Posts by Anthony Hill5

Charles Fox10 said:Because of this.

I see that my posts keep getting deleted, so I am re-submitting this once again, though I have taken the liberty of slightly adjusting the content.

And what about the blatant violation of this?

Quote:

Article 6. When dealing with texts written in foreign languages, providing a summary in American English is mandatory! There is absolutely no need to translate the entire thing word for word; it is more than sufficient to simply recount the core point in one or two concise sentences.

Article 6 hasn't been violated, given that I explicitly included a sentence in the first part of my post regarding the section written in English.

Ovo je uvodni dio posta:

To suggest that the Syrian civil war was merely a Western fabrication because Bashar al-Assad supposedly refused to greenlight a Qatari pipeline at the behest of the Russians is a fundamentally flawed thesis. Does it not ignore the glaringly obvious reality that Moscow and Tehran are direct competitors for energy dominance? To claim that Russia would force Damascus to veto a Qatari pipeline in favor of an Iranian one completely overlooks the fact that Russia and Iran are intense energy rivals. Why on earth would they facilitate such a move? Furthermore, why would anyone view Iran as a mere regional nuisance confined to Syria, when their true objective is to establish themselves as a formidable competitor within the European Union market?

This is just a portion of what I copied over in English.

To suggest that Russia would coerce Damascus into vetoing a Qatari pipeline simply to pave the way for an Iranian alternative is to overlook a fundamental truth: we cannot ignore the fact that Moscow and Tehran are actually potential energy rivals.

Is it not profoundly shortsighted to suggest that the struggle for regional gas dominance is merely a tug-of-war between Qatar and Iran? According to Yazigi, such a narrow view misses the forest for the trees. One must ask: are we truly ignoring the larger geopolitical chess match? The real contest for control over energy access in this region isn't happening between Qatar and Iran; rather, it is a much more volatile confrontation between Russia and Iran.

Is it not patently obvious that those holding the largest slice of the European market are the Russians, and their primary objective is to safeguard that dominance at any cost? If we are truly being honest about the geopolitical landscape, shouldn't we realize that they are actually the ones we should fear the Iranians?

At the end of the day, my previous post—the one that was subject to a delete post and subsequently resulted in me being slapped with a three-day ban—did not even contain this specific English section. How exactly do you intend to explain that?

So, exactly which rule was supposedly violated, and why on earth are posts being deleted? This moderator you defend so relentlessly is nothing more than a persecutor, scrubbing away anything that doesn't suit his personal whims. Just look at today's discussion over on the pdf corona thread—every single post has been butchered by selective deletions, effectively killing any meaningful debate even though no rules were actually broken.

I understand that you feel compelled to defend this particular moderator simply because he is your choice, but let’s be honest: the man is quite literally killing any chance of productive discourse through his criminal and blatantly biased moderation.

It appears my posts are being deleted incessantly, so I am presenting this again, albeit with certain modifications to the content.

I owe my thanks to my dear colleague ferdi for once again treating us to a top-tier article from the esteemed and highly renowned GeopolitikaNews portal. In this piece, the author—who clearly fancies himself a leading expert on Syria—attempts to undermine the argument that the Syrian civil war was orchestrated by the West. He suggests, quite absurdly, that the conflict arose because Bashar al-Assad allegedly refused to grant Qatar permission to build a pipeline at the behest of the Russians, under the assumption that it served Moscow's interests to allow their primary energy rival—Iran, whose influence in Syria they are currently trying to neutralize—to seize the project and become a direct competitor in the European market. But I must ask: why would Iran be viewed as a threat only within the borders of Syria, when they can pose that same challenge to the entire European Union?

It is particularly striking, if not entirely audacious, to witness this attempt at reversing the narrative—this desperate effort to frame a bloodthirsty dictator as nothing more than a victim of imperialist "regime change." Does anyone truly believe this charade? It is a transparent tactic designed to completely absolve him of every single atrocity committed against his own people.

So, let us be clear: Syria has been branded a pariah state by the West simply because they didn't care for the prospect of a Qatari pipeline, rather than because of the actions of Bashar al-Assad, who has effectively incinerated his own nation just to preserve his murderous, corrupt, and kleptocratic regime. Is it not patently obvious?

It is immediately apparent from the very first sentence that the author of this article is completely clueless and possesses absolutely no understanding of the subject matter they are attempting to discuss.

