US attacks Syrian Army

format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian

Inshallah you are not going to the reason from the result. That's the question I ask anyway. if there is no oppression on Kurds in Iran, why does PJAK exist? You must prove it to claim it. It seems to me the reason is Kurdish groups are being used by America to weaken the countries in the middle east which are a potential thread to them. Kurdish groups have been the tongs of America in the region for a long while. America using Kurds to weaken Iran.

Sub'han'Allah, this Turkish nationalism disgusts me. But Day of Judgement for sure will come, so i say if you day upon this Turkish nationalism, go gather as many good deeds as possible, as you will be handing them over to many Kurds.

Go study a bit of history dude.

http://aranews.net/2016/10/kurdish-p...an-oppression/
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/sara-ak...b_5818438.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ir...0QW24H20150827
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...tack-irgc.html


You just want things to fit your narrative. You accuse me of being nationalistic, while i say oppression and the truth. You acusse me of nationalism, while i speak the facts. For example, I don't like Gulen, as he is also a Turkish nationalist, however truth is truth as the coup was a false flag to get rid of Gulen-supporters. If i was a Kurdish nationalist, i would have kept my mouth shut. However truth is truth.

format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian

Yes it is first rule of the Newton mechanics but it doesnt work in politics as in physics. It is the general strategy of the American imperialist policy to look for the conflicts in the hard regions and use it to create a battle enviroment so that they can control these lands easier. If there was one central Iraqi government they could not have that much control power overthere.

The Kurds in major parts were fighting against Ottoman rules back then, the question is why? I mean if Islamic values were brought, why would they fight Ottoman rule? However not only Kurds were unsatisfied, but also Arabs and other groups under Ottoman rule. But that aside, after WW1, began the real oppression. However you think this only started after 1980? Dude Mustafa Kemal aka Crypto-Jew was the source of all this oppression. His ideas have fit Zionists agenda PERFECTLY. I have even heard that people aren't allowed to dig in to his biography. He was never married, no children, he drank alcohol, he abolished Arabic alphabet, he denied so many Islamic teachings even wanting to do the adhan in Turkish etc.

Go curse at Mustafa Kemal, yet you follow like a blind sheep that narrative of his idea. This nationalism is 100% in the interest of the Zionist. I want you to say "By Allah i want Turkey fall, no independent Kurdistan, no independent Turkey but a REAL Islamic Caliphate". Utter those words if you say i am a true Muslim.

Have you forgotten about this one? As the oppression began after this.
Treaty of Sevres: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_S%C3%A8vres

You are trying to make America the evil one to take attention away from Turkey. Turks do this always, but have you looked at the Kurds themselves what they want? What is the reason that they want that? You still have not answered those questions. I mean PKK is one thing, why do i also say such a things, if there was and still isn't any oppression? You think if oppression had taken place once, but now not anymore, why did many people who were not really big fan of PKK, suddenly go vote for HDP? If somebody has stabbed me in the back, my trust in that person has lost completely, yet you think what Turks have done is history and Kurds still need to trust Turks. However with Erdogan they indeed gained some trust in him, well look at what he has achieved again. Locking up HDP, because HDP did not agree with what he wanted. Again starting fight with PKK, while we both know the war with PKK will NEVER end. Then starting to fight PKK in Kurdish areas. Many people have died and tat is why Erdogan wanted those free visa's so badly for Turks to go to EU, so Kurds could go by masses to EU. In other words, change the demographics. Many Syrian refugees could take place in those areas that Kurds once lived. In other words be loyal to Erdogan. You think people don't see these things? Yet the dishonesty of you and many Turks like you is making me disgusted.

However, again, go collect many good deeds, because MANY MANY Kurds will be coming to gather them on the Day of Judgement.

Have you also forgotten about this one?

"The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "None of you will have faith till he wishes for his (Muslim) brother what he likes for himself.""

Source used: https://sunnah.com/bukhari/2/6

If the Kurds want a independent country, be it even 1% of the modern day Turkey, would you allow? If not, go curse at Rasullah(saws) for saying such a thing as you apparently don't like what he has said or in other words, go curse at Allah(swt) as you apparently do not agree that Allah(swt) has sent His last messenger.

format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian

I dont deny that Kurds were oppressed in Turkey. Most especially after the 1980 coup. We cannot reject both ethnic and cultural existence of kurdish people but you must see the greater picture. PKK was founnded before the coup in 1974 by Apo who was a leader of "turkish nationalists" at the university but disappeared suddenly and popped up as the leader of the "kurdish resistance". All this kurdish problem of the middle east is fed from the conflicts but eventually a plan of America and other western powers. Previously Brits. Brits used first Sheikh Said in Turkey to save Mosul and Kirkuk from Turks and they did it.

