More on Syria

[Sandydragon]

The arrogance - and ignorance - of the imperialist mindset

Anyway, I'm not going to waste my time going around in circles with you guys again. People here know more about this conflict than you know about Brexit. Half my neighbours are Syrians these days, in fact. But I'm sure you believe your own perception is superior to theirs...

Most of us here in the region have known about this all along. Even legendary Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who broke the stories on the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam and Abu Ghraib torture center in Iraq, has reported on it. There have been many other sources besides. Former US general Wesley Clark is seen in a widely-circulated Youtube video openly stating Syria was on a hit-list of Islamic nations the US intended to 'take out' after 9/11. Only Iran has been left alone - at this stage. Wikileaks reports CIA correspondence indicated a proxy war in Syria was being discussed fully 2 years before the Arab Spring. & anyone who thought the teachers, students, doctors and so on who participated in the anti-government protests suddenly morphed into machine gun-wielding, head-chopping terrorists is delusional. That was simply the pretext for a war long in the planning. You know about the overthrow of Mosaddegh in 53, presumably. Do you also know that just a few years earlier Kermit Roosevelt & the gang had tried the same stunt in Syria. This drove Damascus into Moscow's arms, where it remained securely until the collapse of the Soviet Union. Hence the presence of a Russian base in Tartus - one of only 3 they have outside of the former USSR. But America, emboldened by its easy victories elsewhere in the region (in as much as they have colonised all those countries militarily, gained control of the leadership and resources, and kept the military industrial complex very busy), thought it might just have a crack at Syria now, despite the Russian alliance. There is, of course, oil in the north of the country, where the US forces are operating, coincidentally enough - and in violation of international law, btw. But I'm not sure this was the main reason to send in the proxies (Saudi-backed Jihadists and mercenaries from around the region. The US and its allies continued to arm them even when they knew their tactics amounted to terrorism. Obama as much as admitted this, and "reining in" the worst elements (who the Western media has given various names such as Al Nusra, Al Sham, etc) became the pretext for direct US involvement and boots on the ground - in violation of international law. This conflict may have been more about the appeasement of regional allies than America's own interests, howeve. Qatar wanted to build a gas pipeline right through Syria to Europe, but Assad rejected this and went with an Iranian project instead. Israel has a territorial dispute with Damascus over the Golan Heights (and the UN has sided against them). Saudi wants to break up the Shia crescent that extends from Iran to the Mediterranean (thanks to the invasion of Iraq), and so on. But after the public outcry over Iraq and Libya, the US appears to have exercised a little more subtlety on this occasion and not just invaded outright. & for this reason they and their regional allies got their butts kicked by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. In fact, the main enemy of the Assad regime is the Muslim Brotherhood. Now, America sends Egypt billions in aid even though the military dictatorship is imprisoning and executing MB leaders in their droves, but Assad is demonised for cracking down on the same organisation. There is little indication of MB involved in the current conflict, however. Meanwhile, this time America has not succeeded and so their propaganda industry is going into Winston Wolfe mode to mop up the mess they made. Idiots will buy it, just as they bought the WOMDs claims and all the lies about Gaddafi. America has simply taken up where the British Empire left off after WWII.

& that's where I'll sign off, because there's no penetrating the little worlds you have built for yourselves, and I know this only too well by now.

Hurts, don't it

Ah, Seymour Hersh. I wonder how happy he is at the UN findings. No doubt beavering away on some excuse or other. Don't worry folk, the normal cal of our alt news friends will be restored since someone writes something they can cut and paste.

[kk67]

The civil war in Syria has been raging for generations and if you can't see the continuity between the excesses of Bashar and those of his dad, then perhaps you should move a little closer than the coffee shops of Istanbul and have a look for yourself. NATO played no part in 'instigating' an internal conflict that has been going on since the Ba'ath party came to power and determined to hold onto it no matter what the cost.

As for their later intervention you may not, but ought to be aware of international obligations under the UN-endorsed R2P (Responsibility to Protect) that have provided, since 2005 a legitimate pretext to intervene in an internal conflict when it is determined that an authority has ceased to provide adequate protection for its own citizens. Once Assad started lobbing chemicals into cities, NATO (And everyone else) had an obligation to step in.

I'm happy to accept all of that is true but there are market forces that have deliberately ramped up this conflict.
And it is Tel Aviv's stated aim to fractionalize countries on their borders.

