View Full Version : Russian military jet downed by Turkey
"Kurds are treated extremely well in Turkey":laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: I am dying... Stop it!!!!:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
You got me! We actually torture them while their families watching :bow:
"We actually torture them while their families watching" and "Kurds are treated extremely well in Turkey" gives enough space for reality check...
Greyblades
02-01-2016, 20:31
Theis has been an org-works production of Brenus fails to detect or understand sarcasm: part 184.
Theis has been an org-works production of Brenus fails to detect or understand sarcasm: part 184.
"Kurds are treated extremely well in Turkey" was sarcasm?
Nothing wrong with what Brenus said.
Greyblades
02-02-2016, 03:14
"We actually torture them while their families watch them" was sarcasm. Yesugey is incredulous and is pretending to go along with the idea to a (to him) ludicrous conclusion. If he was speaking he'd say it with a mocking tone.
On first reading Brenus' words appeared to indicate the joke (as it is) had gone over his head, 7 hours later I must sheepishly admit it is looking a lot more ambiguous than I thought.:embarassed:
"We actually torture them while their families watch them" was sarcasm. Yesugey is incredulous and is pretending to go along with the idea to a (to him) ludicrous conclusion. If he was speaking he'd say it with a mocking tone.
On first reading Brenus' words appeared to indicate the joke (as it is) had gone over his head, 7 hours later I must sheepishly admit it is looking a lot more ambiguous than I thought.:embarassed:
Indeed, it was a sarcastic attempt by Yesugey to make the criticism look stupid and Brenus merely reminded Yesugey that there are not just the two extremes given by Yesugey. Therefore, nothing wrong with what Brenus said.
"We actually torture them while their families watch them" was sarcasm. Yesugey is incredulous and is pretending to go along with the idea to a (to him) ludicrous conclusion. If he was speaking he'd say it with a mocking tone.
On first reading Brenus' words appeared to indicate the joke (as it is) had gone over his head, 7 hours later I must sheepishly admit it is looking a lot more ambiguous than I thought.:embarassed:
Whoa, I know sometimes it's hard to detect sarcasm on writing, but that much? Even I wrote "You got me!" at the top of the sentence?
Yes they treated extremely well, but except the last 10 years, The government were forcing them to define themselves as "Turkish with Kurdish origin". Also, Turkey expected them to speak Turkish first, and then speak their original language only informally. If they don't, then trouble starts. Is it idiotic for the late 20th. century? True. Is it barbaric? It depends, all countries have some weird habits, and this was that on our part.
But that wasn't my point. The problem is not Turkey being good or bad. The problem is the psychology. You see, Turkish government provide a lot of rights to the Kurdish people, and it had no affect, in fact it made you more angrier and arrogant. They don't want anything to be "given", they want to "take" something. This psychology is a gift of French Revolution. That can not be cured.
Actually that kind of national problems still exist in all other countries. It's not solved yet in anywhere, including Europe. Turkey is just unlucky enough to be one of the countries that experience it's symptoms much more heavily. (Separation between England-Scotland would be a good one for example)
Sarmatian
02-02-2016, 12:27
They don't want anything to be "given", they want to "take" something. That's psychology is a gift of French Revolution. That can not be cured.
This is... unbelievable statement.
Actually that kind of national problems still exist in all other countries. It's not solved yet in anywhere, including Europe. Turkey is just unlucky enough to be one of the countries that experience it's symptoms much more heavily. (Separation between England-Scotland would be a good one for example)
Maybe they should get a referendum like Scotland did.
Maybe they should get a referendum like Scotland did.
That sentence of yours also explains why you found my statements "unbelieveable". There is no "them" before the French Revolution. After that event, people start describing themselves as "them". Therefore, giving them a referendum means the acceptance of "them" as an identity which comes from French Revolution.
Anyway, since we already see the whole politics are based on weird nonsense events, let's focus on the reality: Well no matter how idiotic this is, there are "nations" emerged now, and people won't quit believing it no matter how nonsense this is. Maybe they should get a referendum?
You are right Sarmatian, it's the best way to approach the situation, European style, respectful to human rights.
The problem is, that approach was adopted by Europe after WW2, and it's still unclear what the consequences would be in the long run. It looks like it solves all the national problems for now.. But.. Even the Europe itself was unclear about the what would happen if Scotland decides to leave. And there is an immigrancy problems rising in Europe as well.
Even Europe doesn't know what would happen in future, by giving anyone land or a chance of referendum as they wanted. Yes, they wanted to create a gentle atmosphere for Europe after WW2, but it's still possible that after 50 years, they might see the consequences and say like "Whoops, sorry, being extremely nice to everyone ends horrible in the long run too." (By the way WW2 itself was also a consequence of "avoiding war at all costs" policy.) An in Turkey, in a country that close to middle east, the consequences could be extremely dreadful.
So here is my answer in short: "We don't know the risks of the European way yet. And in this geography, we can't endanger ourselves."
CrossLOPER
02-03-2016, 00:12
That sentence of yours also explains why you found my statements "unbelieveable". There is no "them" before the French Revolution. After that event, people start describing themselves as "them". Therefore, giving them a referendum means the acceptance of "them" as an identity which comes from French Revolution.
So the strawberry that gives me hives and kills me does not exist until after my own death?
So the strawberry that gives me hives and kills me does not exist until after my own death?
My apologies for the lack of my English. What do you mean?
Well the Kurds pretend that they are the offspring of the glorious Medians, so why not let them be incorporated into Greater Iran and get re-united with the actual Cyaxareses and Deioceses?
Well the Kurds pretend that they are the offspring of the glorious Medians, so why not let them be incorporated into Greater Iran and get re-united with the actual Cyaxareses and Deioceses?
Lets say I hold my right to pretend that I am the offspring of the Great Genghis Khan and not let them take anything. (Ironically nobody claims he/she is and offspring of a servant, or slave in the past)
Montmorency
02-03-2016, 21:56
Lets say I hold my right to pretend that I am the offspring of the Great Genghis Khan and not let them take anything. (Ironically nobody claims he/she is and offspring of a servant, or slave in the past)
Jews. :creep:
Sarmatian
02-03-2016, 22:55
Lets say I hold my right to pretend that I am the offspring of the Great Genghis Khan and not let them take anything. (Ironically nobody claims he/she is and offspring of a servant, or slave in the past)
... which is the closest to reality from what you've said so far.