Again i refer you about the reply above from Mustafa Kemal, not from the coup of 1980. With Ocalan, i do not see him as my leader and never have and never will. However i also find it very unusual what you say here. Where do you have gotten that that Ocalan was a leader of Turkish nationalists? Do provide me a source that is NOT of Turkish sources. My argument is just simple. Give Kurds what they want within Turkey even, they will not support PKK. Let them have anything that they desire so to say from education to all cultural habits etc. Their names are NOT Kurdish names, starting with allowing them to change those. You will see PKK will get no support anymore. Go and spit in Erdogan's face and with all anger say to him to give Kurds that. If he has done those things, i will keep my mouth shut, however all what i have observed, he doesn't want Turkish nationalism to disappear.

format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian

Can you draw the map of "Kurdistan" in Turkey? All those so called maps of Kurdistan are only exegeration. Kurds dont have a majority in some parts of those maps. There are many provinces where Kurds and Turks are mixed up that you cannot simply draw a line between them. There are people who are mixed Turk and Kurd and other. Also there are many other ethnic minorities in Turkey than Kurds. What will be their borders? Even if you intend to do it, it will cause even more problems than before.

There are maps that have been drawn, that go all the way to Mediterranean sea, these maps are false, probably done by Kurdish nationalists. However truth is truth and i will not speak a lie. Kurds never had land that were on the Mediterranean sea. All the other maps, i do agree, however as Turks also have tried to assimilate Kurds, many Kurds that were on the "border" with the Turks have been assimilated. Many speak Kurdish barely or don't speak it anymore. Some even say i am a Turks, but my dad was a Kurd and down that road. The core Kurds still exist for example in places further towards south-east. This changing of demographics have also tried done in Kirkuk. However what belongs to a people, belongs to a people, so even if it is already 2-3 generation further down the road. What i mean by belong, is if it is taken away from them by force. The Zionists for example had no right to do what they have done.

Every ethnic group decides for themselves what they want, so do not ask me what must happen to another group. Everybody is free in their own choice.

format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian

Haha. You write quite long posts usually and i don't have time to even read all of them most of the time. sorry for that. I try to answer you. but if I dont reply dont think it is because I run from you..The answer is Islam yes. As the answer for all the problems of this world is Islam. But how? You say you are not nationalist but all of your posts smell tons of nationalism. you imply your kurdishness in every post of you. If you didnt care it as you say, you wouldnt be mentioning it that much..Wrong?

Sub'han'Allah, when i speak of oppression and truth, you make it Kurdish nationalism. If i was a Kurdish nationalist, why would i speak of Gulen? Do give me an explanation to that. I come to the defense of Gulen not being behind the coup based on logic, rationality and reason, while he is like Erdogan to the core Turkish nationalist. Logically speaking, i would not defend such a Turkish nationalist, rather keep my mouth shut, however truth is truth. I will be waiting for your response.

format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian

yeah maybe meds were the common ancestors of todays' kurds and persians. You try to appropriate it to kurds. you want to be proud of that. Welcome to nationalism.

No, Kurds have of today being come out of the Medes, the Persians again, are NOT a race. Nothing of the Medes exist. So what makes the Persians Persians? Nothing, because again Persians are NOT a race.

To give you an example. There is a large part of the Yazidi's that say i am not a Kurd, i am a Yazidi. But a Yazidi is like a Muslim, Christian, Jew..this is somebody who follows certain religion. Yazidi's are also Kurds. But Kurdish Yazidi, like i am a Kurdish Muslim. So again, persian does not exist as that is not a race, that is why i say they are also Kurds. The Iranians of today, many are not even Kurds, but like Turks through out the years branded themselves Iranians. While a small part i believe are the Persians aka Kurds and i am not talking about the Kurds in Mahabad and surroundings.

When you look at peoples faces you can see for example where they have come from. In Turkey for example the REAL Turks have those Asian eyes. The rest are migrants from neighboring areas and branded themselves Turks.

So the question also to you is, are you a REAL Turk with those Asian eyes or probably a Kurd or Armenians or from Balkan area's?