[Sandydragon]

The civil war in Syria has been raging for generations and if you can't see the continuity between the excesses of Bashar and those of his dad, then perhaps you should move a little closer than the coffee shops of Istanbul and have a look for yourself. NATO played no part in 'instigating' an internal conflict that has been going on since the Ba'ath party came to power and determined to hold onto it no matter what the cost.

As for their later intervention you may not, but ought to be aware of international obligations under the UN-endorsed R2P (Responsibility to Protect) that have provided, since 2005 a legitimate pretext to intervene in an internal conflict when it is determined that an authority has ceased to provide adequate protection for its own citizens. Once Assad started lobbing chemicals into cities, NATO (And everyone else) had an obligation to step in.

I'm happy to accept all of that is true but there are market forces that have deliberately ramped up this conflict.
And it is Tel Aviv's stated aim to fractionalize countries on their borders.

Outside forces haven’t helped. But it’s important to recognise the roots of this conflict were internal.

I’m not sure Tel Aviv want ISIS as a neighbour though. I don’t think Netanyahu and Assad exchange birthday cards but better the devil you know who isn’t bat shit mental.

[kk67]

The civil war in Syria has been raging for generations and if you can't see the continuity between the excesses of Bashar and those of his dad, then perhaps you should move a little closer than the coffee shops of Istanbul and have a look for yourself. NATO played no part in 'instigating' an internal conflict that has been going on since the Ba'ath party came to power and determined to hold onto it no matter what the cost.

As for their later intervention you may not, but ought to be aware of international obligations under the UN-endorsed R2P (Responsibility to Protect) that have provided, since 2005 a legitimate pretext to intervene in an internal conflict when it is determined that an authority has ceased to provide adequate protection for its own citizens. Once Assad started lobbing chemicals into cities, NATO (And everyone else) had an obligation to step in.

I'm happy to accept all of that is true but there are market forces that have deliberately ramped up this conflict.
And it is Tel Aviv's stated aim to fractionalize countries on their borders.

Outside forces haven’t helped. But it’s important to recognise the roots of this conflict were internal.

I’m not sure Tel Aviv want ISIS as a neighbour though. I don’t think Netanyahu and Assad exchange birthday cards but better the devil you know who isn’t bat shit mental.

You'd be amazed at what money can buy.

[Digby]

Russia vetoes an extended international inquiry into the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

Russia did offer to extend the inquiry, but only if they could change panel members, and only if the inquiry into chemical weapons attacks would ignore some chemical weapons attacks such as the killings at Khan Sheikhoun

[Sandydragon]

Russia vetoes an extended international inquiry into the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

Russia did offer to extend the inquiry, but only if they could change panel members, and only if the inquiry into chemical weapons attacks would ignore some chemical weapons attacks such as the killings at Khan Sheikhoun

Syrian AirPower again in the news with indiscriminate bombing are rebel held areas resulting in civilian deaths. I wonder how the alt news lot can keep peddling their nonsense that Assad isn’t a war criminal with a straight face?

[Digby]

Russia vetoes an extended international inquiry into the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

Russia did offer to extend the inquiry, but only if they could change panel members, and only if the inquiry into chemical weapons attacks would ignore some chemical weapons attacks such as the killings at Khan Sheikhoun

Syrian AirPower again in the news with indiscriminate bombing are rebel held areas resulting in civilian deaths. I wonder how the alt news lot can keep peddling their nonsense that Assad isn’t a war criminal with a straight face?

Hillary sent an email

[rowan]

Excellent article, covers the issue well.

Years ago there was a plan, A Clean Break: Project for the New American Century (PNAC), to wreck the Oslo peace accords between Israel and the Palestinians and to re-mold the Middle East. It first involved destroying Iraq or in the discredited words of Paul Wolfowitz, “The road to peace in the Middle East goes through Baghdad.”

Destroying Syria was to be next. And then Iran. In 2006, columnist Taki Theodoracopulos warned in The American Conservative of the “Clean Break” plan “to aggressively remake the strategic environments of Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. As they say in boxing circles, three down, two to go.” Core promoters of the PNAC plan signed an open letter to then President Clinton calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein. They were Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, Elliot Abrams, Donald Rumsfeld, Robert Zoellick and John Bolton, all solid members of the Neoconservative project.

