HOME | DD
Party9999999 — Solidarity With Rojava
#anti #arab #battalion #battle #civl #democratic #east #federation #fight #forces #freedom #imperialism #imperialist #international #isil #islamic #kurd #kurdish #kurdistan #kurds #middle #middleeast #north #northern #people #peoples #protection #revolution #revolutionary #sdf #struggle #syria #turkey #turkish #unit #units #volunteer #war #west #western #ypg #antiimperialism #ifb #antiimperialist #rojava #daesh #islamicstate #syriancivilwar #syrianwar #syriawar #islamicstateofiraqandsyria #peoplesprotectionunits #rojavarevolution #internationalfreedombattalion #syriacrisis #syriancrisis #westernkurdistan #islamicstateofiraqandthelevant #syriandemocraticforces #democraticfederationofnorthernsyria #northernsyria #northsyria #westkurdistan #gozarto
Published: 2019-01-02 17:49:12 +0000 UTC; Views: 3665; Favourites: 20; Downloads: 6
Redirect to original
Description
Once again the wannabe Sultan is looking to take a bite out of Syria and it's up to the brave fighters of Rojava to stop him.Related content
Comments: 52
If we define a terrorist group as a group that causes violence for a political cause, then every single law enforcement institution and military branch are that as well. Just better funded, and backed by a state power. They still use violence for a political cause.
What we need to judge, is how that violence is uses, and against who it is used on. In this case, its used against military targets, who are actively invading, in order to protect the autonomy, of a democratic body that has been fighting against ISIS... fighting the invading army in this case is the political equivalent of self defense.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The Kurds invaded Syria first from Turkey, and have been causing trouble for other ethnic groups ever since.
They've been acting just as bad as ISIS towards Christians and other Arabs.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Lets break this down then.
"The Kurds invaded Syria first from Turkey". The pesh murga you're talking about were still largely from the region, and they were just trained and equipped in the Turkish area. Its basic military tactics. Pull out a friendly force, and prep them, before you send them back into the area against a foe. This is basic military tactics.
Now what exactly does this do to justify taking away their autonomy, either to a government they seceded from, or a foregn power?
"Kurds have been causing ethnic tension". Well if you were actively suppressed, and denied autonomy, then you'd likely not want to just accept that as your fate. Its very know that all forms of Kurdish accepting movements, or advocacy groups, have been violently suppressed. I wonder how that makes them the "bad guys" in this case.
"They've been acting just as bad as ISIS towards Christians and other Arabs". Objectively false. Name a single human rights watch, or oversight group, that does not have a vested interest in framing them, that describe them as even remotely as bad as you claim they are.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
newspunch.com/antifa-military-…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Same answer as the one where you also blankly site this obviously bs article.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
www.google.com/amp/s/www.teleg…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In that article, the most important part is likely where they claim that the YPG has committed atrocities and the like, yes?... Well... that part has no sources. And the part further down says that rebel groups in general has done bombing against the government held areas.
This is not well done journalism, by definition. At best they have a separate story which they stretched to make it seem it would make another story hold water. Even if everything they say and claim is 100% true, they presented in the worst and most lacking of ways. I'm not kidding, this is what we used to spot and report on in literature class.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Spoken like a true follower of baizhou Pravda
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If you cant even explain what you're arguing against, then how can you claim to know what it is? And subsequently, how can you argue that its bad?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
100 years worth of failed attempts, is not good for socialism's records for starters.
And then there's the body counts, the political blundering. The only thing that socialism did good was beat back the Nazis.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And yet you dont even know a high school political history level of what that term even means. You getting frustrated is just a side effect. You dont even know what the word means. Its like hearing a flat earther describe why they dislike hollow earth theory.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I do know that the father of socialism was a racist idiot who's only job was to right political theories. If he ever saw his theories put in practice like they were by that maniac from Georgia, he probably would've scrapped the whole thing and admitted Capitalism's success.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think you mean "the father of communism", right? Because 'Socialism' was a word used during the French Revolution. It was Marx who popularized a version of it, along with admittedly saying stupid shit in a letter, is funny to hear someone like you complain about.
Though Stalin being a cunt meaning that capitalism is a success is a non sequitur. To me its just an argument against authoritarianism. Even if you give people housing as a right, if you shoot their family for made up reasons, its shit no matter their economic policies.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ehhh, communism, socialism, marxism, fascism, stalinism, Nazism. To me there about like comparing different denominations of Christianity or sects in Islam, ya know?