So it is much deeper that how you make things, but that is what Turkish nationalism does. You guys see nothing beyond Turkish nationalism. I ask questions and everything is put on the category America is behind it. Well why are you part of NATO then. This is all hypocrisy dude. Why haven't you guys invaded together with Arab countries the Zionist state? However nationalism doesn't care about other countries, only their own country.

format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian

@believer ocalan was the founder and leader of pkk not only inspired them. You are condemning nationalism but pkk are a national-socialist group. Most of them are atheist and some even reverted back to zoroastrianism in the name of kurdish nationalism. And they are not against extramarital sex they are practising it on the mountains as usual. Exmembers tell us that. Not mentioning the crimes they commited. They are a barbaric terrorist group. Your associating them with the Madina constitution is disrespectful

@believer , bro, observe this is the typical nationalist behavior. There is nationalism and their is religion. You will see ALWAYS when Turks want to dismiss PKK as bad, they start about them being atheist. Somebody being atheist or not atheist, if they are fighting oppression, it is fighting oppression. Many Muslims now a days are PRO-oppression in other words they work with the oppressor, but that is a BAD thing in Islam. So suddenly religion isn't taken in to the picture.

So observe very careful as this guy is a VERY GOOD example of Turkish nationalism. If you have done X and that is bad, so i do Y that is also bad and somebody says "yo, what you did (Y) is bad, i point at you and say but look at @believer he has done X which is bad". Your case is your case and my case is my case.

If i would be dragged to court, i will have to answer to my bad action and you have to answer for your action.

Keep your attention with Turks always with what they try to do. They point at the flaws and errors and evil things of others, trying to hide their flaws, errors and evil things. In the past when i showed their hypocrisy in the open you know what they do? They then tried to play the religion card in the sense as "but we are Muslim brothers"..However just a moment ago trying to discard what i was saying about oppression and when i revealed their hypocrisy when they were trying to hide it, they try suddenly to be brothers to cover up the dishonesty and losing face.

Also they say all those barbaric acts, have PKK done bad things in the past? WITHOUT a doubt. However them having done those bad things, doesn't make Turkish oppression justified. Also PKK is the outcome from something. You do not go outside with a umbrella if it is a sunny day and have no skin issues. Action --> reaction. So @believer , pay attention to the details about the dishonesty.

This dishonesty is KILLING me, so how can i say that these people are my brothers? I mean you are not a Kurd nor a Turk, but can you see he says he is a Muslim i as a Muslim Kurd HOW can have i have a good relation with such dishonest people?

format_quote Originally Posted by beleiver

Brings me back to a post i made about the constitution of Medina which would be a good example of a real Caliphate?
Seems you were right in your reply that it wasn't secular as in being governed by religious law, but the constitution protected all faiths and the separate communities governed them selves, but there was a co-operative body to resolve disputes, a kind of stateless society?
Isnt this what the YPG/PKK/SDF are aiming for?
I know their ideology is inspired by Ocalan who is Atheist but there was a conference with Islamic scholars on how it fits in with Islamic law and a true Islamic state, using the constitution of Medina as an example.. I think (correct me if wrong) the Majority of his supporters are Muslims?
I have looked quite deep into the YPG ideology and its inspired by an Anarchist philosopher which drew my attention, me being of that persuasion, It seems there are a good few provisions in the Rojava constitution that are very Islamic in Nature, they might grant women more freedom for example but are against advertising and literature that sexualise women and promotes extramarital sex and several other guidelines that to me seem very in keeping with Islamic way of life..

Nationalism IMHO is a great curse of humanity, there is no better example of divide and conquer..
The Kurdish struggle seems similar to that of the Basques of northern Spain, both mountain people with their own ancient language and culture, A people that never will bee fully conquered in spirit..
The basques too of course have a problem with nationalists from foreign lands trying to govern them, take their land and destroy their way of life, i am familiar with that part of the world and their culture and ideology is very much that of the co-operative autonomous stateless society that is being attempted in Rojava, which imho is very similar to the first Caliphate, and if a system is to be ruled by Justice then it is to be ruled by Gods law/natural law how ever one chooses to look at it..Its a way that is ingrained in human struggle against oppression.

When the below quote is not respected there will always be conflict, guaranteed..And am i right that in Arabic, the word religion can also translate as way of life?

To You Your Religion and To Me Mine (Qur'an 109:1-6)

Well the constitution of Medina was not the Real Islamic Caliphate. Constitution of Medina was rather a step before the Real Islamic Caliphate. The constitution of Medina was the agreement of the boundaries between the religions. All the three religions have had certain laws. Indeed you are correct that each community governed themselves, so Christians governed their own, like the Jews and like the Muslims.

About the disputes, i am not sure, but as far as i know is that if you and i have a dispute, that doesn't mean we have to go to the court. We can also go to for example your dad. If you say what about if my dad does the judgement after hearing both of us and i respect your dad and always have honored him with his wisdom, i might have agreed to it. So saying indeed let him be the judge between us who is right in this matter. If your dad might have said i am right and you are right than that was the judgement.