All this talk about Kurds "taking" stuff reminds me of how white Americans talk about black people.
All this talk about Kurds "taking" stuff reminds me of how white Americans talk about black people.
Or what Eastern Europeans and Gypsies are described as here. "If it ain't bolted down, they will steal it"
... which is the closest to reality from what you've said so far.
"Reality" I liked you used that word, that's exactly my point.
Many open minded people just like you, believed "The terrorism will stop when the Kurdish people get their rights" for like 5 years. After they experienced the horrific bloodbath from terrorism, more than 250 Turkish soldiers getting killed, and rebellion started, they faced with the "reality", we all are evolved monkeys with simple passions.
You have to live in it first, though.
All this talk about Kurds "taking" stuff reminds me of how white Americans talk about black people.
Beside I am the one already said the description "Kurds" is already a false statement, I am open for any similarity you can show me.
Accusations based on "reminding" is pointless though.
Greyblades
02-04-2016, 15:35
Or what Eastern Europeans and Gypsies are described as here. "If it ain't bolted down, they will steal it"
I was never clear on that, when the orgahs here speak of gypsies are they talking about the ethnic or lifestyle gypsies?
Gilrandir
02-04-2016, 16:28
I was never clear on that, when the orgahs here speak of gypsies are they talking about the ethnic or lifestyle gypsies?
About Gypsy Kings in fact.
I was never clear on that, when the orgahs here speak of gypsies are they talking about the ethnic or lifestyle gypsies?
From the ramblings of a few people, it seems to be a merger of both.
Many open minded people just like you, believed "The terrorism will stop when the Kurdish people get their rights" for like 5 years. After they experienced the horrific bloodbath from terrorism, more than 250 Turkish soldiers getting killed, and rebellion started, they faced with the "reality", we all are evolved monkeys with simple passions.
I must have missed that horrific bloodbath from Kurdish terrorism or did you just say you blame them for the ISIS-attack? Or was your government lying to protect the Kurds when it said it was done by ISIS? Or are Kurds = ISIS? Or a bombing that happened in response to Turkish attacks on Kurds ISIS?
I'm a bit confused now.
I must have missed that horrific bloodbath from Kurdish terrorism or did you just say you blame them for the ISIS-attack? Or was your government lying to protect the Kurds when it said it was done by ISIS? Or are Kurds = ISIS? Or a bombing that happened in response to Turkish attacks on Kurds ISIS?
I'm a bit confused now.
Hey mate, no I didn't mean those bombings by saying "bloodbath". What I meant was that during the period between two elections in Turkey. Turkish government was basically left many of the provinces to the PKK, because they were negotiating peace and want to gain Kurdish people's heart. After the election, they've decided that that's not possible, and decided to bring back the order to those provinces. But for the last three years, PKK built fortifications, tunnel systems and buried unbelievable amount of explosives to the roads with the help of the locals.
More than 200 soldiers were killed during the period, some of them in their bed sleeping, or in front of their pregnant wives, and unarmed. I don't use those events to defend any point though, I just want to underline that the Kurdish movement were acting extremely nice and they had millions of Turkish supporters, and after those supporters saw who are dealing with, they all were horrified.
Those bombings were either prepared by Isis or the Kurdish Islamic movement, they both are at war with PKK. They blame Turkish government, or Turkish police at least covering them, unfortunately the truth is the Turkish police is incapable of detecting those kind of attacks, no matter who targeted.
Hey mate, no I didn't mean those bombings by saying "bloodbath". What I meant was that during the period between two elections in Turkey. Turkish government was basically left many of the provinces to the PKK, because they were negotiating peace and want to gain Kurdish people's heart. After the election, they've decided that that's not possible, and decided to bring back the order to those provinces. But for the last three years, PKK built fortifications, tunnel systems and buried unbelievable amount of explosives to the roads with the help of the locals.
Why did the government decide that letting them self-govern a bit more was not possible?
Because according to Yesugey, they don't exist.
"Yes they treated extremely well, but except the last 10 years":laugh4: I was near the Turkish bombs when there were falling on Kurdish villages in Iraq after "Provide comfort operation (1991)". I evacuated a very dangerous old terrorist woman with 3 wound shot in her chest, shot from Turkish helicopters as the crew was killing all her sheep and, probably one member of the crew decided to have fun...
This was more than 20 years ago... I crossed the Kurdish zone in Turkey. and it is really the first time in my life I saw heavy tanks (M60 Patton) painted in blue and marked as police. Probably to "treat" the target, oops, sorry, the Kurds extremely well. On the return journey to France via airport at Ankara, the taxi driver (Kurd) was so afraid that he asked us not to play the Kurdish music we had bought (cassettes at the time) because he could have troubles with the police.
And, for the records, it was not the PKK who broke the last cease-fire, but the Turkish Mussolini.
I give you that until recently, the Turkish Kurds were slightly better treated than the Iraqis' one.
17486
This was a Kurdish village under Saddam.
17487
On the top of the hill, a post from the Iraqi Army.
Why did the government decide that letting them self-govern a bit more was not possible?
I mentioned in one of my posts. It's dangerous and even Europe doesn't know what would be the consequences of this politics in future.
"Yes they treated extremely well, but except the last 10 years":laugh4: I was near the Turkish bombs when there were falling on Kurdish villages in Iraq after "Provide comfort operation (1991)". I evacuated a very dangerous old terrorist woman with 3 wound shot in her chest, shot from Turkish helicopters as the crew was killing all her sheep and, probably one member of the crew decided to have fun...
This was more than 20 years ago... I crossed the Kurdish zone in Turkey. and it is really the first time in my life I saw heavy tanks (M60 Patton) painted in blue and marked as police. Probably to "treat" the target, oops, sorry, the Kurds extremely well. On the return journey to France via airport at Ankara, the taxi driver (Kurd) was so afraid that he asked us not to play the Kurdish music we had bought (cassettes at the time) because he could have troubles with the police.
And, for the records, it was not the PKK who broke the last cease-fire, but the Turkish Mussolini.
I give you that until recently, the Turkish Kurds were slightly better treated than the Iraqis' one.
