Master thread for delete post requests

...This thread is about mandatory vaccination, which you can kiss goodbye as a possibility...
...Anyone who fails to see why one would advocate for such a thing must be operating with a darkened mind and arguably requires a psychiatric evaluation. We aren't living in Nazi Germany; this is 21st-century Western civilization...
...People remain tolerant only because the media propaganda is so overwhelming, and everything is being engineered to normalize such a monstrous practice; however, if something like this truly comes to pass, I fear we will face far more dire consequences than just overflowing ICU wards...
....The elites can threaten us with whatever they please—they are insulated from the fallout regardless—but the individuals who would go so far as to forcibly pick on their own neighbors, friends, colleagues, or even other people's children? Well, those people are even more deranged than those currently in power...
...It is all lies, stigmatization, and the imposition of collective guilt; using these kinds of empty platitudes is a tactic typically employed by the greatest genocidal tyrants whom history eventually condemns. And as for why triage might become necessary, one only needs to ask Beros and Ursula von der Leyen why they slashed public healthcare funding...

...What sheer idiocy, this is unheard of!!!...
....Everything they are doing is utter madness; they have plunged European Union nations into massive debt and caused thousands of deaths through these covid certificates and by denying medical assistance to the unvaccinated—it is a catastrophe!
...And then there is the trolling with these "personal" opinions, while she fails to mention how much of that money she plans to tuck away into her own pocket, the vile woman!...

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.

My posts keep getting deleted, so here I am again, reposting some slightly tweaked content.

Article 6.
• For texts in foreign languages, an English summary is required! There is no need to translate the whole thing; just recap the main point in one or two sentences in English.

slyfox43 said:The post was exceptionally informative on this topic. I'm also curious why it was deleted again. When someone puts in the effort to write a detailed, well-reasoned piece only to have it mercilessly wiped out, I’d say the moderator deserves a warning for poor judgment.

Edit: I see the post was deleted AGAIN, and Anthony Hill5 is rightfully upset. Meanwhile, mindless cheering fueled by baseless conspiracy theories continues unchecked. Isn't it time to review which individuals are actually fit for moderation and which are just causing trouble? Let's correct some historical mistakes.

My last attempt at posting was here:

I'm not speaking as anyone's lawyer, just as a reader, a writer on this sub-forum, and someone interested in seeing its moderation function properly.

I'm not stepping in here to act as anyone's defense attorney; I’m simply a reader, a fellow writer on this forum, and someone with a vested interest in seeing sure the moderation actually works properly.

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 won't fly; now we enter the "Sugar" principle—I'll delete today's work and all three of us get a day off.

Ferdinand said:So, Americans don't mind the glorification of Nazism, then? 👎

Ferdinand said:If the Wagner group and the Assad regime are criminals, what does that make Americans?
Mega criminals?

Ferdinand said:It is becoming increasingly apparent that Americans have committed horrific atrocities across the entirety of Syria.

Ferdinand said:It is an undeniable truth! Americans have committed horrific crimes all across Syria. 👎

Ferdinand said:An investigation by The New York Times reveals that hundreds of civilian deaths have been completely omitted from the official casualty statistics. How can we possibly trust these figures when such significant numbers are being left out of the count? 👎
Is anyone else actually reading this latest deep dive from The New York Times? I’ve just finished going through their interactive report on the death tolls, and frankly, I find myself wondering if we are even looking at the same reality anymore. How can a publication of this stature present such staggering figures without more rigorous scrutiny of the underlying data? One has to ask: where does the accountability lie when the numbers themselves become a subject of such intense debate? It feels as though we are being asked to swallow a narrative that hasn't been fully vetted, and quite frankly, it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. Is it not the responsibility of the press to provide clarity rather than adding to the fog of confusion?

Americans have committed horrific atrocities all across Syria, and now we are forced to witness the reality that they are actually worse than the Assad regime or any of those various Wagner groups and similar outfits. 👎

žerac76 said:These tiresome individuals, Anthony Hill5 and ESin Ogi, are nothing more than a colossal waste of my time; one would be better off simply reading their nonsense without ever deigning to offer a single comment. Is it not obvious that pure vitriol leaks from every single word they write?

