about and read about seem to think Trumps behavior is irrelevant because he basically agrees with them politically. LDS have more integrity than that.  

Flip-flop, flop-flip... blah blah blah has ZERO to do with your idiotic statement about Trump's actions as President.  You got TDS, I get it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

 @Traveler, if you think you can bridge the partisan divide in our country, then I wish you the best of luck, and I'd even vote for you if you ran for office. 

I was not trying to bridge the partisan divide in our country - I was trying to give understanding to the conflicts of the Middle East and why our allies seem shallow to our interests. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

I would compare Trump Middle East policies (as well as any other Western political policy) to a fall leaf blowing in the wind.  It may be pretty, depending on someone’s point of view but it will not last beyond its season.

The Middle East - and the rest of the world - will be much better off if it would.  It is not "pretty".  It is SANE.

The double-edged sword of Democracy only allows for an American leader to get his ideas implemented for 4 to 8 years - which is fortunate for the self-aggrandizing Presidents making a fortune off of Middle Eastern unrest and equally unfortunate for the Presidents who actually want to get out of the conflicts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The Middle East - and the rest of the world - will be much better off if it would.  It is not "pretty".  It is SANE.

The double-edged sword of Democracy only allows for an American leader to get his ideas implemented for 4 to 8 years - which is fortunate for the self-aggrandizing Presidents making a fortune off of Middle Eastern unrest and equally unfortunate for the Presidents who actually want to get out of the conflicts.

This is the sad truth, isn't it?  Even if Trump accomplishes everything he hopes to accomplish... AND we assume it is everything we all hope it is... that won't change the fact that there is a HUGE political flywheel pushing forward that no one is going to stop for long.  All we can hope for is that Trump will create a dam against the waters spewing forth from the flywheel.  After his presidency, we can see a Trump presidency doing the same thing.  But there is no way that Pence has the same acumen.  He will not be able to push nearly hard enough.  He will be over-run.

It will go back to business as usual.  No matter how much Trump can "drain the swamp", the fact is that the deep state has dredged out enough of our land that we are naturally in a state of a shallow water table.  We simply don't have enough people that can get elected to finish draining the swamp and begin filling it in again to where we are on stable ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
3 hours ago, estradling75 said:

You claim he is taking credit (justified or not)...  prove it.    It really should not be that hard to do.  Until then you are putting words in his mouth and that is a fundamentally dishonest thing to do.

Okay. If you think I'm being "fundamentally dishonest" for telling you that a girl who has cheated on you five times will cheat on you six times, I'm fine with that. Sadly, when you take back that girl you are only hurting yourself and Trumps lies hurt everyone-including the republican party. Which I'm a part of. And which I want to succeed. 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/02/politics/donald-trump-took-credit-for-what/index.html 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/20/that-was-my-idea-how-trump-claims-credit-nearly-everything/

But don't worry, he won't take credit for this one. Besides, CNN? WaPo? Fake news.

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
2 hours ago, Vort said:

I used to kinda sorta think this, too. Kinda sorta. No more. During his eight years and since, it has become apparent that Obama is a political animal through and through. He has no moral foundations at all outside of what gains him political power and popularity. Remember his "evolution" on homosexual "marriage"? The man stands for exactly nothing except his own power and influence. I think that's despicable.

What's that, you say? That's how 95% of politicians are? Okay. I grant you that argument. I think 95% of politicians act in a despicable manner. I'm no great fan of Rand Paul, but at least I can honestly respect the man.

I used to think that all politicians who disagreed with me were fundamentally dishonest/corrupt in some way. Then I "evolved" into thinking that all politicians were corrupt. Even ones I agreed with. Since then, I've become an adult and matured. I accept  that people are human and if you are looking for moral purity, it's best to hide in your room from the real world and not get any job, especially one in politics.

Maybe one day I'll go back to thinking that everyone who disagrees with me is morally deficient in some way. But to be fair to Obama, I've never seen a credible report of him cheating on his wife (Like Bill Clinton and Trump have openly did). In the spirit of bipartisanship, I've never seen reports W has either. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mores said:

This is the sad truth, isn't it?  Even if Trump accomplishes everything he hopes to accomplish... AND we assume it is everything we all hope it is... that won't change the fact that there is a HUGE political flywheel pushing forward that no one is going to stop for long.  All we can hope for is that Trump will create a dam against the waters spewing forth from the flywheel.  After his presidency, we can see a Trump presidency doing the same thing.  But there is no way that Pence has the same acumen.  He will not be able to push nearly hard enough.  He will be over-run.