17486
This was a Kurdish village under Saddam.
17487
On the top of the hill, a post from the Iraqi Army.
Ah, that's my favorite scene from Full Metal Jacket too! "How can you shoot women or children? Easy! Ya just don't lead 'em so much!" :yes:
Anyway. Since you already have a lot of field experience, I don't have to explain you the battle circumstances, like in the battle zone, you can't know who the enemy is. PKK uses shepherds mostly as scout. This way, if you kill them you kill "civilians". And Kurdish women are expert at cooking bombs! You should see how happily they laughing while preparing C4 sticky bombs. There are many Kurdish children who lost their fingers because the explosive they prepared explodes early in their hand.
But I have much more realistic thing to say: In politics, there is no argument such as "But they are killing babies, murdering civilians!"
You see, PKK's official battle plan was based on killing women and babies, because back at 90's most Kurdish people were fighting against PKK, (Kurds are religious and PKK is not) and killing their children was the only way to convince them. In fact, killing babies is a very good tactic. At 90's PKK's policy was kidnapping the children of Kurds and raise them as PKK militias. They were also bombing fighter pilot's children, since pilots are the most dreadful men to them on the field. And most of the time they killed Kurdish babies for fun, because most PKK militias have Armenian origin and they like to get revenge from Kurds.
So mate.. Do you ever saw me talking like "Yes, but PKK kills babies!" to make a point? It's extremely cheap and proves nothing, isn't it?
Kurds have a savage culture which based on "killing the other family to the last man", but that all are irrelevant factors from the politics that I can't use to back up my arguments. I based my arguments on historical perspective only.
You see, I already wrote you myself that Kurds were treated extremely well, "as long as they don't speak their language" (Somehow everyone likes to delete that part.) And it was fascism. Kurdish rebels were killing babies, but they were still right in politics. You can be right about something while killing babies.
And Tayyip wasn't the one breaking "cease fire", Tayyip gave them most of their rights, but they believed "The time has come for the great rebellion" and took their chances. Tayyip is not Mussolini, he was the one treated Kurds extremely well. (That's why I hate him.)
(Fun fact, Kurdish movement would be successful if they weren't that extremely ruthless. in last 6 months even the most fanatical Kurdish nationalists were shocked with PKK's behaviour. They killed ambulance drivers, Kurdish civilians who refused to be human shield, and recruited 9 to 12 years old boys. All very nice tactics though.)
Long story short: Bad events means nothing, and people are ok with some babies getting killed, as long as they have some political gain at the end. If that was not true, Kurds would be hating PKK now. But politics beats human rights. Kurds believe PKK have a chance, so they simply ignore few hundred Kurdish civilians get killed. That's how our genetic system works, thanks to the evolution.
Sarmatian
02-05-2016, 08:19
Tayyip is not Mussolini, he was the one treated Kurds extremely well. (That's why I hate him.)
That's everything I need to know about you.
That's everything I need to know about you.
:yes: That's why you can trust my words.
"You see, PKK's official battle plan was based on killing women and babies" Pfff, they even didn't plan to eat them... Not serious plan, I am telling you...
"C4 sticky bombs" Saving Private Ryan!!!!
"I based my arguments on historical perspective only." I don't know this one, but it is good line... Hasta la vista, baby...
CrossLOPER
02-05-2016, 21:44
Long story short: Bad events means nothing, and people are ok with some babies getting killed, as long as they have some political gain at the end. If that was not true, Kurds would be hating PKK now. But politics beats human rights. Kurds believe PKK have a chance, so they simply ignore few hundred Kurdish civilians get killed. That's how our genetic system works, thanks to the evolution.
Please, this is too much edge. Keep it back in the 10th.
"You see, PKK's official battle plan was based on killing women and babies" Pfff, they even didn't plan to eat them... Not serious plan, I am telling you...
"C4 sticky bombs" Saving Private Ryan!!!!
"I based my arguments on historical perspective only." I don't know this one, but it is good line... Hasta la vista, baby...
You see, how stupid it would be if I use their massacres to prove a point? I would be just like you!
Due to their life standarts, and some other reasons, Kurdish people are very good at killing babies. But that fact cannot be used to clear the errors of my country. People killing babies, still have the right to talk their language. That perspective, is the "historical perspective"
So stop being such an emo, and talk politics only.
Please, this is too much edge. Keep it back in the 10th.
I wish it's possible, mate.
"Due to their life standarts, and some other reasons, Kurdish people are very good at killing babies." That is talking politic? Talking politic would be, let's say, talking about the fight between Kurds, Turks, Arabs for the domination of natural resources, or perhaps to revive ancient dream of ancient Empires... Not just pretending some alleged massacres you are, de facto, giving not even a shadow of proof. The choice of vocabulary is quite telling, mind you.
You blame the Kurds to kill babies and in the other hand you forgave the Turkish army to killed old women under the pretext they would be scouts...
"Due to their life standarts, and some other reasons, Kurdish people are very good at killing babies." That is talking politic? Talking politic would be, let's say, talking about the fight between Kurds, Turks, Arabs for the domination of natural resources, or perhaps to revive ancient dream of ancient Empires... Not just pretending some alleged massacres you are, de facto, giving not even a shadow of proof. The choice of vocabulary is quite telling, mind you.
You blame the Kurds to kill babies and in the other hand you forgave the Turkish army to killed old women under the pretext they would be scouts...
That's not politics, that's just a fact. (which is what you started mentioning.) If I ever tell you an argument like "Kurdish people kills babies, so we have the right to ban their language!", which is what you just did, that would be very disgusting.
I write you hundred times "Being rapists and murdered doesn't make Kurdish people wrong in politics", you keep ignoring it.
You are the emo talking about Full Metal Jacket scene first, it's all written.
Don't blame me with making "killing babies" politics, feel free to blame me with "Being fascist, ignorant and horrible person" just like any other people in the forum.
"which is what you just did," :laugh4: Can you quote me on this? Thanks.
"You are the emo talking about Full Metal Jacket scene first, it's all written" Same. Thanks again
You are digging your own grave.:shrug:
First it was the Armenians, now it is the Kurds...
"which is what you just did," :laugh4: Can you quote me on this? Thanks.