They share bits and pieces here and there, some have ideals were introduced by other people, some lean left, some lean right, others sit and spin in the middle, but for the most part they hate each others guts (i,e, WWII).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
To me, its very useful to compare exactly what you mentioned. There's much difference between a Unitarian and a Baptist. And Secular Muslims and Traditionalist Muslims too. Alongside just comparing how Islam is an off shute of Christianity, and how it differed. History gives context, and outlines the dirrences. I'd argue those differences are important.
I personally am a very much non authoritarian socialist for a reason. I likely hate Stalin more than you to be honest.
However, I dont think you should put all those in the same bucket. Even if you mean well, it just removed nuance, and denies yourself from actually learning the ins and outs of it all. Just having a big box labled "bad guys" wont really do much for intellectual progress dont you think?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Truly. Just like with Christianity, there are more radical and docile sects. Christianity had the Medieval Catholics waging Crusader warfare against Islam to hold back its incursion into Europe and reclaim the Holy Lands. They also had Mormonism, which in its infancy was a carbon copy of Islam, but has purportedly grown more mellow in recent years. And then there's the whole conspiracy case around Freemasonry which...I ain't even go there.
People shape things to suit their ideology at the time. Hitler pieced together bits of Marxism with Aryan racism and Fascism to create Nazism.
The only thing that Stalin did good, was lead to the defeat of Hitler. That's all the credit I'm giving him.
I think it's important to remember the past so not to repeat the same mistakes. It's easy to put them in the same bucket as they all led to a dictator acting out in the name of that ideology.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I do largely agree with you on various religious sects have enough of a difference between then, in such that we should view them differently.
Where are you getting this idea that Hitler used Marxism and "just added in racism, and BOOM! Nazis were born"? In so many of the guy's speeches, he rails and rants against marxism. Its a constant thing. He flat out says that "the survival of the German people, is a question as to how to destroy marxism". So even on a rhetorical level, Hitler was directly opposed to it. And on a practical and political level, they weren't so either. Like I stated previously, the term "privatization" was coined to describe their economic policies. Hardly much of a "socialist" thing to do. And that's just aside their push for gender roles, and the systematic elimination of all socialists from their party during "the night of the long knives". Where they purged the party, and related entities like the SA (basically a pseudo police force militia the nazis organized, but broke up to win favor with the military). They sent most actual socialists to their deaths. Alongside all the Jews, gays, the mentally handicapped, anarchists, communists, socialists, feminists, and a bunch of others, were all pushed into the slave camps. By the way, the lefties were the first ones to get purged. Because it was used to justify and further the fearmongeing against marxism that Hitler used to tighten his grip on power, eventually turning the Wiemar Republic into the Third Reich. Its even more obvious if you just listen to the guy's speeches, or read his famous book, largely consisting of speeches. He really, really didn't like Marxism. Mainly because it asspouses that people are equals, and should be treated as such, while he sees everything to have a strict hierarchy. Between perceived races, genders, economic and social position. That's because that is what "right wing" means. An adherence to hierarchical structures. He was radically for that. Very radically. Which is why on a political science scale, fascism is on the far right. Alongside the subcategory of it, Nazism.
I do like that Stalin sent troops to help in the fight against the fascists in Spain, though that might just have been in "the national interest", as vague a term as that may be. Other than that, I do like small parts of the constitution he finished working on, that granted all soviet citizens the right to a job, and housing... then again, those were already pushed for by the previous members of the party, before Stalin purged everyone who weren't a yes-man. So all those things might just have been an afterthought, and not even something we should focus much on giving to Stalins credit. He was still a massive, massive cunt.
Being under a vaguely red flag, is not warranted to all be put under the same box. Although I agree with the sentiment of being vaguely against dictatorships, we must see how they themselves are directly in opposition to most groups previously, and afterwards, who say they fight for a similarly colored banner... and yet they are pinned with the same names.
Long point put shortly, the vast majority of socialists, communists, and anarchists, have fuck all want to put people like Stalin in a positive light. At most, I've seen people argue that "he was worse than the alternative", aka Hitler. Which I guess I can see the reasoning behind.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Remember those demeaning letters that Marx wrote about the Jews? Doesn't that align with much of what Hitler conjured up about the Jews being the evil set on destroying Germany?
Hitler's rants were mostly focused at Russia's brand of Marxism, not his, as he was reported to ‘learned a great deal from Marxism’, but said it didn't go far enough. Even Goebbels noted that the only difference between Hitler's Nazis and the communists of Russia was the Nazi party had a fierce sense of nationalism, while Russia leaned towards internationalism. Remember well that Hitler and Stalin started out the war as allies, agreeing to divide up Poland in the coming invasion.