It will go back to business as usual.  No matter how much Trump can "drain the swamp", the fact is that the deep state has dredged out enough of our land that we are naturally in a state of a shallow water table.  We simply don't have enough people that can get elected to finish draining the swamp and begin filling it in again to where we are on stable ground.

Yep.  Especially as it becomes crystal clear that the swamp occupation is bi/multipartisan and is not an ideology but a way of life... only in Washington DC do you get the sitting President of the USA boo'ed by Americans on an internationally televised baseball game the same day Baghdadi gets killed.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vort said:

I used to kinda sorta think this, too. Kinda sorta. No more. During his eight years and since, it has become apparent that Obama is a political animal through and through. He has no moral foundations at all outside of what gains him political power and popularity. Remember his "evolution" on homosexual "marriage"? The man stands for exactly nothing except his own power and influence. I think that's despicable.

What's that, you say? That's how 95% of politicians are? Okay. I grant you that argument. I think 95% of politicians act in a despicable manner. I'm no great fan of Rand Paul, but at least I can honestly respect the man.

What you're missing is that @MormonGator et. al. only look at adultery as the only important sin.  So... you drone strike civilians, no problem as long as you didn't publicly cheat on your wife.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Okay. If you think I'm being "fundamentally dishonest" for telling you that a girl who has cheated on you five times will cheat on you six times, I'm fine with that. Sadly, when you take back that girl you are only hurting yourself and Trumps lies hurt everyone-including the republican party. Which I'm a part of. And which I want to succeed. 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/02/politics/donald-trump-took-credit-for-what/index.html 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/20/that-was-my-idea-how-trump-claims-credit-nearly-everything/

But don't worry, he won't take credit for this one. Besides, CNN? WaPo? Fake news.

You are being fundamentally dishonest when you straw man the conversation, and then beat on the straw man to claim victory.

Lets recap...  I do not care if he claims it or not...  I kinda expected him to already...  @NeuroTypical compared Trump's statements with Obama's and asked if anyone could find where Trump made a comparable claim...  Then you claim he did..  You are asked to prove that.  Should be really easy.  Trump is not known for filtering what he thinks, and he is all over the media.  Proof of your claim (should it exist) should be very easy to find.

Instead of backing up your claim... (which should be easy) you engage in character assassination.  There is nothing questionable about Trump having a valid claim for what happened to Abu Bakr al'Baghdadi...  The only question is "Is it claiming it" or is he giving credit to the Military . (Both is also valid)  So either back up your claim or back off it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/19/2019 at 3:25 AM, JohnsonJones said:

Where do you get this idea that they want a Communist government?

Sorry, I have been away a while.   

I said most of their leadership wants a communist government.  What evidence to you have to the contrary?  

Quote

The ones being attacked are actually the Democrat Kurds overall, not specifically the Communist Kurds.  Your are considering ALL Kurds as part of the PKK, when that is distinctly NOT true. 

Those "democratic Kurds" you are referring to have ties to the PKK.   There are plenty of sources:

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/the-ypg-pkk-connection/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/world/middleeast/turkey-kurds-syria.html

Quote

Thus far, JAG is more correct, it would look more like an Israeli state (but without the modern power or ability, meaning we'd probably have to be there for a loooong while if we wanted it to continue to exist).

I believe that as much I believed that Iraq would become a peaceful democracy after we invaded.   Remember those promises?   

Quote

Turkey is attacking for several reasons, but Communism is NOT one of them (as far as I know).  They see them as terrorists . 

For good reason.  Not all Kurds are terrorists, but a lot of them are, just like not all Muslims are terrorists, but a lot of them are.

Quote

If you have evidence that shows that they would actually form a Communist N.Korea

I said it would be closer to North Korea than Israel and there is plenty of evidence.

Quote

In other areas such as Northern Iraq, the Kurds had Soviet Backing early on. 

Just early on?