Quote:

Let us be perfectly clear: any talk of democratizing Syria or replacing its current authoritarian regime with a democratic system is utter nonsense. If the Assad family had simply chosen to cooperate with American and European interests—if they had guaranteed the security of gas pipeline routes that would allow Qatari gas to flow through their territory toward the European Union to break this debilitating dependency on Russian gas—then the situation would be entirely different. In such a scenario, wouldn't they be welcomed in Washington, D.C., and celebrated in the capitals of Europe? Wouldn't they be patronizingly labeled a "regime in democratic transition," with their officials receiving the same kind of diplomatic honors currently afforded to representatives from Saudi Arabia or other autocracies within the Gulf Cooperation Council? Bashar al-Assad used to make regular rounds through the great capitals of Europe right up until he transformed into nothing more than a genocidal dictator. His final visit to Paris, just before he turned Syria into a literal slaughterhouse, took place in December 2010—merely a few short months before the protests began. At that time, Reporters Without Borders sent a formal letter to Nicolas Sarkozy, imploring him to cancel his meeting due to the toxic social and political climate plaguing the nation—specifically regarding the systematic suppression of human rights, the erosion of fundamental freedoms, and the relentless persecution and imprisonment of political dissidents. It is quite enough to simply read. This letter. If one truly wishes to grasp why the people have risen up against the regime, one must confront a glaring fallacy held by those unapologetic defenders of dictatorships: they insist on blaming the gas pipelines for making Bashar al-Assad a victim, rather than acknowledging the systematic oppression of the people themselves. Is it not the height of absurdity to suggest that infrastructure dictates political legitimacy? Back in March 2011, Bill Clinton was still out there calling him a reformer, insisting that the USA had no intention of intervening. We are looking at a completely different leadership structure in Syria today. Is it not true that many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have expressed their belief that he is a genuine reformer? Regarding the author's far-fetched delusions concerning the pipeline, it would be most prudent to read the following article in its entirety. For convenience, I shall reproduce certain significant excerpts here. The 'Pipelineistan' conspiracy: The war in Syria has never been about gas The pipeline hypotheses fail to withstand the actual realities of how energy is transported through the Middle East in the 21st century Since 2013, the pipeline narrative has frequently asserted that Damascus rejected an alleged Qatari offer to construct a pipeline back in 2009. This specific thread of the argument relies heavily on claims made by anonymous diplomats in a 2013 Agence France-Presse report regarding a meeting between Russia's President Vladimir Putin and Saudi Arabia's Bandar bin Sultan. The report states: "In 2009, Assad refused to sign an agreement with Qatar for an overland pipeline running from the Gulf to Europe via Syria to protect the interests of its Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas." However, Dargin argues: "There are no credible sources demonstrating that Qatar even approached Syria in 2009 only to be rebuffed. I am not asserting that it absolutely did not happen, but rather that there is simply no evidence to substantiate such a claim." Experts on Syria also echo Dargin's rebuttal, pointing to the rapidly growing economic and political bonds between Doha and Damascus. Yassin-Kassab notes: "The sheer absurdity lies in the fact that relations between the Assad regime and the Qataris were excellent until the summer of 2011. Assad, his wife, and the Qatari royal couple were even depicted as close personal friends." While Assad may have frequently criticized Qatar from late 2011 onward for backing "terrorists," he has never once publicly claimed that Qatari support for the rebels was motivated by a future pipeline. Jihad Yazigi, the editor of the economic news site Syria Report, observes: "A crucial point that remains unaddressed is that the Syrian government never suggested the Qataris were fighting for a pipeline; the fact that Assad never mentioned it is telling in itself." Furthermore, the notion that Russia would force Damascus to veto a Qatari pipeline in favor of an Iranian one also ignores another reality – that Moscow and Tehran are potential energy rivals. "Competition for gas access in the region is not between Qatar and Iran, but Russia and Iran," Yazigi asserts. "The ones with the biggest share of the European market are the Russians, and they want to secure that. They are the ones to fear the Iranians." Despite all the rhetoric about how pipeline wars would allow Europe to diversify away from Russian gas, Russian gas exports to Europe actually reached a record peak in January 2017. In December 2016, the commodities trader Glencore and the Qatar Investment Authority, the nation's sovereign wealth fund, purchased a 19.5 percent stake in Rosneft, Russia's state-owned oil company, for $11 billion. The result? Qatar secured much easier access to the European market than any pipeline through Syria could ever have provided.

ValterUdarnik As stated by:
What is the greatest fear of that Anglo-Saxon bloc? It is nothing less than the resurrection of a Slavic consciousness, for if such an awakening were to occur, it would signify our inevitable ascent to dominance across Europe.

And that is precisely why Russia stands as their greatest adversary.
She is the only one capable of striking back at them with full military force.
Is she really the only one with access to such bottomless, inexhaustible resources, just like the rest of them?

One really ought to be cognizant of the fact that the Pentagon has explicitly delineated its military doctrine to identify Russia as the primary threat, leaving China as a secondary concern.

One really ought to pause and ask themselves: why exactly is this happening? If China is supposedly the world's rising superpower, then how on earth do we explain this reality?