What's also interesting to note, that the French Communist party requested no resistance be shown the Nazis, until the Nazis started to turn their pwer hungry claws to towards the Russian bear.
History shows that even Lenin showed a bit of genocidal racism towards people in Russia,, in the same way Hitler targeted undesirables in Germany.
Stalin and Lenin's targets were the Kulaks as the class enemies of Russia, the same way Hitler had targeted the Jews.
Collectivization in Russia brought many self inflicted famines to the populace of Ukraine, where many of the government labeled Kulaks lived.
Is there really any difference between what Hitler did and what both Stalin and Lenin did in the years prior to WWII?
The controversial event called the Holodomor is a painful reminder that Communism was not that far removed from Nazism in justifying killing human beings for the 'greater good'
In reality, the idea of genocide is grounded in Marxism straight from the horses mouth so to speak. Karl Marx endorsed the ideals of genocide.
Hitler and Stalin were peas from at least the same beanstalk, but not the same pod. They were equal evils, Stalin though had the advantage of being on the right side of history in wanted to eliminate a common foe with the Allies, in the same vein how an alliance was formed to dispatch Napoleon a century before. The only difference was Napoleon was everything he claimed to be, while Hitler was only an egotistical facade who believed himself an equal to Napoleon.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'll divide this a bit into a few topics for ease of the conversations. Feel free to add to that trend if you feel like it. It might help the flow and keeping track for us both.
*Hitler and Marx*
You claim that since Marx wrote letters which included insults for Jewish individuals, that proves that Hitler was inspired by them, to look down on Jews... if that was the case, why did most of his insults literally point out how Marxism was 'all part of the global Jewish conspiracy' called "Cultural Bolshevism"?... He focused all his efforts on associating Jews with an insane negative, and then associating communism and socialism, no, not just "the Russian brand of it", but all of it, with Jews. If he only thought it was Russia version that was bad, then he would likely not have purged Germany, Denmark, France, Ukraine, Norway, Poland, and so on... all of them had socialists, union members, communists, and anarchists, directly targeted. And the first time, The Night of the Long Knives, was just their internal purge in Germany. And if that wasn't a good enough hint, maybe you should actually read Hitlers speeches. Because that guy wont shut up about "The question on how to preserve the German people, ends up being a question on how to destroy communism".
*Corrections*
Stalin moved the Soviet Union towards Nationalism with his universal policy named "Socialism in one Country". The other nations he ruled over after the war was a buffer zone, not a sign of his internationalism.
I hate the guy too, but lets hate the actual him, rather than some cartoonish representation you can pretend fits into the box full of nazis.
*Class and Race*
Lenin targeted the Kulaks for class reasons, not race reasons like Hitler. He did so as a political move to seize land, since they literally were land owners, and then he turned their land over to the workers who worked under them. They were rural landowners. Capitalists. The same way feudal lords were targeted after the French Revolution, or slave owners were targeted after the Haiti Uprising. There is a difference. First, prior to the Russian Revolution, Kulaks literally had over a hundred times more influential a vote in the Russian Duma (basically a parlament), because their voting system was based what class they were from. They had far higher living conditions than most other Russians, they were a favored class by the previous government.
Can you really not see how this is different than the racist shit Hitler did?
*French What?*
I cant find any article that says what you're saying, that the French Communist party, literally were against standing up to the Nazis, until they invaded the Soviet Union. I actually could only find an article which spoke on how irregular it was to be with the resistance, and Communists were one of the most organized groups.
www.telegraph.co.uk/books/what…
And by the way, it was fairly common for governments to tell the conquered populations to stand down, because they are literally forced to. My own home, Denmark, were one of the first targets to fall to the Nazi war machine. We were told over the radio to surrender, by our own government. And for that, we became a puppet government, rather than direct military rule for a while. They were afraid. As were everyone back then. Its only human to want to save as many lives as you can, in a last ditch attempt to do some good. This is what they thought. It was not uncommon to give up back then. Same with France.
*Nazi Philosophy*
Nazis did not purge populations "for the greater good". Their entire philosophy revolved around the mythical "Arian Race", and how all of history was really a struggle between them, and 'lesser races'. The reason for the death camps, was literally because they thought it was a moral good to systematically wipe out those they thought were genetically disposed to wipe them out. They were insanely wrong, but this is what they believed. There was no "greater good", because that implies they do a "lesser evil" in the name of it. There was no lesser evil in their eyes. Only an active good. That is why they kept the camps running right up until the allies were within sight range of them. They thought it was so important to keep wiping out the "undesired", that they did so right up until the bitter end.