About more severe crimes, i believe still both the parties must first agree to this to where they want to be judged. So in case of Muslim and a Christian i am not sure but you could be right that a co-operative body did those cases. In case of two Muslims with severe crime, they went to a Islamic court that handled the verdict. However i am not sure in Christian and Jewish laws, but in Islamic Law something exists like forgiveness. If person X has killed or stolen something from Person Y and person X shows he is sorry about it with all honesty so to say, person Y can forgive him. The court is ONLY the one that proceeds the judgement. While in secular law if somebody one have killed my wife and i forgive that somebody, still that individual is being punished.

On paper this MIGHT be what YPG,PKK or SDF trying to achieve, but there is only 1 minor problem or rather say MAJOR problem to this. Secular something is VERY dangerous. Why? Because there is no guarantee for tomorrow. If tomorrow from those Muslims, Christians and Jews 90% becomes secular, only 10% being Muslim, Christian, Jewish, the 90% suddenly can decide we will abolish certain laws. Look at the west for example with blasphemy law. More and more secular countries are abolishing this law.

Under what i said REAL Islamic Caliphate, there is a no-change in laws. It is according to Islamic teachings. So Christians are guaranteed protection and freedom of religion, like the Jews and other religion as well. However again with the limits of Islamic Law. So for example you said sexualzation of women or society is forbidden, this will stay like this despite more people becoming secular. Also under Islamic Law, Christians govern their own people like Jewish. So Jewish court and Christian court. You could say it is the same as constitution of Medina, but GUARANTEED to not be changed as Muslim govern the land that keep people transgressing those borders to so say.

You said it correctly, many Turks and even Kurds say the supporters of Ocalan are atheists, but that is false. Like you said majority are Muslims. When oppression happens, there is no ooh he is an atheist, i would rather not join him. No oppression is oppression and if even a Hindu that does idol-worship from a Muslim point of view, but fights against oppression, Muslims can unite under this same goal to fight the oppressor. Muslims with every group have some common goal, but always be a bit skeptical about what somebody is saying is also what somebody is doing.

The constitution must be very Islamic in nature, because if it isn't what is the use of it as majority of the people living there are Muslims. The Islamic nature of the constitution can also by majority applied to other religions. But again, like i said the secular drop has its dangerous as we see in reality in the west.

Indeed nationalism is the BEST way to divide people, but majority of the Muslims now a days are blinded by it. They cannot see beyond, but this is what Allah is doing to them. If somebody turns away from the signs of Allah, He will blind them. When you not being a Muslim or even coming from the Middle East say even this, yet MANY Muslims themselves not seeing this, this shows how blinded people have become. I was also once slowly becoming a Kurdish nationalist, however when pondering more and going further in to the road seeing how people have become sheep and nationalism not benefiting you whatsoever i threw away alhamdulillah a lot out. The last thing i had was a Kurdish flag and even that one i gave it away. Now i see things for really what are going on, but how can i convince somebody that nationalism is the dividends between Muslims if they are blind to see it.

However looking at where the world is heading towards, it does not look good.

About the Arabic language, well i am not a Arabic speaker, so i cannot tell you that sorry . Although i am trying to learn the Arabic language.

This whole life is a test as how Islam sees it. If you want to be a Muslim go ahead, if you want to be a Christian go a head, if you want to be secular go ahead, if you want to steal something go ahead, if you want to kill somebody go ahead do whatever you want, but KNOW every test has a end and there will be a result to it. So Day of Judgement even if somebody says i am an atheist, doesn't mean there is no Day of Judgement.

Salaam

Hmmmm I dont know what to make of it. Theres a lot of smoke and mirrors going on. Some say this event is linked to the internal power struggle going on within the White House. In fact this attack could be seen as a warning to North Korea.

I think we can dispense with the fantasy that Trump did this for humanitarian reasons.

Trump using a human tragedy for his own ends

To date the US lead coalition has conducted approximately 7,900 airstrikes in Syria, killing 260 civilians in Syria in March 2017 alone. Most notably was the strike on a Mosque in Aleppo that resulted in the reported killing of 56 worshippers.

The USA has now been militarily involved in the Syrian conflict for at least 31 months with its presence ever increasing. The civilian death toll has been immense with a reported 2000 killed last month across Syria and Iraq by coalition forces.

It is therefore extremely naive to describe the latest American airstrikes as humanitarian in nature or even as an attempt to exact ‘justice’ against the depraved regime of Bashar Al-Assad.

Such ‘decisive’ action has not followed the brutal massacres in Aleppo, because it would seem the weapons used there were crude barrel bombs and conventional artillery. The message is clear: so long as Syrian’s are not killed by chemical weapons, western ambivalence to the crimes of the regime will continue.