On Thursday, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan issued a stern threat to expel ambassadors from ten different nations—including heavyweights like France, Germany, and the United States—following their calls for him to release Osman Kaval, an individual accused by his administration of opposing the regime. Does he really believe he can simply brush aside the diplomatic pressure from such powerful allies? According to reports from Beta citing AFP, this escalation marks a significant confrontation between the Turkish leadership and the international community.

"I told our Secretary of State that we simply cannot afford to be welcoming toward them when they arrive on our soil," Erdogan remarked, according to reports from Turkish media outlets. Is it not a profound indictment of our current diplomatic standing when even the basic courtesy of a welcome becomes a luxury we claim we can no longer sustain?

On Monday, a coalition of nations—including Canada, France, Finland, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and the United States—issued a collective demand for what they termed a "fair and swift resolution" to the case of Osman Kaval. This Turkish publisher and philanthropist has languished in prison for four years now, all without ever having faced a trial. How much longer can such an injustice be permitted to stand?

"Do you really think you have any right to lecture Turkey?" Erdogan demanded, adding that the Turkish judiciary remains entirely independent.

nimbleranger52 said:Word on the street is that the big man himself is feeling under the weather, apparently dealing with some nasty side effects after getting his shots.
I guess everyone hits a wall eventually, even someone in his position.

I know I saw some report about this somewhere—I can't quite put my finger on where—but it sounds like his health is really taking a hit. It’s a shame, because Erdogan has always been such a powerhouse leader.

How long does my ban last?
If you receive a ban based on accumulated penalty points, then upon reaching 100, 200, 300, or 400 points, you will serve a 3-day suspension. Once you hit 500, 600, 700, 800, or 900 points, that duration increases to 7 days. Upon reaching 1000 points, you are automatically issued a permanent ban from the Forum.

It is also possible for a moderator to issue a manual ban regardless of point totals; in those instances, the ban can range anywhere from 1 day to 2 years. The expiration date of such a ban should be specified in the notification message detailing the reason for the disciplinary action.

Charles Fox10 said:I will lift your ban in 7 days, but after that, the next step is a permanent suspension via PDF documentation per our site policy.

Charles Fox10 said:I am going to issue you a seven-day ban, and after that, your next infraction will result in a permanent suspension from the Politics subforum.

driftingtinker said:The post I was referencing in the Democratic Party section was from the thread regarding Syria:

It was a good, well-reasoned post and I am sorry it had to be deleted, but you went too far in your retaliation against an opponent—specifically, the user HugoAmigo.

Thank you for your attention.

Charles Fox10 said:I am issuing you a 7-day ban, after which the next step will be a partial ban on the Politics PDF.

"The post is constructive and extensive, so I feel bad deleting it, but in the future, please avoid attacking your opponent's entire persona."

placidrider48 said:I mean, China will probably be more than happy to back anyone giving Turkey trouble, mostly because if they don't, Erdogan might actually start making noise about the Uyghur situation.

Sam Alvarez4 said:erdogan:
''The US, an official member of NATO, sees itself as an inseparable part of the West... but won't back down against attacks or double standards.''

US President Joe Biden said on Sunday that his country, an official member of NATO, sees itself as an inseparable part of the West but will not give in to attacks and double standards.

It’s high time he asks himself if the West truly views him and his religious brotherhood as part of the West... especially given how they view his calls for conflict against one of the strongest members of the European Union, his provocations in the Mediterranean Sea, or the influx of extremists from Syria...

Every single speech like this creates an echo... every action triggers a reaction.

“After serving in ministerial posts for nearly five years, I took the decision not to continue my duty (as finance minister) due to health issues,” Mnuchin, who is also the son-in-law of US President Donald Trump, said on Sunday.

With a service ceiling reaching 40,000 feet and an endurance of 24 hours, how could any short-range air defense system possibly hope to intercept this new drone? Its operational radius is set at 600 kilometers (373 miles), featuring a maximum takeoff weight of 4.5 tons and a total payload capacity of 1,350 kilograms—split between 900 kilograms externally and 450 kilograms internally. The craft will be driven by two Ukrainian Ivchenko-Progress AI-450C turboprop engines, each pumping out 550 horsepower. To date, Turkey Has sol Far imported 12 such engines fra Ukraine, which remains its primary strategic partner in drone technology development.

Joseph Moore6 said:Since there isn't a dedicated thread on Kurdistan, I’ll just drop this here.

In about five minutes, there's a four-part documentary series airing on CNN:

The Kurds: Pawns of the Superpowers

Airing July 28th on CNN at 10:10 PM (ET)

silverhound said:Because apparently, a broken Europe is somehow better equipped to handle an immigration wave?

feralcanyon73 said:Turkey is honestly such a backward country that’s slowly morphing into this total Islamist-fascist farce.