This is why Nazis are bad. Because those fuckers literally think wiping out millions, and planning to wipe out hundreds of millions more, was an active good, with no bad side effects.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Only if you think the people who fought against ISIS are terrorists.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Considering many of the Kurds they are 'fighting for' are not even Syrians, they illegally immigrated from Turkey, and have been discriminating against Christians as well as other Arabian ethnic groups.
In Iraq, Kurdish militia groups forcibly disarmed and abandoned Christian militias in the forefront of an ISIS attack.
he communist YPG has been active at ethnically cleansing Christian Assyrians, Arabs and other minorities in the areas they deem the “Kurdish” state. Often times the areas they claim don’t even have a Kurdish population.
In other words, they are the invaders of Syria.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You ever thought about writing a book, because this masterpiece of fiction.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not as much as the stuff you put up endorse a repeatedly failed ideology.
newspunch.com/antifa-military-…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your article sites "Prisonplanet" as its main source.... the Infowars subsidiary. Its hard to find a topic they aren't in direct conflict with reality on.
You need to check what your articles say, and who they are siting.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And I 'm supposed to take the words of a pro-socialist over them?
The only one who is direct conflict with reality to think that socialism could work at all.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Define socialism for me. Without googeling it. And yes, I'll know if you do.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Socialism is a system that claims to break down barriers between classes, but in reality, only strengthens them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You described a single claim, and your personal disparoval to said claim contained within, and not what socialism is. Do over. And by that I mean; actually do it this time.
Explain what socialism is. Just a simple definition will due if its too hard for you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Socialism= a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
It also means the elimination of private property, and business, which in all real world applications the government acted on behalf of the community.
A few exceptions have been Nazi Germany, which used a blend of socialism and capitalism to stay afloat, and Communist China, which has a limited free market trade with other countries.
If you support communism, that means your Deviantart page is also mine, and mine is also yours
Capitalism during the Great Depression
www.decodedscience.org/wp-cont…
Socialism in the Great Depression
www.europeantailoring.com/publ…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you for actually doing what I asked. Even if I disagree with you, it is nice to see you at least give enough of a shit to try. Despite my tone, I hope we can generally enjoy an actual human to human talk.
I do disagree with you however. On a few points. There are such things as market socialism. Which does not seek to "destroy businesses", simply rework how they are organized. Same goes for your examples of "mixed economies", namely Nazi Germany, the nation which literally coined the term "privatization" (yes seriously, its actually hilarious when you start reading up on it) and current day China, which even modern Maoists say that they are not socialist. And no I'm not even kidding there. They argue that China is using capitalism in order to build up the infrastructure necessary for transition to socialism... which even they are inconsistent on when that is. It gets weird quick.
Typically you can split the left into two categories economically. Those who favor it to be direct, or indirect socialism. "Direct" seeking to have the economy run by direct democratic bodies like communes, collectives, unions etc. And the "Indirect" seeks to place it under the state, and argue that it represents the workers and their interests, true or not. Same way some argue for representative and direct democracy if such an analogy fits.
And nice try at a pun. 'Try' being the word in focus mind you. I hope your lightheartedness continues.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Now this may sound weird coming from a guy who promotes capitalism and nashes socialism, but I do not think socialism or its sister communism works on the national or global scale. A local scale within a small community, maybe, but a national scale involving multiple and diverse communities, no.
That's why every attempt to incur the theory in absolute on a nation has resulted in a tyrannical take-over by one or a handful of individuals.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Can you elaborate on why you believe that socialism cant work beyond the community level?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, a community deals usually with one demographic.
A nation, say like Russia, or even the United States, has multiple demographics within its borders, in other words, more people disagreeing with the 'popular' POV of the socialist mindset.
Would a group of farmers agree on the same thing college professors would to better their lives? No, because they have different livelihoods.
The 2016 election proved that when a majority of more rural counties voted for a candidate who was a soft conservative, while the more urban counties voted for a candidate who was a progressive liberal.
Unity of thought can be found more in a local community, than on a national scale.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
When you say "demographics", are you actually talking about "race"? Or am I misunderstanding you? If so, please do elaborate. And please explain how this factor is key in determine one's political opinions.
And I'm curious, why dont you think people of, as you say, "different livelihoods", can agree politically? I dont really understand how you can think that. So please, do explain.