Is there any point in even attempting to engage with such baseless nonsense? Does anyone truly believe that these unfounded claims hold even a shred of intellectual merit? It is quite frankly exhausting to witness such blatant disregard for reality being presented as if it were some sort of profound insight. One has to wonder how much longer we are expected to endure this level of sheer absurdity before common sense finally prevails. The user says:
I have already set my first preference to ignore them, yet even then, I find myself occasionally unable to see through the terrorist garbage hidden within those quoted posts.

Morgan Peterson said:I’m not sure which specific post you mean, but here is a brief summary of the last few that were deleted:

Regarding Ursula, Angela Merkel, etc.:

Line by line: Threats, conspiracies, Nazis, incitement to violence, insults, profanity—and all regarding the corona pdf, not against skeptics; you're constantly breaking rules that have been set for ages.
Fun stuff, as always ☕

wanderingpilot1 said:Where exactly are you spotting any "threats, conspiracies, Nazis, incitement to violence, insults, or profanity"?

Ah, so, because someone was called an idiot?

Is that really it? Is that his opinion, which may or may not be accurate?
If you disagree, then please, provide some actual arguments to the contrary.

But no, apparently that constitutes sufficient grounds for you to censor him...

Nazis???

The man simply stated this:
This isn't Nazi Germany, it's Western civilization in the 21st century...

What on earth is controversial about that? That we are living in Western civilization in the 21st century?
Or perhaps we aren't? Is that what you are claiming?

Morgan Peterson said:It’s not a guy, it’s a girl.
If you actually knew that, maybe you'd understand why their whole body of work has been headed for a delete post for a long time—and now, it's just a partial one.
I mean, when someone keeps breaking the rules we set up on purpose, there's really no point in just doing a delete post anymore, right?

And forget about playing lawyer; Dylan can ask her herself if she wants to know.

wanderingpilot1 said:What does gender even have to do with this? Are you perhaps being sexist?

To my mind, we are simply dealing with an anonymous handle on a forum expressing an opinion. Does it truly matter whether that individual is male or female?

Furthermore, looking at the specific opinion you mentioned, I fail to see any trace of what you claim:
I quote: "Threats, conspiracies, Nazis, incitement to violence, insults, swearing"

Would you be so kind as to provide concrete examples of these supposed "threats, conspiracies, Nazis, incitement to violence, insults, or swearing" that would grant you the authority to babble about censorship?

In the examples you provided, none of those elements exist...

Morgan Peterson said:Look, here's the deal. No one is forcing us to deal with this vaccine nonsense or let people walk all over us just because of what OTHER users on this forum think.

Morgan Peterson said:Instead of cranking out posts here and rambling aimlessly through a dozen different threads, maybe try actually taking the holidays to relax,
🙂 👋

I mean, I don't know. Maybe I’m just being cynical, but it feels like everything is just... falling apart? I guess you could say that. It’s hard to keep track of all the noise lately. One minute you're reading some deep dive in The New York Times about how things are supposedly getting better, and the next, you're looking at some leaked document or a random file online—like that one corona pdf everyone was obsessing over—and suddenly nothing makes sense anymore. It's exhausting, honestly. Just constant chaos. I don't know if anyone actually knows what's going on behind the scenes, but I doubt it. Everything feels pretty shaky to me. kaže:
Hmm, okay... so looking at these last ten or so posts, it feels like everyone's just echoing the same sentiment. I’d call it an echo chamber on the left—purely figuratively, of course. And from what I can gather, the TT fan club won't even let you look at him the wrong way without jumping in. It kind of reminds me of that whole idol worship thing, which I guess is something TT and his crew wouldn't actually be too fond of themselves. Just saying.

driftingtinker said:Yeah, 🙂

The first post was deleted yesterday when a lively group of four came in wanting to dive deep into that "sheep pen in the town square" nonsense. My colleague in arms didn't know when to quit, so she took a one-day break.

Today you’re back at it, playing around with the same issues, plus you felt the need to comment on yesterday's deletion and the sacrifice of your fellow comrade. Between your two deletions and about twenty posts total, you've been slapped with a red warning because there is an entire dedicated forum for topics like that.

So, you know exactly why they were deleted; you're just tweaking the circumstances a bit.

At the same time, you left this "peacekeeping" message this morning:

By some miracle, it's still up there:

😬