When it comes to its actions, the US ‘red line’ seems to be concerned with appearances rather than substance.
A public relations move with little impact

The limited strikes, carried out overnight, serve only to strengthen Trump’s image as a ‘strong’ president in contrast with the perceived inaction of Obama. The strikes have not damaged the regime’s capacity to mount airstrikes, nor will it protect the lives of innocent civilians.

At midday yesterday, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that Syrian warplanes had taken off from an air base hit by US to carry out strikes in the Homs countryside.

Syrian journalist, Mousa Al-Omar questioned the selected targets of the strikes:

“In bombing Syrian civilians the regime primarily relies upon Hama Airports (for barrel bombs) and Al-Dameer, Al-Seen and Khalkhala (for fighter jets). What took you to Al-Shi’rat?”

Reports have also emerged that the regime, which lost only 6 men in the strikes, was alerted and evacuated the targeted airfield before the strikes.

Moazzam Begg, CAGE’s outreach director added in a Facebook post, “…America kills 6 Syrian soldiers with 59 missiles? They normally get far more than that by mistake.”

Assad, once an ally and now a convenient enemy

The US worked very closely with the Syrian regime in the War on Terror. In fact the US notoriously renditioned four Canadian citizens, one of them from the American mainland, and one other German citizen to Syria. They are, Maher Arar, Abdullah Almalki, Muayyad Nureddin, Ahmad Abou El Maati and the German Mohammed Haydar Zammar. They were taken to the infamous Fara’ Falestin, Palestine Branch detention centre, known for its indescribable degrading torture and treatment.

Another infamous case is that of Abu Mus’ab As-Suri, who was arrested in late 2005 in Quetta, Pakistan, handed over to the US and held at the US naval base on the British Islands of Diego Garcia. He was handed over to the Syrian regime and disappeared, in all likelihood tortured mercilessly for his support of the 1980’s Hama uprising.

This all happened behind the scenes while the regime was designated as part Bush’s of supposed “Axis of Evil”.

In recent years, Assad has become a convenient enemy. Although the coalition and Assad’s regime are bombing on the same side much of the time, in distancing themselves from his actions publicly, the USA is able to occupy a faux moral high ground.

A war of words between war criminals

While we now witness a diplomatic war of words and posturing between Russia, Syrian regime and the US, many more innocent civilians will be killed through their actions.

The regime’s response was a declaration that the strikes have “increased Syria’s determination to strike the terrorist agents”. They too have learned to co opt the language of the War on Terror to justify unlawful activities.

Syria has become an international bombing arena with countries involved in criminal actions with impunity.

The US secretary of state declared that the gas attack contravened international law and norms. This begs the question: is the US, in its bombing of civilians, following these international laws and norms?

https://cage.ngo/article/make-no-mistake-trump-is-no-friend-of-the-syrian-people/

Salaam

More confirmation

The More That Civilians Are Killed by US Bombs, the More That Trump Seems Not to Care

A little less than two months ago, I predicted in MEMO that the botched Yemen raid that constituted Donald Trump’s first major military action was only a sign of things to come. The bloodthirsty Trump doctrine is even bloodier than I imagined. Last week, up to two hundred Iraqi civilians were killed in US air strikes in Mosul, following American targeting of a Syrian school, where dozens died, and another mosque the week before, which killed forty unarmed Syrians. The Pentagon has quietly approved rules of engagement that permit air strikes against Daesh even when US missiles have the potential to cause significant civilian casualties

What has happened here is unforgivable. For all his many faults, President Barack Obama pushed American decision-making on civilian casualties in the right direction, by tightening up the rules of engagement. This was a source of moderate frustration to the United States Air Force and even more frustration to America’s Iraqi allies, who wanted many more bombs to be dropped on so-called “Islamic State” than Obama would allow. Those rules have now been torn up. As Glenn Greenwald has analysed correctly for the Intercept, “The number of air strikes actually decreased in March, even as civilian deaths rose — strongly suggesting that the US military has become even more reckless about civilian deaths under Trump than it was under Obama.” In January and February, for the first time, Western coalition civilian casualties outstripped those killed and maimed by Russia. That is a remarkable shift which has gone completely unnoticed by the Western media; Trump is killing more Iraqis and Syrians than Putin.

The most galling aspect of this is that these additional civilian deaths are entirely unnecessary. It is a bitter fact of war — and one of the reasons why it should always be a last resort — that civilians will be killed, and that war crimes of some description will take place. Yet even as Trump took office in January, Daesh was in deep crisis. It had lost much of its territory, and been routed from strongholds including Fallujah, Ramadi, Minbaj and Palmyra. It was fighting Hezbollah, the Syrian army, the Russian air force and Special Forces, as well as Kurdish units and Iraqi special and regular forces. Its last strongholds, Mosul and Raqqa, were within reach of the group’s enemies. When Trump moved into the White House, despite his rhetoric playing on Americans’ general ignorance of the wider world, Daesh was in fact a beleaguered and belittled organisation that was failing to provide water and electricity because of plummeting revenues; being forced to raise taxes on an already restless population; and even reducing the salaries of its fighters. Why then, has Trump deemed it necessary to up the ante?