"Unity", is typically found by having some form of common identity. It can be in a trait, passtime, shared opinion, or what have you. Such identities can be cultivated, typically through propaganda, and thus be a tool for various political ends. For example, a politician going to a social event, a celebration or what have you. Taking advantage of the shared identity in said event, to associate it with what they present themselves as. For example how the United States pays major sporting events, to host military paraders. This associates entertainment passtime, with the nation, and said nations military, and showing public displays of loyalty to both. Thus, cultivating identity.
Socialists typically want to seek unity through shared experiences of vulnerability. In short, "because you suffer too, you are one of us. So lets stick together". I hope this is making sense so far.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, think about the nations that have caught onto socialism, mostly its hinged around racial or ethnic groups like the Kurdish rebels in Syria. Most of them are members of the Kurdish Communist party, and like many Kurdish militants are fighting for a nation for the Kurds.
Hitler used race to bolster his brand of socialism in Germany. In South Africa, politics have played into racial strife in farming communities.
Look at the difference between Southern California with its mostly media based culture and Northern California with its rural farming based culture. Northern California has had many petitions go through over the years to separate from the southern part of the state because of the government's left leaning policies.
Unity requires unity of thought and of desires. I'm from South Carolina. I went to a Baptist college in Tennessee. The most quarrels I saw were between a guy from my home state and an African American from New York City, mostly on the subject of the Civil War.
Of course, he was the only African American I knew there at the college, as most other students of African descent were either from Africa or from the Caribbean.
The unity that socialism preaches though removes individuality, and uniqueness. If history is to be our example, socialism is just as bad about fitting peoples into stereotypes as capitalism is.
It may be why some folks are saying Generation Z is leaning more towards conservatism and capitalism, as it lends more towards individual entrepreneurship than Socialism does.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
*Ethnicity and Socialism?*
You think socialism has mostly hinged on race?......... Implying that there is a special connection, rather than race just being a tool various political groupings have used to gain political favor... just like Nixon used "The Southern Strategy" to win votes from pro segregation southerners. Why are you pretending that socialism has a stronger connection to discriminatory policy, even though it expressly speaks of bringing equality, rather than ideologies that literally base themselves on hierarchical structures?
*Unity*
You dont need unity of thought and desires. That's what multiple political entities like parties can be good for. They represent various interests, and if done correctly, various disagreeing groups can simply settle through voting, rather than a more destructive alternatives.
And I dont really understand what your... I think example of racial tension(?), has done for your local community. I dont see how a region with more trouble, is evidence that all regions with similar groupings will end up with the same amount of tension.
And your California just seemed to outline there are regions with different political ideals... which is not really anything new to be honest. If you had a specific intention with that segment, feel free to re-word it if you want.
*Socialism and Individuality*
This is such a tired myth... for real, it hasn't changed in over three generations, and it still keeps being wrong.
So instead of harping against nearly every word you say in that section, I'll instead direct you to an article. I'm not trying to be rude, but if you kept hearing something that was insanely bullshit, your entire life, over and over and over, you might look at it with a slightly tired mind as well.
www.peoplesworld.org/article/s…
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"Prisonplanet"
Your tinfoil hats' showing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
I hope Robotnik and Dryhole reached climax from masturbating each other in your comments. At least somebody would've enjoyed it. (I only wasted 30 seconds reading it, which is not nearly enough time for me to worry about getting back.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Sometimes I seriously wonder how you keep sane in all this, comrade.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Bold of you to assume I'm sane.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Good point I guess. I think it was more my assumption that "sane people are the most coherent", and thus, you seem coherent, and very active, so my dominoes fell accordingly.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
www.breitbart.com/national-sec…
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Breitbart eh, now your fascism's showing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh that's right. You only believe in Baizhou Pravda.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Don't waste your breath on party over here...He pretty much is the equivilant of a living propoganda with his head up his ass...
Anyone with a brain can see his ideology failed countless times...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, as the old saying goes: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If that is the case he is a text book Fraudian example of communisim ruining some ones brain...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
They have less brains than the Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think that would be insulting to the scarecrow...I would compare them to drowning rocks trying to escape a sack...
Here is a communist joke! How many commies does it take to change a lightbulb?
They can't figure out the peoblem of their failed ideology, what makes you think they can change a light bulb? Either that or they rely on the state...and since the "people" are tge government to them#coughdictatorsandthievesandretardsinofficecough # we won't see alot of change now will we
And don't get me started on the commies that go "buh mah prefect version of communisim has neva bben trwied!" Please every other nation tried marxs fucking theory, so what makes your version so "special" compared to theirs?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Never trust a rich man that wants communism. They're only preaching it to keep their elite status when the revolution comes.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>