"You are the emo talking about Full Metal Jacket scene first, it's all written" Same. Thanks again
You are digging your own grave.:shrug:
No need to put you more shame, anyone reads can see you are the one comes up with "Turkish soldiers kills old woman for fun" cliche.
I am ok with being in my grave though, Turkish soldiers currently kills children. We shoot them when they attacked with Rpg's and sticky bombs. I just want to be hated for the right reasons :yes:
First it was the Armenians, now it is the Kurds...
In a different perspective, that's surprisingly true. Ottoman Empire was collapsed because of nationalism, yet Turkey still acts like an Empire. People still do't get why Kurdish people see Turkey as "invaders", especially after Tayyip Erdogan gave them some of their rights.
"Turkish soldiers kills old woman for fun" cliche" What cliche? What I describe here is a real fact. I helped in carrying the women in the 4x4 that was rushed to Diyana or Erbil, don't remember now. It will stay with me for ever, as because we had bought ice packs for the cold chain in preparation of a vaccination campaign, the packs had produced water, quite a lot in fact, and her blood was going in it, and this pink/red mixture was moving with the car movements.
The most amazing was she was smoking a cigarette, and I could see the hole in her dress, in her chest...
You decided it was from a movie my dear, not me. The shame is on you.
Not that you care, probably, if I follow what you wrote.:shrug:
"Turkish soldiers kills old woman for fun" cliche" What cliche? What I describe here is a real fact. I helped in carrying the women in the 4x4 that was rushed to Diyana or Erbil, don't remember now. It will stay with me for ever, as because we had bought ice packs for the cold chain in preparation of a vaccination campaign, the packs had produced water, quite a lot in fact, and her blood was going in it, and this pink/red mixture was moving with the car movements.
The most amazing was she was smoking a cigarette, and I could see the hole in her dress, in her chest...
You decided it was from a movie my dear, not me. The shame is on you.
Not that you care, probably, if I follow what you wrote.:shrug:
Not sure if that's an appropriate thing to say, but: Thank you for your service! :bow:
Gilrandir
02-07-2016, 07:03
I crossed the Kurdish zone in Turkey.
Now let us make it clear: you CROSSED THE BORDER of a country WITHOUT AN OFFICIAL PERMIT = illegally?
"Turkish soldiers kills old woman for fun" cliche" What cliche? What I describe here is a real fact. I helped in carrying the women in the 4x4 that was rushed to Diyana or Erbil, don't remember now. It will stay with me for ever, as because we had bought ice packs for the cold chain in preparation of a vaccination campaign, the packs had produced water, quite a lot in fact, and her blood was going in it, and this pink/red mixture was moving with the car movements.
The most amazing was she was smoking a cigarette, and I could see the hole in her dress, in her chest...
This is all you need to know about Brenus. When he is bent on evoking emotions to prove his point he will do it. When other do something like that - :no:.
"Now let us make it clear: you CROSSED THE BORDER of a country WITHOUT AN OFFICIAL PERMIT = illegally?" Yeap. But not really, UN resolution, you see...:laugh4::laugh4: And for your record, I did that more than once... I am a BAD person.:laugh4:
"When he is bent on evoking emotions to prove his point he will do it" :laugh4: Yusegey was implying I was referring to movies (in a tactic he apparently likes), so he was wrong. You will be never tired of personal attack will you?
And you know what (somewhat graphic images - Husar):
17501 17502 17503
THAT is emotions, yes, and THAT was what I was doing.
In the last one, you can see a pouch of blood that will save the little girl. That was my blood. Her name was Rhonza. That is what emotions made me do. So deal with it.
Gilrandir
02-07-2016, 12:12
"Now let us make it clear: you CROSSED THE BORDER of a country WITHOUT AN OFFICIAL PERMIT = illegally?" Yeap. But not really, UN resolution, you see...:laugh4::laugh4: And for your record, I did that more than once... I am a BAD person.:laugh4:
Unlike you, I don't call people names (unless in response). I just give the name to the things they claim to have done: crossing the border of a country intentionally without being allowed to is a premeditated crime.
"When he is bent on evoking emotions to prove his point he will do it" :laugh4: Yusegey was implying I was referring to movies (in a tactic he apparently likes), so he was wrong. You will be never tired of personal attack will you?
And you know what (somewhat graphic images - Husar):
17501 17502 17503
THAT is emotions, yes, and THAT was what I was doing.
In the last one, you can see a pouch of blood that will save the little girl. That was my blood. Her name was Rhonza. That is what emotions made me do. So deal with it.
You were the one to pooh-pooh my emotions when I spoke of events in Ukraine. I can also publish some pictures, videos and links that evoke my indignation:
17504 from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29001361
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n4S10oDo0s
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/23/kidnapping-ukrainian-patriots-russia-support-kiev-vladimir-rybak
These were MY emotions. You were sniggering at them. Why should I treat yours better? As the call, so the echo.
Sarmatian
02-07-2016, 14:37
http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2016-02-07/erdogan-us-should-choose-between-turkey-kurdish-forces
Erdogan's pissed about Obama's envoy visiting Syrian Kurds and wants Washington to choose between Turkey and Kurds.
"Turkish soldiers kills old woman for fun" cliche" What cliche? What I describe here is a real fact. I helped in carrying the women in the 4x4 that was rushed to Diyana or Erbil, don't remember now. It will stay with me for ever, as because we had bought ice packs for the cold chain in preparation of a vaccination campaign, the packs had produced water, quite a lot in fact, and her blood was going in it, and this pink/red mixture was moving with the car movements.
The most amazing was she was smoking a cigarette, and I could see the hole in her dress, in her chest...
You decided it was from a movie my dear, not me. The shame is on you.
Not that you care, probably, if I follow what you wrote.:shrug:
Ah, I see that you are already popular in forum as a guy who messes all the conversation with photos of people getting killed.
Even I know I am wasting my breath here, the part you are lying is not the event itself. It's disgusting to bring those into politics. I already told you: Kurdish women are very good at scouting and preparing explosives.
You already win the argument mate: We kill women and children here. YPG has more than 3000 militias below 18 years old.