Partly, I think, this is about macho propaganda. The yee-hah Hollywood hero approach to warfare is certainly in line with Trump’s own churlish and tacky view of the world. During his election campaign he famously said, “I would bomb the **** out of them… I would just bomb those suckers, and that’s right, I’d blow up the pipes. I’d blow up the refineries. I’d blow up every single inch. There would be nothing left.” I’m sure it made Trump feel like a big strong man, and the oafs cheering for him from the floor perhaps felt some pseudo-masculinity creeping through their veins, but that sort of rhetoric doesn’t really marry up to the serious business of soldiering.

Secondly, Trump’s key ideologue lieutenants Steve Bannon and Sebastian Gorka seem to regard Muslims as sub-human and, at the very least, part of the terrorism problem per se. Hence, having Muslim civilians being killed is less of a problem to them than if Christians were being killed. Both men are totally inexperienced in international security matters — but, incredibly, still sit on the National Security Council — and it shows. Rita Siemion, the international legal counsel at Human Rights First, suggested that, “When our operations harm civilians, we weaken those partnerships, lose intelligence opportunities, provide propaganda and recruitment to terrorist groups and increase harm.” She is right; Gorka and Bannon are wrong.

Thirdly, the American media is largely failing to report or criticise this spike in civilian deaths. Even Vox, which sets its stall out as a liberal, go-to news source, doesn’t seem to get it: “US air strikes are killing a lot more civilians. And no one is sure why,” it claims, as if the strange new orange man in the White House isn’t the blindingly obvious cause.

There is no doubt that the people living under “Islamic State” want to be freed and that they should be. The question is, to put it crudely, how few of them can be killed in order to save the rest? Obama may have made himself out to be more pacifist than he really was — just look to his killer drone programmes — but Trump is taking the American tradition of wild belligerence and gung-ho warfare to a whole new level. He also risks losing the goodwill of the people he is claiming to care for; those who are enduring Daesh directly, although if he is anywhere near as anti-Muslim as his advisers are, then he probably just doesn’t care anyway.

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/news-comment/2489-the-more-that-civilians-are-killed-by-us-bombs-the-more-that-trump-seems-not-to-care

format_quote Originally Posted by Junon

Salaam

More confirmation

The More That Civilians Are Killed by US Bombs, the More That Trump Seems Not to Care

A little less than two months ago, I predicted in MEMO that the botched Yemen raid that constituted Donald Trump’s first major military action was only a sign of things to come. The bloodthirsty Trump doctrine is even bloodier than I imagined. Last week, up to two hundred Iraqi civilians were killed in US air strikes in Mosul, following American targeting of a Syrian school, where dozens died, and another mosque the week before, which killed forty unarmed Syrians. The Pentagon has quietly approved rules of engagement that permit air strikes against Daesh even when US missiles have the potential to cause significant civilian casualties

What has happened here is unforgivable. For all his many faults, President Barack Obama pushed American decision-making on civilian casualties in the right direction, by tightening up the rules of engagement. This was a source of moderate frustration to the United States Air Force and even more frustration to America’s Iraqi allies, who wanted many more bombs to be dropped on so-called “Islamic State” than Obama would allow. Those rules have now been torn up. As Glenn Greenwald has analysed correctly for the Intercept, “The number of air strikes actually decreased in March, even as civilian deaths rose — strongly suggesting that the US military has become even more reckless about civilian deaths under Trump than it was under Obama.” In January and February, for the first time, Western coalition civilian casualties outstripped those killed and maimed by Russia. That is a remarkable shift which has gone completely unnoticed by the Western media; Trump is killing more Iraqis and Syrians than Putin.

The most galling aspect of this is that these additional civilian deaths are entirely unnecessary. It is a bitter fact of war — and one of the reasons why it should always be a last resort — that civilians will be killed, and that war crimes of some description will take place. Yet even as Trump took office in January, Daesh was in deep crisis. It had lost much of its territory, and been routed from strongholds including Fallujah, Ramadi, Minbaj and Palmyra. It was fighting Hezbollah, the Syrian army, the Russian air force and Special Forces, as well as Kurdish units and Iraqi special and regular forces. Its last strongholds, Mosul and Raqqa, were within reach of the group’s enemies. When Trump moved into the White House, despite his rhetoric playing on Americans’ general ignorance of the wider world, Daesh was in fact a beleaguered and belittled organisation that was failing to provide water and electricity because of plummeting revenues; being forced to raise taxes on an already restless population; and even reducing the salaries of its fighters. Why then, has Trump deemed it necessary to up the ante?