In a short one minute video former NATO commander General Wesley Clark criticizes the plan as hatched to remake the Middle East. Equally, it is important to remember that the chaos in Iraq (and Syria) was not unforeseen by those who promoted the American invasion. I reported in TAC in 2010 of neoconservative David Wurmser (subsequently Vice President Cheney’s principal advisor) forecasting “if Saddam Hussein were driven from power, Iraq would be ‘ripped apart by the politics of warlords, tribes, clans, sects, and key families,’ and out of the ‘coming chaos in Iraq and most probably in Syria,’ the United States and her principal allies, namely Israel and Jordan, could redraw the region’s map.” See American Prospect, “The Apprentice.”

Of course, all this was years ago, but the plan remains, supported by many powerful American war interests. To find out who, just follow the money. It’s always a useful rule.

Trump has declared that Iran is violating its nuclear agreement although all the other signatories state that it is in compliance. Undermining the Iran nuclear accord, first with Washington imposing tighter economic sanctions to bring about a pretext for attacking Iran, is now on the table as Washington’s next Middle East project.

However, the world is different from 20 years ago when the neocon plan was first hatched. Firstly there is Iran’s agreement to dismantle its nuclear program. A Cato Institute report details all the ways Iran has complied with the agreement including giving up its stockpile of enriched uranium, dismantling two thirds of its uranium enrichment centrifuges, allowing international surveillance and other measures limiting its actions for the next 10 to 25 years.

Washington is now finding it harder to force the Europeans to go along with re-imposing sanctions. China is much stronger and might take up the trade and giant oil investments which Washington could force European companies to forego. Iran has a vastly stronger missile program to retaliate against the U.S. Navy and nearby American air bases. Iran is three times as large as Iraq and far less subject to fractional internal ethnic divisions. The pro-Israel lobby is divided although big money American donors still want Iran’s destruction. North Korea’s nuclear and new missile technology make it harder for Washington to demand concessions, while at the same time reneging on its past commitments. America’s trustworthiness is already suspect from having attacked Libya after Libya gave up its nuclear program. And even in Washington there is new congressional resistance to the President’s ability to start new wars.

The Cato report linked above, The Risks of Confrontation with Iran, explains the four confrontation options. These are:

— New, tighter economic sanctions

–Challenging Iranian influence in the region

–Regime change from within

–Starting a war

Referencing the first option, Cato argues that European cooperation including agreement to embargo Iranian oil exports would not be agreed to again. It concludes that “European and Asian governments are likely to push back strongly against new U.S. barriers to trade and investment and on the excessive extraterritorial application of existing U.S. sanctions.”

Reference challenging Iranian influence in the region, the paper points out “previous U.S. efforts to create regional coalitions to fight terror groups have been largely unsuccessful” and is “likely to pull the U.S. more deeply into variety of regional conflicts and increase the risks of blowback to U.S. troops in the region.” Also it is questionable today that the American people can be sold on starting more wars once soldiers’ deaths start being reported in the news, nor want to pay more tens of billions of dollars to support them.

In reference option three, the major problem is “that foreign-imposed regime change generally does not improve relations between interveners and targets; rather, it often makes them worse.” In many nations Washington’s goals are so suspect that its support for local groups is more like a kiss of death. Further, Iran’s ethnic minorities are far smaller that Iraq’s large groups. In Iran, Kurds are only 10%, Baluchis 2%, Arabs 2% and Azeri Turks 16%. In fact the New York Times recently reported on the surging nationalism in Iran in response to Saudi and U.S. pressures, in particular all the advanced weaponry Trump promised for the Saudis.

Option four of starting a war with bombing runs against Iran “would make escalation inevitable.” U.S. “forward deployed bases (and war ships)…are within range of Iranian missiles and it is easy to imagine the vast oil facilities in the Persian Gulf being targeted as war passions would grow. This would paralyze oil exports to Europe and Asia and bring on a world economic crisis. A new American started war would also likely exacerbate America’s terrorism problems and “most likely produce profoundly negative consequences for regional security and American interests,” warns the Cato study.

One should also note that war professionals are far less enthusiastic for wars than parts of the pro-Israel Lobby for which wars and chaos help their fundraising. For example, the Huffington Post reports how much of Israel’s intelligence establishment supports the Iran agreement. The Cato report quotes an Israeli official, Carmi Gillon, that “the majority of my colleagues in the Israeli military and intelligence communities supported the deal.”