17505175061750717508
And here is more good news: Now they recruit 9-12 years old boys. So you can go tell Turkish government kills infants. :bow:
https://www.facebook.com/cesaret.atar/videos/959709964109656/?pnref=story
Brennus, mate, Turkish Republic has the %100 moral highground on this debate, which I hate to use in politics. (Which I also hate generally, this generousity of Tayyip Erdogan costs 260 more soldiers, and bring no symphaty anyway.) Our officers are legally allowed to kill them only after they launched their RPG or weapon. (Such an insane rule to obey.)
Sarmatian
02-07-2016, 18:10
Brennus, mate, Turkish Republic has the %100 moral highground on this debate,
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
I genuinely laughed out loud here.
"You were sniggering at them." Never did on these pictures, and it fact I never did sniggering. Give the ref and then we can see... Of course, you won.,t be able to do so...
"Ah, I see that you are already popular in forum as a guy who messes all the conversation with photos of people getting killed." I understand why Gilrandir likes you. You employ the same tactic of telling lies until in your mind they become truth. Unfortunately, if you base your analyse on Gilrandir "proof by social media", you will find some difficulties.
I understand that the link of children playing being soldiers is a massive proof....:laugh4::laugh4:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Military-Camouflage-Soldier-Uniform-Fancy/dp/B00ODCS9A4
You are in fact doing the same. :laugh4:
"the part you are lying is not the event itself" Which part is it? So, when you can't answer, you pretend your opponent is a liar. :laugh4: You will find a lot of liars on this forum...:laugh4: But, really, what we expect from someone who can write "Turkish Republic has the %100 moral highground on this debate". The only thing Turkey has higher is altitude of its bombers and helicopters.
"Our officers are legally allowed to kill them only after they launched their RPG or weapon.":laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
You pretend Kurds kill babies, then you twist the story as if I said Turks killed babies.
"More than 200 soldiers were killed during the period, some of them in their bed sleeping" Yeap, that is what happen when the Turkish Mussolini decided for political gain to break the cease-fire. By the way, killing soldiers when they sleep in a good tactic. Behind armour and kevlar, it is more difficult. I understand you prefer to use planes and helicopters as there is not so much possibility of retaliation, mind you, but you can't expect your enemies to play your rules.
My grand-parents were killing Nazi occupation forces in trains, lorries, at restaurant, cinema etc. That is guerilla warfare.
All right, when you will have finish to give all the Turkish Authoritarian Regime propaganda, we might debate...
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
I genuinely laughed out loud here.
Awesome argument.
Remember: I am a guy who doesn't want the moral highground. Before we go frenzy, we lost 250 soldiers, uncountable civilians including ambulance drivers, locals who have a little sense and many children. That's a shame.
Now we are called the "evil" people on duty again, so things going well. I hope it gets better and you will be able to accuse me for evil being correctly this time :yes:
"You were sniggering at them." Never did on these pictures, and it fact I never did sniggering. Give the ref and then we can see... Of course, you won.,t be able to do so...
"Ah, I see that you are already popular in forum as a guy who messes all the conversation with photos of people getting killed." I understand why Gilrandir likes you. You employ the same tactic of telling lies until in your mind they become truth. Unfortunately, if you base your analyse on Gilrandir "proof by social media", you will find some difficulties.
I understand that the link of children playing being soldiers is a massive proof....:laugh4::laugh4:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Military-Camouflage-Soldier-Uniform-Fancy/dp/B00ODCS9A4
You are in fact doing the same. :laugh4:
"the part you are lying is not the event itself" Which part is it? So, when you can't answer, you pretend your opponent is a liar. :laugh4: You will find a lot of liars on this forum...:laugh4: But, really, what we expect from someone who can write "Turkish Republic has the %100 moral highground on this debate". The only thing Turkey has higher is altitude of its bombers and helicopters.
"Our officers are legally allowed to kill them only after they launched their RPG or weapon.":laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
You pretend Kurds kill babies, then you twist the story as if I said Turks killed babies.
"More than 200 soldiers were killed during the period, some of them in their bed sleeping" Yeap, that is what happen when the Turkish Mussolini decided for political gain to break the cease-fire. By the way, killing soldiers when they sleep in a good tactic. Behind armour and kevlar, it is more difficult. I understand you prefer to use planes and helicopters as there is not so much possibility of retaliation, mind you, but you can't expect your enemies to play your rules.
My grand-parents were killing Nazi occupation forces in trains, lorries, at restaurant, cinema etc. That is guerilla warfare.
All right, when you will have finish to give all the Turkish Authoritarian Regime propaganda, we might debate...
I don't know Gilrandir, just saw his post.
Again, (Like thousands of time) I don't use it as a political moral highground to you. Killing babies is a logically right strategy. Children were going to school and that was banned by Kurdish rebels, and since Europe will back them up anyway, so why not murder few of them?
Brennus, mate, you blow your cover at "Kurd pretends" and My grand-parents were killing Nazi occupation forces in trains, lorries, at restaurant, cinema etc. ... I am a person who accepts all war crimes, you just reject killing babies. But since you ok with killing people in their sleep, why you such a crybaby when we do the same?
Your grandparent will be very proud of you siding with the fascists and help Kurdish girls getting raped. :yes:
All right, when you will have finish to give all the Turkish Authoritarian Regime propaganda, we might debate.. Ok that part I literally laughed :laugh4: I will tell you if the true friend of Kurdish people Tayyip Erdogan collapses and real fascism comes.
Sarmatian
02-08-2016, 00:15
Awesome argument.
That wasn't an argument. It was a statement of fact. You did make me laugh.
Now we are called the "evil" people on duty again, so things going well. I hope it gets better and you will be able to accuse me for evil being correctly this time :yes:
No one accused you of being evil. You shouldn't equate yourself with you country.
Turkey, on the other hand, committed numerous atrocities against the Kurds. Not the actions of a single government, but a consistent policy of oppression.
That doesn't mean Kurds are innocent, but, as the oppressed people, fighting back, no matter how dirty at times, is to be expected and doesn't excuse Turkish continued oppression.
That wasn't an argument. It was a statement of fact. You did make me laugh.
No one accused you of being evil. You shouldn't equate yourself with you country.
Turkey, on the other hand, committed numerous atrocities against the Kurds. Not the actions of a single government, but a consistent policy of oppression.
That doesn't mean Kurds are innocent, but, as the oppressed people, fighting back, no matter how dirty at times, is to be expected and doesn't excuse Turkish continued oppression.