Quote

Left to their own devices they did not seem to hold a specific Communist government, though their roots of support started with the Soviets.  They have that background but they seemed to lean more towards a democratic way of governance when left to their own devices. 

Source?
 

Quote

With the US's involvement in the past few decades, they seem to be one of the more enthusiastic factions that supported the US's involvement and even the democratic process the US has tried to instill in Iraq.

They side with the US for the same reason we side with them; because we are an enemy of their enemy and vice versa.   It doesn't mean we share the same values.

Quote

I am interested in your evidence and sources that it would end up like a N.Korea though, especially if the US had actually been the main creator and influencer of their nation.

That's easy enough to do.

Here is a list of Kurdish organizations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kurdish_organisations

Here is a map of where those organizations in the region are located:

Kurdish_Political_Parties.png

 

Now, research each organization in the area and see who they have ties to.  See who are the biggest players.

When it comes to the Kurds in Syria, currently the biggest player is the YPG (Kurdish Deomocratic Union Party).  This article has a pretty good summary and does a pretty good job of explaining YPG's ties to the PKK:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/who-are-the-syrian-kurds-the-us-is-abandoning/2019/10/07/b0e75ed4-e919-11e9-a329-7378fbfa1b63_story.html

I do think that you make some good points, but are over-optimistic in your expectations.  

A lot of Americans believed that Iraq would become a peaceful democracy after we overthrew Saddam.  A lot of Americans still believe that the Kurds will form a stable democracy if given their own country.   What I think that as Americans, a lot of us don't understand that not everyone thinks like us.

The majority of Americans want our country to be a country where a lot of different people with different ideas work together in the country while still being different.

In the Middle East (for at least the past several thousand years), what a lot of people want is for their tribe, religion, political party, sect, or whatever to have absolute control over their sphere of influence.   I see the Kurds as being no different in this regard.   

Edited by Scott
Missed adding a link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scott said:

Sorry, I have been away a while.   

I said most of their leadership wants a communist government.  What evidence to you have to the contrary?  

Those "democratic Kurds" you are referring to have ties to the PKK.   There are plenty of sources:

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/the-ypg-pkk-connection/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/world/middleeast/turkey-kurds-syria.html

I believe that as much I believed that Iraq would become a peaceful democracy after we invaded.   Remember those promises?   

For good reason.  Not all Kurds are terrorists, but a lot of them are, just like not all Muslims are terrorists, but a lot of them are.

I said it would be closer to North Korea than Israel and there is plenty of evidence.

Just early on?

Source?
 

They side with the US for the same reason we side with them; because we are an enemy of their enemy and vice versa.   It doesn't mean we share the same values.

That's easy enough to do.

Here is a list of Kurdish organizations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kurdish_organisations

Here is a map of where those organizations in the region are located:

Kurdish_Political_Parties.png

 

Now, research each organization in the area and see who they have ties to.  See who are the biggest players.

When it comes to the Kurds in Syria, currently the biggest player is the YPG (Kurdish Deomocratic Union Party).  This article has a pretty good summary and does a pretty good job of explaining YPG's ties to the PKK.

I do think that you make some good points, but are over-optimistic in your expectations.  

A lot of Americans believed that Iraq would become a peaceful democracy after we overthrew Saddam.  A lot of Americans still believe that the Kurds will form a stable democracy if given their own country.   What I think that as Americans, a lot of us don't understand that not everyone thinks like us.

The majority of Americans want our country to be a country where a lot of different people with different ideas work together in the country while still being different.

In the Middle East (for at least the past several thousand years), what a lot of people want is for their tribe, religion, political party, sect, or whatever to have absolute control over their sphere of influence.   I see the Kurds as being no different in this regard.   

@JohnsonJones, I'm gonna hold to my promise not to argue with you after winning my son's mission call contest  :), so I'm going to go a round-about way of stating my opinion without directly contradicting yours.  Let's see how this goes.