The Cato conclusion is that America’s best policy option would be for further engagement with Iran to strengthen its more moderate political factions and weaken its hardliners. America used to be widely popular among younger Iranians who want peace and prosperity, not mullahs and wars. The greater threat is Washington’s military-industrial-Congress complex which so benefits from unending wars.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... iran-next/

[rowan]

Robert Parry, the fine investigative journalist who unearthed many of the details of the the Iran-Contra scandal during the Reagan presidency, has died.

Here is what he had to say about Syria last month in what would turn out to be his final article:'

That is why many of us who exposed major government wrongdoing in the past have ended up late in our careers as outcasts and pariahs. Legendary investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, who helped expose major crimes of state from the My Lai massacre to the CIA’s abuses against American citizens, including illegal spying and LSD testing on unsuspecting subjects, has literally had to take his investigative journalism abroad because he uncovered inconvenient evidence that implicated Western-backed jihadists in staging chemical weapons attacks in Syria so the atrocities would be blamed on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The anti-Assad group think is so intense in the West that even strong evidence of staged events, such as the first patients arriving at hospitals before government planes could have delivered the sarin, was brushed aside or ignored. The Western media and the bulk of international agencies and NGOs were committed to gin up another case for “regime change” and any skeptics were decried as “Assad apologists” or “conspiracy theorists,” the actual facts be damned.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/12/31/a ... planation/

[Mellsblue]

Love this from The Spectator:

'‘If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense,’ said Alice. ‘Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see?’

For the United States, and for the rest of us, Lewis Carroll is as good a guide as any to what is happening in northern Syria right now. Turkey — America’s Nato ally — has sent tanks rolling across the border to attack the Kurds, America’s ally against Isis. Thus the United States finds itself supporting both sides in the same war. You see?'

[rowan]

What the US has done is deliberately provoke the Turks into invading Syria by setting up a protectorate along the border manned by a proxy army of mostly Kurdish fighters. The objective is clearly to prolong the war, divide Syria and ultimately replace Assad with a leadership they can control - or, failing that, total chaos (a la Afghanistan, Iraq & Libya). They failed in their first attempt to achieve the latter goal, effectively suffering defeat at the hands of Russia, Iran and Hezbollah - who they subsquently attempted to demonize and blame for the whole shebang. This article explains it well, though I would certainly raise the possibility that the NATO allies are co operating entirely and simply putting on a show to disguise the fact: https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/29 ... ng-turkey/

[rowan]

Members of the medical council who criticized the invasion were arrested this morning and accused of 'treason.' http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/detent ... cil-126483

[Stones of granite]

What the US has done is deliberately provoke the Turks into invading Syria by setting up a protectorate along the border manned by a proxy army of mostly Kurdish fighters. The objective is clearly to prolong the war, divide Syria and ultimately replace Assad with a leadership they can control - or, failing that, total chaos (a la Afghanistan, Iraq & Libya). They failed in their first attempt to achieve the latter goal, effectively suffering defeat at the hands of Russia, Iran and Hezbollah - who they subsquently attempted to demonize and blame for the whole shebang. This article explains it well, though I would certainly raise the possibility that the NATO allies are co operating entirely and simply putting on a show to disguise the fact: https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/29 ... ng-turkey/

That article says pretty much the opposite of what you have written. Rather than describing some super-Machiavellian plot, it seems to have been written by a piss-taking fourteen year-old beside themselves with glee at how incompetent the US has been.

[rowan]

What the US has done is deliberately provoke the Turks into invading Syria by setting up a protectorate along the border manned by a proxy army of mostly Kurdish fighters. The objective is clearly to prolong the war, divide Syria and ultimately replace Assad with a leadership they can control - or, failing that, total chaos (a la Afghanistan, Iraq & Libya). They failed in their first attempt to achieve the latter goal, effectively suffering defeat at the hands of Russia, Iran and Hezbollah - who they subsquently attempted to demonize and blame for the whole shebang. This article explains it well, though I would certainly raise the possibility that the NATO allies are co operating entirely and simply putting on a show to disguise the fact: https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/29 ... ng-turkey/

That article says pretty much the opposite of what you have written. Rather than describing some super-Machiavellian plot, it seems to have been written by a piss-taking fourteen year-old beside themselves with glee at how incompetent the US has been.