You are right. It's not a crime to be a teenager just laughs in arguments.
But to be honest, I like what all other things you wrote though, you have a pretty healthy perspective.
The atrocities you mentioned were exist, you are right. Turkey was doing some evil, by trying to convert Kurds to Turks. And the terrorism never clean this wrongdoings up.
For the last 10 years, Turkey was getting much better. Tayyip Erdogan was negotiating with them, gave them most of their rights, removed most of the language ban, which was driving the nationalist "evil" people (That's me!) crazy.
But, in historical perspective, there is no "Kurdish rights", we all are just people with ambitions.. So they decided to become "evil" themselves. First they were just asking for the right to speak freely.. But since now they have millions of population, amazing sympathy from Europe, and the weapons and have a chance to invade more lands... Why not go for more ?
Now they are declaring 10 more cities in Turkey as "Kurdistan" (Because they migrated there in the last 10 years), plus whole Northern Syria, Northern Iraq and some parts of Iran. And if you object, you are basically supporting "ISIS". Awesome politics.
So they are the "evil" side now. (Since they already have a violent culture, they do horrific massacres now, but that's irrelevant.)
That's not my perspective ofcourse. As for me, as I mentioned, historically there is no evil side. Whoever gains some power, it's logical to use it, and the most evil people were victims once. (That's the biggest mistake of our guy Brennus, by the way. If you back up any political group because they are victim, you will be shocked when that group gains power.)
Long story short: Kurds have a chance to gain power, and they are using it. Turkey being violent against Kurds at past have no affect on this. They would do exactly the same.
Gilrandir
02-08-2016, 08:55
"You were sniggering at them." Never did on these pictures, and it fact I never did sniggering. Give the ref and then we can see... Of course, you won.,t be able to do so...
When will you finally learn to read properly? :no: Or are you so wise to employ your famous manipulating techniques you are so proud of having studied?
This is what I wrote (probably I will use the way you quote messages for you to understand the import better):
These were MY emotions. You were sniggering at them.
Ergo: You were not sniggering AT THE PICTURES. You were pooh-poohing my emotions. Feel the difference, dude.
And my conclusion was: it is the easiest way to evoke emotions that you need publishing pictures with people's suffering. You have probably figured that out while writing your thesis. Well, you can finally employ the tactics that you learnt and try how effective it is. For the unaware it is, no doubt.
I understand why Gilrandir likes you.
Yo, Yesugey, now you are in for trouble. If Brenus concludes that Gilrandir likes you (although he can never prove it, but never mind) it is a stigma. It means that you are nazi. Then he will roll on mentioning how he fights the nazis (never explaining why in his home country nazis' popularity has been on the rise long before the immigration deluge happened) and then he will mention his sires fighting nazis... oops he already did:
My grand-parents were killing Nazi occupation forces in trains, lorries, at restaurant, cinema etc. That is guerilla warfare.
If he thinks it gives him moral high ground he must know, that now Russia uses the same cliche (#Dedy voevali = Grandfathers were fighting them) to cover up for the fascist state Russia is sliding into. But he knows what he does - not for naught has he studied manipulation techniques.
You employ the same tactic of telling lies until in your mind they become truth. Unfortunately, if you base your analyse on Gilrandir "proof by social media", you will find some difficulties.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29001361
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...vladimir-rybak
Yeah, right. BBC and Guardian are social media. Carry on dude.
Greyblades
02-08-2016, 13:07
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/019/455/f2f.gif
Gilrandir: Uses Dude: “Carry on dude”, “Feel the difference, dude”
Yesugey: Uses mate “Brennus, mate”, “Hey mate”
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
All right, let’s go for the story after the funny bits:
“you blow your cover” I don’t need a cover. This is not what apparently nor Gilrandir for Ukraine or you for Turkey fully understand. I can say openly I am Pro-Russian or Pro-Kurds and explain at length why due to a lot of circumstances I think so. I don’t need a cover…
“When will you finally learn to read properly?” Bla bla bla as usual. Still not giving any evidence, are you?
Now, I grant you that when I asked for hard facts (as in the medal story, the celebration of the plane going down by Ukrainian Russian rebels on, what was it, twiter, facebook?), or the spy bits, it can hurt not to be trusted. And to question your sources of knowledge as well… However, it is part of debates.
“Yeah, right. BBC and Guardian are social media” And you are the one saying other to learn to read… None of the newspapers (well, not entirely true, I fear) rely on social media for information. Just have a look on the links you post, and, well, read them.: “The commander, a former military man, said he had not been aware of the story and was outraged by the cruelty of his fighters.”
The one you can, as “Sorry - we haven’t been able to serve the page you asked for.”
So, what were you trying to establish here?
Gilrandir
02-14-2016, 07:59
Gilrandir: Uses Dude: “Carry on dude”, “Feel the difference, dude”
Yesugey: Uses mate “Brennus, mate”, “Hey mate”
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
I didn't know "mate" and "dude" were four-letter words (unless you really count the letters).
This is not what apparently nor Gilrandir for Ukraine or you for Turkey fully understand. I can say openly I am Pro-Russian or Pro-Kurds and explain at length why due to a lot of circumstances I think so. I don’t need a cover…
Now we finally have the admission from a person who claimed impartiality and abscence of bias. Curiuosly, you consider being pro-something as a thing which distorts perception of the facts by OTHERS but which doesn't harm YOUR ability to see things perfectly clear.
Now, I grant you that when I asked for hard facts (as in the medal story, the celebration of the plane going down by Ukrainian Russian rebels on, what was it, twiter, facebook?), or the spy bits, it can hurt not to be trusted. And to question your sources of knowledge as well… However, it is part of debates.
“Yeah, right. BBC and Guardian are social media” And you are the one saying other to learn to read… None of the newspapers (well, not entirely true, I fear) rely on social media for information. Just have a look on the links you post, and, well, read them.: “The commander, a former military man, said he had not been aware of the story and was outraged by the cruelty of his fighters.”
The one you can, as “Sorry - we haven’t been able to serve the page you asked for.”
So, what were you trying to establish here?