Okay, so JJ's views about Democratic Kurds more likely stem from the KRGs.  They are the most prominent group in the news from the Iraq War currently governing Iraqi Kurdistan and they have shown that they are more a remnant of the progressive, western-leaning sect of the old Iranian/Ottoman Empires who look towards Woodrow Wilson's ideals of democratic self-determination.   The rest of Iraq is a failed State ever since the fall of the Ottomans.  Unfortunately, these KRG Kurds only represent a small section of the entire Greater Kurdistan region.  For the rest of the Kurds, Scott's perceptions are closer to the truth of the matter.  So, if you're talking about an Independent Kurdistan, you should qualify what you're talking about.  Because, right now, at this moment, the only Kurdish groups that may be capable of democratic self determination is KRG - the rest are still caught in the culture of Middle Eastern Rule of the Sword.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/28/2019 at 2:16 PM, anatess2 said:

The Middle East - and the rest of the world - will be much better off if it would.  It is not "pretty".  It is SANE.

The double-edged sword of Democracy only allows for an American leader to get his ideas implemented for 4 to 8 years - which is fortunate for the self-aggrandizing Presidents making a fortune off of Middle Eastern unrest and equally unfortunate for the Presidents who actually want to get out of the conflicts.

Many years ago I read a story about a very successful architect living in New York City prior to WWII.  He saw the world moving towards war and was convinced that the USA should stay out of the European conflicts.  Finely, he decided that he must separate himself and his family.  He sold all his interests and moved himself and his family to a small island to avoid the conflicts.  His mistake was that the small island he chose was part of Midway.  He and his family spent WWII in Japanese concentration camps where he lost his wife and a daughter.

I listed a number of factors that are the essence of what is going on in the Middle East.  Because things are all connected based on those factors - pulling out in one place and not the entire Middle East can be broken down into support of one factor over another.  What you are saying as inconstant factors based of 4-8 year terms of self-aggrandizing Presidents I see as very consistent with Saudi Family policies - with the exception of Obama that seems to have strong Iran (non-Arab Shiite) connections.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/29/2019 at 12:14 PM, Scott said:

Sorry, I have been away a while.   

I said most of their leadership wants a communist government.  What evidence to you have to the contrary?  

There are no Islamic movements that wants communism - they want Sharia Law as define by the Quran. Communism requires the suppression of all religious ideas, motives and operations from effecting any Laws.  I have not conversed with any Muslim that believe there is suitable connection with Communism or for that matter even democracy.  By the very term of Islam - it means someone that believes in G-d and being subject to G-d.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Traveler said:

There are no Islamic movements that wants communism - they want Sharia Law as define by the Quran. Communism requires the suppression of all religious ideas, motives and operations from effecting any Laws.  I have not conversed with any Muslim that believe there is suitable connection with Communism or for that matter even democracy.  By the very term of Islam - it means someone that believes in G-d and being subject to G-d.

 

The Traveler

This is not quite accurate.  Sharia and Communism are not incompatible.  Religious Freedom and Communism are incompatible.  There are a lot of communist/socialist Kurish groups in all 4 countries covering greater Kurdistan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/31/2019 at 8:18 PM, anatess2 said:

This is not quite accurate.  Sharia and Communism are not incompatible.  Religious Freedom and Communism are incompatible.  There are a lot of communist/socialist Kurish groups in all 4 countries covering greater Kurdistan.

I would be very interested in any Islamic source (especially an Imam) that publishes that Sharia and Communism are compatible.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/31/2019 at 12:29 PM, Traveler said:

There are no Islamic movements that wants communism - they want Sharia Law as define by the Quran.

The Kurdish communists groups (or most of their other political parties and organizations) aren't an Islamic movement (even if some of them incorporate religious laws into their beliefs).  They are a secular movements; in fact many want a separation of Church and State.  Most Kurds are Muslims (though other tribal beliefs are mixed in with their form of [mostly] Sunni Islam), but that doesn't mean all of their movements are Islamic movements.

Further, historically there have been many Islamic movements that sided with communism (and others that sided against it).

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Traveler said:

I would be very interested in any Islamic source (especially an Imam) that publishes that Sharia and Communism are compatible.

 

The Traveler

Socialism is an economic, not religious, principle.  Islam, like Christianity, adhere to socialist principles of economic equality.  But unlike modern Christianity, Islam is still culturally driven to form theocratic governments - hence, the application of socialist principles in Islamic societies is compatible with Communism (government imposed socio-economic equality) more so than Democratic. 