Then you didn't understand it. Probably it was beyond your comprehension because you don't live in the region, do not understand what is going on, and the society you do live in is saturated with warmongering propaganda. The author knows far more about the issue than you do - evidently. I mean, really, what an utterly brainless comment you just made

[Stones of granite]

What the US has done is deliberately provoke the Turks into invading Syria by setting up a protectorate along the border manned by a proxy army of mostly Kurdish fighters. The objective is clearly to prolong the war, divide Syria and ultimately replace Assad with a leadership they can control - or, failing that, total chaos (a la Afghanistan, Iraq & Libya). They failed in their first attempt to achieve the latter goal, effectively suffering defeat at the hands of Russia, Iran and Hezbollah - who they subsquently attempted to demonize and blame for the whole shebang. This article explains it well, though I would certainly raise the possibility that the NATO allies are co operating entirely and simply putting on a show to disguise the fact: https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/01/29 ... ng-turkey/

That article says pretty much the opposite of what you have written. Rather than describing some super-Machiavellian plot, it seems to have been written by a piss-taking fourteen year-old beside themselves with glee at how incompetent the US has been.

Then you didn't understand it. Probably it was beyond your comprehension because you don't live in the region, do not understand what is going on, and the society you do live in is saturated with warmongering propaganda. The author knows far more about the issue than you do - evidently. I mean, really, what an utterly brainless comment you just made

Yeah, sure. I misunderstood this:
Washington’s screwup has made a bad situation even worse.
And this

So why did Tillerson think Erdogan would respond differently?
There’s only one explanation: Tillerson must be so blinded by hubris that he couldn’t figure out what Erdogan’s reaction would be. He must have thought that, “Whatever Uncle Sam says, goes.”

I misunderstood those very clear statements because I don’t live in the region. I only comprehend English

I haven’t said ANYTHING to contradict the author. Only you have. So, that's another strawman argument you can forget about.

[rowan]

You don't understand English either, because those comments you quoted are precisely in line with the comments I made, about America provoking Turkey into invading Syria. Unless you're talking about the footnote I added, suggesting that the whole thing could well be a charade and they might well be co operating fully behind the scenes. Is that what you mean? Well, firstly, I'm not stating that as fact; just that it should be considered as a possibility, given Turkey is a member of NATO, a military organization led by America. But raising the possibility that there may be more to this than meets the eye (gee, that's never been the case before ) is hardly contradicting myself - as you would like to have it - nor is it contradicting the author at all.

[rowan]

Another interesting comment from the late Robert Parry's last article. It really is amazing that after the farce of the 2003 Iraq invasion so many people could have been duped when the US proceeded to invade Libya with a similar litany of lies, and then yet again when they began aiding and abetting their proxy rebels/terrorists in Syria. That goes beyond stupidity. It requires a certain degree of evil.

This approach was embraced not only by Republicans (think of President George W. Bush distorting the reality in Iraq in 2003 to justify the invasion of that country under false pretenses) but also by Democrats who pushed dubious or downright false depictions of the conflict in Syria (including blaming the Syrian government for chemical weapons attacks despite strong evidence that the events were staged by Al Qaeda and other militants who had become the tip of the spear in the neocon/liberal interventionist goal of removing the Assad dynasty and installing a new regime more acceptable to the West and to Israel.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/12/31/a ... planation/

[Stones of granite]

You don't understand English either, because those comments you quoted are precisely in line with the comments I made, about America provoking Turkey into invading Syria. Unless you're talking about the footnote I added, suggesting that the whole thing could well be a charade and they might well be co operating fully behind the scenes. Is that what you mean? Well, firstly, I'm not stating that as fact; just that it should be considered as a possibility, given Turkey is a member of NATO, a military organization led by America. But raising the possibility that there may be more to this than meets the eye (gee, that's never been the case before ) is hardly contradicting myself - as you would like to have it - nor is it contradicting the author at all.

You're a fraud and a liar.
There is no way that describing an outcome as a screwup can be considered to be synonymous with it being the desired outcome of a plan. The author of the article describes it as a screwup, you claim this is evidence that the US Government deliberately provoked the situation.
Stop telling lies Rowan.
The author, nowhere in the article, draws the conclusion that the US either deliberately provoked the invasion of Syria, or are covertly working together with the Turkish Government. The whole tone of the article is one of glee that the US have been seen to be making an arse of it.

Your bluster and attempts at diversion are to everyone reading this thread, clearly insufficient to draw attention away from the fact that you lied that the article supports your theory that the US Government deliberately provoked the Turkish invasion. Your attempt at diversion by lying about me contradicting the author only made this worse.

In short, you've made an arse of yourself again.

PS The author of the article, Mike Whitney, according to his Counterpunch profile, lives in the US State of Washington, not in the region in question.