The problem question is not the sources. You once were outraged by the fact (and linked to the video) of Ukrainian army seeing that it was shelling civilians with mortars and still doing it. An ex-military forgetting that you don't see who you are shelling with mortars. The source showed what you wanted to prove, but was your explanation accurate?
Conclusion 1: ANY source may be found at fault if you adopt a certain perspective of things. You can quote perfectly reliable sources if you want to prove that "Ukrainians are cruel nazis" and it would seem true. But taken in a larger context the statement would look like "Some Ukrainians are cruel nazis". Which is true about any nation (including the French and - OMG - your favorites the Russians). But you opt for the first tactics.
Conclusion 2: ANY facts (from any source) may be used to prove your point if you omit other relevant facts. You like to cry how cruel to "Russian minorities" Ukrainians are and speak of the domination of nazis among the latter totally ignoring the facts that prove the opposite, e.i. cruelty of Russia-backed separatists and significant number of nazis (even at power) in Russia and fascist rhetoric of Putin.
Conclusion 3: You underestimate the role of modern social media.
“Now we finally have the admission from a person who claimed impartiality and abscence of bias.” Err, how did you reach this conclusion? Really? I said, if I was, I could, and your conclusion is I admit something which would be a lie because, no, I don’t support Putin, and said it a lot, and my knowledge of the Kurdish claims is a little short…
I never claim impartiality by the way, or neutrality…
“An ex-military forgetting that you don't see who you are shelling with mortars” To be frank, I don’t remember doing this.
Now, as an ex-military (not specialised in mortar, but my brother is), in order to use a mortar, you use a map (for distances), calculate angles, azimuth, number of charges you need (the circular bits you put around the shell), fire 3 shells to warm-up the tube and see your dispersion and things like wind, temperatures and humidity, all things having effect on a low speed and light projectile, adjust then open the real shelling (I am just telling what my brother told me, long time ago). So you don’t need to see the target. However, on the map, you can see on what you open fire, and with an advanced observer, you can see which kind of personnel or targets you engaged… It is a bit silly to shell at random, not knowing where and who. And a mortar (especially 120 and 80 mm) is an extremely precise weapon when well manned. So a shelling by mortar is all but random.
“Conclusion 1: ANY source may be found at fault if you adopt a certain perspective of things.” Exactly. That is why you question the sources. Same events provide different cover: i.e, hospital bombed by Russian/Assad is war crimes, hospital bombed by USA is horrible mistake, hospital bombed by Saudis is silence.
“ANY facts (from any source) may be used to prove your point if you omit other relevant facts. You like to cry how cruel to "Russian minorities" Ukrainians are and speak of the domination of nazis among the latter totally ignoring the facts that prove the opposite, e.i. cruelty of Russia-backed separatists and significant number of nazis (even at power) in Russia and fascist rhetoric of Putin.” Nope, never did. I said Russians minorities had good reasons to believe they were in danger. Never said separatist were nice people either.
What you don’t understand is I don’t believe that victims are nice and innocent, nor I believe aggressors are badies and villains. I went through this, and I so how wrong this vision is (probably an effect of the Judeo-Christian civilisation).
You ignore deliberately the fact that I said and wrote several times what I think of Putin in order to keep your posture as victim. My position was and is he is doing exactly what the Western (NATO) powers did, employed the same methods, so why all this outrage about international treaties and borders 10-15 years after Kosovo, and even less after Iraq (2nd invasion).
“Conclusion 3: You underestimate the role of modern social media” Nope, but I question its ability in term of information/propaganda/manipulation. I have however no doubt about its power as agit/prop machines.
Gilrandir
02-17-2016, 11:40
However, on the map, you can see on what you open fire,
People are not marked on maps. And your charge was that Ukrainian army saw that there were civilians crowded in some place but they shelled them nonetheless.
It is a bit silly to shell at random, not knowing where and who. And a mortar (especially 120 and 80 mm) is an extremely precise weapon when well manned. So a shelling by mortar is all but random.
I'm afraid this is the way with all long range artillery, yet it is one of the most essential parts of modern armed forces.
You ignore deliberately the fact that I said and wrote several times what I think of Putin in order to keep your posture as victim.
I don't ignore, I just can't see the logics in having a low opinion of Putin and claiming to be pro-Russian.:dizzy2:
My position was and is he is doing exactly what the Western (NATO) powers did, employed the same methods, so why all this outrage about international treaties and borders 10-15 years after Kosovo, and even less after Iraq (2nd invasion).
Yet you are extremely critical of NATO and extremely sympathetic of Russia, although both are considered (by you) in the wrong.:dizzy2:
“People are not marked on maps” So, you are telling me that the Ukrainian army had no clue where and who they were shelling?
“I'm afraid this is the way with all long range artillery” Err, the WW2 is over. Modern artillery is really much better… It is law of physic and computers, you know...
“I just can't see the logics in having a low opinion of Putin and claiming to be pro-Russian” You are right. But one can have low opinion of Putin (and I have not, as I thing he is smarter than his opponents, which doesn't mean I approve his politic, even if I can see and understand why he is doing it) and as I never claim to be pro-Russian, I am perfectly logic.
“ extremely sympathetic of Russia” Only in your imagination…
Gilrandir
02-18-2016, 15:42
“People are not marked on maps” So, you are telling me that the Ukrainian army had no clue where and who they were shelling?
They were shelling checkpoints of separatists. But they didn't see that there were civilians nearby as well.
“I'm afraid this is the way with all long range artillery” Err, the WW2 is over. Modern artillery is really much better… It is law of physic and computers, you know...
Not the artillery used by Ukraine. It is basically old Soviet artillery produced in the 60-70s.
But one can have low opinion of Putin (and I have not, as I thing he is smarter than his opponents, which doesn't mean I approve his politic, even if I can see and understand why he is doing it)
By low opinion here I meant "censure somebody's views and actions".
and as I never claim to be pro-Russian, I am perfectly logic.
“ extremely sympathetic of Russia” Only in your imagination…
Say what?
#307:
I don’t need a cover. This is not what apparently nor Gilrandir for Ukraine or you for Turkey fully understand. I can say openly I am Pro-Russian or Pro-Kurds and explain at length why due to a lot of circumstances I think so. I don’t need a cover…
http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/019/455/f2f.gif
I feel you mate, to be honest. A good conversation just got filthed with empty moral arguments.