In non-theocratic governments, Communism cannot thrive if the people are given the freedom to exercise religious traditions because religious teachings can conflict with the State's edicts.  Hence, non-theocratic communist governments suppress religious practice.

The "father" of Sharia Socialism is Muhammed Nakhshab.  He was the first to create a political movement to convert Iran into a Socialist country while still following Sharia.  Since then, there are (and still is) a lot of Islamic Communist Parties all over greater Kurdistan and the rest of the Middle East.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scott said:

The Kurdish communists groups (or most of their other political parties and organizations) aren't an Islamic movement (even if some of them incorporate religious laws into their beliefs).  They are a secular movements; in fact many want a separation of Church and State.  Most Kurds are Muslims (though other tribal beliefs are mixed in with their form of [mostly] Sunni Islam), but that doesn't mean all of their movements are Islamic movements.

Further, historically there have been many Islamic movements that sided with communism (and others that sided against it).

My impression is that you have never read the Koran or talked to a devout Muslim (Sunni or Shiite).  It is acceptable in Islam to align with someone to fight a common enemy but such alignments are not evidence of ideological agreement.   Those familiar with Islam and the Hajj should know that the great symbol of Satan is compound interest - which is why so many Muslims cheered the attack on the twin towers on Wall Street.  And why many Muslims appear to side with Communists against Capitalistic run economies based upon compound interest investments.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Traveler said:

My impression is that you have never read the Koran or talked to a devout Muslim (Sunni or Shiite).    

My advice:  Don't resort to this kind of elitism when trying to put your ideas across.  Your entire post doesn't change in impact if you omit this demeaning sentence.

 

5 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

It is acceptable in Islam to align with someone to fight a common enemy but such alignments are not evidence of ideological agreement.   Those familiar with Islam and the Hajj should know that the great symbol of Satan is compound interest - which is why so many Muslims cheered the attack on the twin towers on Wall Street.  And why many Muslims appear to side with Communists against Capitalistic run economies based upon compound interest investments.

 

The Traveler

Communist Kurds are not trying to become autonomous and self-rule Kurdistan because they want to oppose the USA.  Communist Kurds want to be autonomous and self-rule Kurdistan so they can be free to impose their own desires on their own land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Socialism is an economic, not religious, principle.  Islam, like Christianity, adhere to socialist principles of economic equality.  But unlike modern Christianity, Islam is still culturally driven to form theocratic governments - hence, the application of socialist principles in Islamic societies is compatible with Communism (government imposed socio-economic equality) more so than Democratic. 

In non-theocratic governments, Communism cannot thrive if the people are given the freedom to exercise religious traditions because religious teachings can conflict with the State's edicts.  Hence, non-theocratic communist governments suppress religious practice.

The "father" of Sharia Socialism is Muhammed Nakhshab.  He was the first to create a political movement to convert Iran into a Socialist country while still following Sharia.  Since then, there are (and still is) a lot of Islamic Communist Parties all over greater Kurdistan and the rest of the Middle East.

Though communism is a form of socialism - Communism as defined by Karl Marx; specifically defines religion (including Islam) as an enemy of the people.  As I have posted before - because of economic dependence on compound interest in Western economies (which Sharia law opposes) Sharia may seem socialistic - but it is like calling the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of running a communistic (socialistic)  welfare system.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Though communism is a form of socialism - Communism as defined by Karl Marx; specifically defines religion (including Islam) as an enemy of the people.  As I have posted before - because of economic dependence on compound interest in Western economies (which Sharia law opposes) Sharia may seem socialistic - but it is like calling the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of running a communistic (socialistic)  welfare system.

 

The Traveler

Karl Marx defined Communism but he is not in control of how countries like the USSR or China, etc., applied Communism.  You can't, therefore, say... oh China is not Communist because they are availing themselves of capitalist markets which is not taught by Marx...

In the same manner, you cannot say the Communist Party of Kurdistan are not Communists because they adhere to Sharia which is not taught by Marx...

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, anatess2 said:

My advice:  Don't resort to this kind of elitism when trying to put your ideas across.  Your entire post doesn't change in impact if you omit this demeaning sentence.

You are correct - it does appear as elitism.  However, often it appears to me that arguments are obtained through exclusive use of limited sources.  As an example some anti-Mormon arguments are such that it is obvious the person pursuing certain points has very limited exposure to devout members in good standing with the Church.