[rowan]

So you've decided to attack both me and the author because you don't like the subject matter. That's a juvenile and cowardly approach and discredits you entirely. The article states quite clearly that, by positioning Kurdish troops just across the border from Turkey, which is engaged in a long-running battle with its Kurdish minority (and their kinsmen across the border), the US had provoked Turkey into invading Syria. That's perfectly clear and evident. The US has screwed up and failed in its latest attempt to seize control of a Middle Eastern nation and its resources. That's also perfectly clear and evident - on the surface. But pointing out these self-evident facts is sinister,dishonest and juvenile in your view because you just don't like to read about it. You then get hung up on a footnote adding the possibility of a further dimension to the situation, regarding this as a contradiction rather than expansion of the topic, though it is clearly the latter. In fact, I raise this possibility partly because I don't think the most powerful (and destructive) military organization on the planet is dumb enough to screw up, and the only reason they were initially defeated in Syria was because they opted for a covert op rather than all-out invasion, obviously not considering it worth the risk of all-out war with Syria's longstanding Russian allies. So if you didn't get that, your grasp of the English language is as poor as your understanding of the situation in Syria. I mean, really, liar, liar, pants on fire! Is that the level you're at?

[Mellsblue]

'‘If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense,’ said Rowan. ‘Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see?’

[rowan]

'‘If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense,’ said Rowan. ‘Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see?’

Another infantile, ad hominems response which does not even pretend to address the topic at hand. Precisely why I don't bother with this thread much. You can't debate like adults, and you presume expertise on things about which you clearly know very little. Sad.

[Digby]

You're a fraud and a liar.

It's quite possible he's too stupid to be either of those things.

[Mellsblue]

'‘If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense,’ said Rowan. ‘Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see?’

Another infantile, ad hominems response which does not even pretend to address the topic at hand.

It wasn’t meant to be anything else.

[Stones of granite]

'‘If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense,’ said Rowan. ‘Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see?’

Another infantile, ad hominems response which does not even pretend to address the topic at hand. Precisely why I don't bother with this thread much. You can't debate like adults, and you presume expertise on things about which you clearly know very little. Sad.

I'm not sure you know the meaning of "ad hominem". Your very first response to me was full of insults, and yet you seem to believe that "ad hominem" only applies to comments addressed to you.
I believe you to be a fraud and a liar, although others believe you may be too stupid to be either.

You can't debate like adults, and you presume expertise on things about which you clearly know very little

This is a classic example of what I mean. If you read back, you will see that I claimed no expertise whatsoever. That is just another example of your false claims. Lies, as they are known in English. I simply commented that the statements made in your post were at odds with the article you quoted to support it.
1. You replied with a bunch of insults, but of course it is only others that do ad hominem
2. You ignored the fact that the excerpts that I quoted directly contradicted what you wrote
3. You tried to divert the argument by claiming that I had somehow contradicted the author of the article, even though I made no judgement whatsoever on the content of the article.
4. You claimed that because I don't live in the region, I couldn't possibly understand the article, which is kind of bizarre considering that the author of the article lives even further away from the region than I do.

Rowan, you are full of bluster, and you bullshit like an American Presidential press secretary when you get caught out.

[rowan]

Already answered that:

So you've decided to attack both me and the author because you don't like the subject matter. That's a juvenile and cowardly approach and discredits you entirely. The article states quite clearly that, by positioning Kurdish troops just across the border from Turkey, which is engaged in a long-running battle with its Kurdish minority (and their kinsmen across the border), the US had provoked Turkey into invading Syria. That's perfectly clear and evident. The US has screwed up and failed in its latest attempt to seize control of a Middle Eastern nation and its resources. That's also perfectly clear and evident - on the surface. But pointing out these self-evident facts is sinister,dishonest and juvenile in your view because you just don't like to read about it. You then get hung up on a footnote adding the possibility of a further dimension to the situation, regarding this as a contradiction rather than expansion of the topic, though it is clearly the latter. In fact, I raise this possibility partly because I don't think the most powerful (and destructive) military organization on the planet is dumb enough to screw up, and the only reason they were initially defeated in Syria was because they opted for a covert op rather than all-out invasion, obviously not considering it worth the risk of all-out war with Syria's longstanding Russian allies. So if you didn't get that, your grasp of the English language is as poor as your understanding of the situation in Syria. I mean, really, liar, liar, pants on fire! Is that the level you're at?