I didn't know "mate" and "dude" were four-letter words (unless you really count the letters).
Didn't know you are my second account. I am glad my fake account speaks English much better though :yes:
"Say what?#307:" Yes, what did it say? " I can say openly I am Pro-Russian" if I want (referring to blow-up your cover). The fact that I can doesn't mean I will do something... So, for you only, I am not pro-Russian if I was I would be able to say it. Clearer?
"They were shelling checkpoints of separatists" And what check points are for, if not control civilian populations? And according to you, they did that with imprecise weapons, not knowing that the shells will fall on the check point, but around...:laugh4:
Gilrandir
02-20-2016, 16:38
"They were shelling checkpoints of separatists" And what check points are for, if not control civilian populations?
In that case all countries must have a developed system of checkpoints. Seen any in Wokingham?
Checkpoints are to control the roads and prevent unwanted vehicles (especially military ones) from moving along them. It is strange to explain the purpose of such constructions to a military person (even a retiree).
And according to you, they did that with imprecise weapons, not knowing that the shells will fall on the check point, but around...:laugh4:
Specify what you consider precise (artillery) weapons. But bear in mind that
- Ukrainian army mostly relies on the weapons of Soviet make (60s and 70s);
- any long range artillery of 60s and 70s can hardly be precise;
- depending on the specific conditions of a specific battle and on the logistics of the first months of the war those mortars may have been the only artillery available for the unit to use.
"Seen any in Wokingham?" No, but a lot in Bosnia, Iraq, Kosovo and others troubled countries. It is generally installed not to far for a Kafana, pubs or others similar kind of premises, made with few sand bags, a roof, flimsy windows, a chair, a phone (rotating one) and of course a barrier. Some time some come with obstacles (herissons) and manned by around 4 persons, often drunk.
In Brcko, they moved the initial one into the Petrol station in order to be rain proof, a little bit...
I have a LOT of experience going through them, and yes, they are supposed to control movement of populations.
So, by definition you have a lot a person, civilians, crossing this kind of constructions. Really ideal military targets?
17606
Here, it was on the railways bridge, only open link between Serbia proper and Republika Srska 17607(or Srska Republika, don't remember), only passage for refugees, but as well for food and other goods.
"It is strange to explain the purpose of such constructions to a military person (even a retiree)": Indeed it is.:laugh4:
"Specify what you consider precise (artillery) weapons. But bear in mind that
- Ukrainian army mostly relies on the weapons of Soviet make (60s and 70s);
- any long range artillery of 60s and 70s can hardly be precise;
- depending on the specific conditions of a specific battle and on the logistics of the first months of the war those mortars may have been the only artillery available for the unit to use." I give you this, but it makes your case worst. I could understand a very precise pint-point shelling with hellish precision, but to shell a position, which is not a front line one, in the middle of a town is a good definition of terror attack.
Gilrandir
02-22-2016, 13:22
I could understand a very precise pint-point shelling with hellish precision, but to shell a position, which is not a front line one, in the middle of a town is a good definition of terror attack.
Who said it wasn't on a front line? Usually checkpoints are erected where the road leaves a city or at important junctures within the city. When an army approaches the city the first type of chekpoints becomes the first barrier the attackers are to overcome and therefore a front line. This type of checkpoints was shelled in the case under discussion.
"Who said it wasn't on a front line?" You: "People are not marked on maps" & "An ex-military forgetting that you don't see who you are shelling with mortars" On a front line, you know where you shell fall, and you see people being at the check point. Front is the clue.
Gilrandir
02-23-2016, 12:28
"Who said it wasn't on a front line?" You: "People are not marked on maps" & "An ex-military forgetting that you don't see who you are shelling with mortars" On a front line, you know where you shell fall, and you see people being at the check point. Front is the clue.
Where is front line mentioned here?
The situation was something like this: the army was drawing closer to a town and sent forth scouts who reported that the road was guarded/blocked by a checkpoint manned by enemies. They gave the artillery coordinates of the checkpoint and it started shelling. But after the scouts had left there might have been civilians who tried to cross the checkpoint unaware of what was going to happen. The same as the artillery was unaware that some civilians had approached their target.
You deal out charges of terrorism too eagerly when it involves Ukrainians and are more lenient when it is about the separatists or the Russians. They just make mistakes, but Ukrainians do it on purpose. So much for the impartiality.
You have really not a clue of what you spoke about, do you?
"Where is front line mentioned here?" You wrote: "Who said it wasn't on a front line?" So, it where front lines are mentioned, in your writings.
"They gave the artillery coordinates of the checkpoint and it started shelling. But after the scouts had left there might have been civilians who tried to cross the checkpoint unaware of what was going to happen": That is the worst ever explanation you come with. The "scouts" would have been Artillery Advanced Observers, if they are able to liaise artillery and to gave coordinates. They don't leave until first shell fall, as they will have to modify the parameters, as, in your example, to hit a check-point with what you described as not really modern pieces of artillery is tricky. So, no way, your observers would have left a front line. Even during WW1, they would have launch pigeons...
The problem is you don't remember what I wrote exactly, but you remember you were offended by it. I vaguely remember mentioning the shelling of a town, when some here were celebrating the "mopping-up" by the Ukrainians forces of the left-over of the Rebels forces, when the things were looking good (at least for them). So now, you try to find your way out of it...:creep:
Gilrandir
02-24-2016, 10:16
That is the worst ever explanation you come with.
It is the explanation that is offered by a person who has heard a lot of the character of fighting in Donbas. Ukrainians have been obliged to create an army from scratch with all pertaining consequences of inadequate command, out-of-date weapons, cowardness of (some) officers, terrible logistsics and so on.
The "scouts" would have been Artillery Advanced Observers, if they are able to liaise artillery and to gave coordinates.
You ground your conclusions on what you think it SHOULD be. See above on how irregular was the fighting.
They don't leave until first shell fall, as they will have to modify the parameters, as, in your example, to hit a check-point with what you described as not really modern pieces of artillery is tricky. So, no way, your observers would have left a front line.
I didn't say they left FOR GOOD. They might have stayed. They might have returned and corrected the initial parameters. But the FIRST shells fell were they fell. Later they could have changed the coordinates. But the FIRST shells fell were they fell.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.