Quote

Communist Kurds are not trying to become autonomous and self-rule Kurdistan because they want to oppose the USA.  Communist Kurds want to be autonomous and self-rule Kurdistan so they can be free to impose their own desires on their own land.

I do not understand your logic in labeling Communist Kurds and why you would think that they would be reliable allies to any first world economy or country over that of a second world Communist economy or country?

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I do not understand your logic in labeling Communist Kurds and why you would think that they would be reliable allies to any first world economy or country over that of a second world Communist economy or country?

 

The Traveler

I don't understand "labeling Communist Kurds"... that's what they are called - Communist Party of Kurdistan.  There's also Communist Party of Kurdistan-Iraq which is a different party.  There's also Communist party of Kurdistan-Turkey.  There's also that big communist group in Iran (not Kurds) who are Shiites etc. etc. etc.  That's what they call themselves - look at that picture @Scott shared.  You'll see all the labels there - some complete with Communist in their group's name - of all the Kurdish political movements.

These groups are not in there for any alliances with anybody.  They're in there for the aim of governing Greater Kurdistan.  The Communist Party of Kurdistan-Iraq, for example, was anti-Saddam Hussein and at the same time anti-USA unlike the Kurdistan Democratic Party who aided the US in the Iraq war who were only doing so because they went into it step-by-step - ally with the Americans to take Hussein out then work on freeing themselves from colonial occupation after that.  The Kurdistan Democratic Party is currently governing Kurdistan (in Iraq) but are not autonomous from the government of Iraq.  They don't have aims of taking control of the rest of greater Kurdistan that is not in Iraq unlike the Communist Party of Kurdistan who wants to control all of Greater Kurdistan in all 4 countries.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I don't understand "labeling Communist Kurds"... that's what they are called - Communist Party of Kurdistan.  There's also Communist Party of Kurdistan-Iraq which is a different party.  There's also Communist party of Kurdistan-Turkey.  There's also that big communist group in Iran (not Kurds) who are Shiites etc. etc. etc.  That's what they call themselves - look at that picture @Scott shared.  You'll see all the labels there - some complete with Communist in their group's name - of all the Kurdish political movements.

These groups are not in there for any alliances with anybody.  They're in there for the aim of governing Greater Kurdistan.  The Communist Party of Kurdistan-Iraq, for example, was anti-Saddam Hussein and at the same time anti-USA unlike the Kurdistan Democratic Party who aided the US in the Iraq war who were only doing so because they went into it step-by-step - ally with the Americans to take Hussein out then work on freeing themselves from colonial occupation after that.

I understand tribalism in the Middle East.  I also understand Sharia Law and the role in Sharia Law of the Imam (theocratic ruler and interpreter of the law).   I understand tribal rule and how there are divisions between Sunni and Shiite.  I am suggesting that terms such as Communist and Democratic added to Islamic structures of governments is inaccurate labels of propaganda and not reflective of Islamic ideologies any more than saying that the united order is socialistic, communistic or democratic - or that G-d governs his kingdom based in socialistic, communistic or democratic principles as defined by man. 

I saw the labels in that picture @Scott shared - I am suggesting that the labels used are not Islamic.  More likely from some other source.  I am of the mind of Nicodemus - that divine law requires we hear a person speak before we judge them or attach labels or know how they are aligned.  What little I know of Islam and Islamic societies does not fit the narrative provided by our media.  I suggest we hold off somewhat with labels like Communist or Democratic in understand how they are aligned.

I do agree with Trump concerning the deployment of troops anywhere in the Middle East - that there must be clear objectives or we should get out.  I also believe that congress and not the president should clearly declare if and when we engage in any war (or battles of any war).  I can agree with the war powers act to allow the president to act in an emergency - but if we continue to engage that congress must declare that we are at war - or we must disengage our troops.  

Also - for the record - I believe black ops (as currently defined) are illegal and need to be more clearly defined as to who has command and control and who has over site - and how long can such operations remain secret and unknown to the citizens of the republic that are in the end - responsible.  I find it interesting that CNN claims that our current president is not responsible (to any degree) of current black ops.  If CNN is correct then whoever has taken control should be executed for treason during armed conflict!

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share