Partly, I think, this is about macho propaganda. The yee-hah Hollywood hero approach to warfare is certainly in line with Trump’s own churlish and tacky view of the world. During his election campaign he famously said, “I would bomb the **** out of them… I would just bomb those suckers, and that’s right, I’d blow up the pipes. I’d blow up the refineries. I’d blow up every single inch. There would be nothing left.” I’m sure it made Trump feel like a big strong man, and the oafs cheering for him from the floor perhaps felt some pseudo-masculinity creeping through their veins, but that sort of rhetoric doesn’t really marry up to the serious business of soldiering.

Secondly, Trump’s key ideologue lieutenants Steve Bannon and Sebastian Gorka seem to regard Muslims as sub-human and, at the very least, part of the terrorism problem per se. Hence, having Muslim civilians being killed is less of a problem to them than if Christians were being killed. Both men are totally inexperienced in international security matters — but, incredibly, still sit on the National Security Council — and it shows. Rita Siemion, the international legal counsel at Human Rights First, suggested that, “When our operations harm civilians, we weaken those partnerships, lose intelligence opportunities, provide propaganda and recruitment to terrorist groups and increase harm.” She is right; Gorka and Bannon are wrong.

Thirdly, the American media is largely failing to report or criticise this spike in civilian deaths. Even Vox, which sets its stall out as a liberal, go-to news source, doesn’t seem to get it: “US air strikes are killing a lot more civilians. And no one is sure why,” it claims, as if the strange new orange man in the White House isn’t the blindingly obvious cause.

There is no doubt that the people living under “Islamic State” want to be freed and that they should be. The question is, to put it crudely, how few of them can be killed in order to save the rest? Obama may have made himself out to be more pacifist than he really was — just look to his killer drone programmes — but Trump is taking the American tradition of wild belligerence and gung-ho warfare to a whole new level. He also risks losing the goodwill of the people he is claiming to care for; those who are enduring Daesh directly, although if he is anywhere near as anti-Muslim as his advisers are, then he probably just doesn’t care anyway.

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/...ms-not-to-care

I hope that the world understands that trump only stands for certain Americans views. As an American I can tell you I find his political and personal views disgusting. Not all of us in America agree with his racist views or his treatment of women. It is a good thing to try and protect people from harm such as the chemical attack but in doing so he has murdered innocents as well. He is a ruthless ignorant human being .

format_quote Originally Posted by beleiver

Ocalan his ideology has changed over the years, he started out as a marxist/communist and he now advocates a more Anarchic ideology sorry cant remember the name off top of my head, but based on co-operative direct democracy as in against hierarchy on priciple..National- Socialism is the polar opposite, National-socialists is fully hierarchical in nature and in ww2 the national socialists attacked first the communists and co-operative socialists and Anarchists..they are complete polar opposites on a massive scale..

And i am just relating what happened, there was indeed a conference with Muslim clergy discussing Ocalans ideas as practiced by YPG in the context of the Medina constitution...Sorry if you find it offensive, it was not my intention, i was just reporting something that happened..

As for the extramarital sex.. what they preach and what they practice are two different things i am sure, but true of some people from all faiths and cultures every where on the planet.

The world that we are currently living in, has too many puppets. So hypothetically if lets say this ideology of takes place, the problem is not the constitution it self, the problem is the people who govern it. If one is not afraid of his Creator, well it is no use. In other words, corruption, treason and such. I mean how many people are really working for the enemy..for money. Look at the recent general Michael Flynn from Trump administration that later on was revealed he was lobbying for Turkey. Where is the American people and their interests? So even if we have a country that is according to REAL Islamic Law, the people who are governing it, being corrupt and all, well doesn't change a thing.

My hope rather in many people has been lost. People have become liars and the are proud of, people who do not fear their Creator every one of those people have a price. Just give them that money, they would even sell out their own mother. This is for example among the Kurds itself also a fact. Often when you see guys with big belly's those are eating "good" so to say. In the Middle East you see more than enough of those and many are not in the spotlights, but you see them automatically.

So even if Rojava governs themselves, i have very little faith in it, that it would work correctly, because of the factor called human who has no fear of his Creator that prevents him doing corrupt things. Here in the west it is all the same, but you do not hear them as they have such a power that even media is prevented to report on such people.

format_quote Originally Posted by anatolian

All those so called Kurdish groups are the pawns of the American imperialism in the Middle east nothing more

As we all know of ahadith about end times, that Turkey will be chaos, so enjoy your little nationalism while you can, because that will not stay forever.

format_quote Originally Posted by Junon

Salaam

More confirmation

The More That Civilians Are Killed by US Bombs, the More That Trump Seems Not to Care

A little less than two months ago, I predicted in MEMO that the botched Yemen raid that constituted Donald Trump’s first major military action was only a sign of things to come. The bloodthirsty Trump doctrine is even bloodier than I imagined. Last week, up to two hundred Iraqi civilians were killed in US air strikes in Mosul, following American targeting of a Syrian school, where dozens died, and another mosque the week before, which killed forty unarmed Syrians. The Pentagon has quietly approved rules of engagement that permit air strikes against Daesh even when US missiles have the potential to cause significant civilian casualties

What has happened here is unforgivable. For all his many faults, President Barack Obama pushed American decision-making on civilian casualties in the right direction, by tightening up the rules of engagement. This was a source of moderate frustration to the United States Air Force and even more frustration to America’s Iraqi allies, who wanted many more bombs to be dropped on so-called “Islamic State” than Obama would allow. Those rules have now been torn up. As Glenn Greenwald has analysed correctly for the Intercept, “The number of air strikes actually decreased in March, even as civilian deaths rose — strongly suggesting that the US military has become even more reckless about civilian deaths under Trump than it was under Obama.” In January and February, for the first time, Western coalition civilian casualties outstripped those killed and maimed by Russia. That is a remarkable shift which has gone completely unnoticed by the Western media; Trump is killing more Iraqis and Syrians than Putin.

The most galling aspect of this is that these additional civilian deaths are entirely unnecessary. It is a bitter fact of war — and one of the reasons why it should always be a last resort — that civilians will be killed, and that war crimes of some description will take place. Yet even as Trump took office in January, Daesh was in deep crisis. It had lost much of its territory, and been routed from strongholds including Fallujah, Ramadi, Minbaj and Palmyra. It was fighting Hezbollah, the Syrian army, the Russian air force and Special Forces, as well as Kurdish units and Iraqi special and regular forces. Its last strongholds, Mosul and Raqqa, were within reach of the group’s enemies. When Trump moved into the White House, despite his rhetoric playing on Americans’ general ignorance of the wider world, Daesh was in fact a beleaguered and belittled organisation that was failing to provide water and electricity because of plummeting revenues; being forced to raise taxes on an already restless population; and even reducing the salaries of its fighters. Why then, has Trump deemed it necessary to up the ante?

Partly, I think, this is about macho propaganda. The yee-hah Hollywood hero approach to warfare is certainly in line with Trump’s own churlish and tacky view of the world. During his election campaign he famously said, “I would bomb the **** out of them… I would just bomb those suckers, and that’s right, I’d blow up the pipes. I’d blow up the refineries. I’d blow up every single inch. There would be nothing left.” I’m sure it made Trump feel like a big strong man, and the oafs cheering for him from the floor perhaps felt some pseudo-masculinity creeping through their veins, but that sort of rhetoric doesn’t really marry up to the serious business of soldiering.

Secondly, Trump’s key ideologue lieutenants Steve Bannon and Sebastian Gorka seem to regard Muslims as sub-human and, at the very least, part of the terrorism problem per se. Hence, having Muslim civilians being killed is less of a problem to them than if Christians were being killed. Both men are totally inexperienced in international security matters — but, incredibly, still sit on the National Security Council — and it shows. Rita Siemion, the international legal counsel at Human Rights First, suggested that, “When our operations harm civilians, we weaken those partnerships, lose intelligence opportunities, provide propaganda and recruitment to terrorist groups and increase harm.” She is right; Gorka and Bannon are wrong.

Thirdly, the American media is largely failing to report or criticise this spike in civilian deaths. Even Vox, which sets its stall out as a liberal, go-to news source, doesn’t seem to get it: “US air strikes are killing a lot more civilians. And no one is sure why,” it claims, as if the strange new orange man in the White House isn’t the blindingly obvious cause.

There is no doubt that the people living under “Islamic State” want to be freed and that they should be. The question is, to put it crudely, how few of them can be killed in order to save the rest? Obama may have made himself out to be more pacifist than he really was — just look to his killer drone programmes — but Trump is taking the American tradition of wild belligerence and gung-ho warfare to a whole new level. He also risks losing the goodwill of the people he is claiming to care for; those who are enduring Daesh directly, although if he is anywhere near as anti-Muslim as his advisers are, then he probably just doesn’t care anyway.

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/...ms-not-to-care

I'm glad you also ask questions and see what is going on. Yet many Muslims all emotional following very submissive what media is telling them what is happening.