Comments

-1

supernice wrote

Wow, this is really going in circles with you. I've got somewhere to be in a 20 minutes, so this is the last you'll hear from me until I'm back online, but have a look:

You said:

but using the insinuation to shut them up

I said:

Forgive me if that's been hard, but the two of you keep going on and on about this it's hard to sit by and not say something.

So who's trying to shut who up at this point? I have tried to disengage, but if the two of you keep directing comments towards me and about me, I have the right to respond to them. I've got to leave now or I'm going to be late, but here's an Idea for you: start a thread to vote for a ban on me, or do it here if you wish. I won't hold it against you. If that's what it's going to take to give you a sense of justice, by all means. As soon as I'm back online, I'll know what the outcome is. Have a good day/night.

-1

supernice wrote

OK, that's fair. I can understand that. But what's your solution then? Are you going to harass me until you feel like I'm uncomfortable as well? Are you going to try to get a mod to ban me? A mod already stepped in when you accused me of being ableist, and I backed off and said I wouldn't engage them any longer. Forgive me if that's been hard, but the two of you keep going on and on about this it's hard to sit by and not say something.

Let's get back to the Syrian thing a bit. Earlier there were accusations that I was saying something to the extent of all Kurds are the same. That's not true, and I explained that to the best of my ability, even though you still apparently believe that. So am I to understand that it is not possible that I can be Syrian if I have a differing opinion than another user who is also Syrian? By that do you mean that ALL Syrians are the same? I don't think you really do, I'm just saying this so you see why I think you wanting to know if I'm really Syrian or not is silly. Both of us can be claiming to be Syrian or Chinese or Mexican.....how can you really know if either of us is what we are claiming, or to use your words insinuating?

I could easily think that you're just stirring up trouble. After all, you seem to be making this into some personal quest. And maybe you are, but I'm not taking that opinion just yet. I'm taking you at your word.

-1

supernice wrote

I haven't the slightest desire to engage with you any further because we cannot communicate with each other in a civil manner. Why would you care to keep speaking with me? I don't understand. Must I conform to your opinion? That's about as likely to happen as you conforming to mine. Neither of which is necessary. You and I have both been complete asses to each other, so why keep it up?

0

supernice wrote

You're right. I missed the bit about their mental disability in the link Brick sent me, seemed to have nothing to do with what we were discussing when I scanned through it, so I moved on.

If someone is hostile to me, I respond back. The intention is not do belittle mentally disabled people in any way, it's only to return their insults in kind. But I doubt anyone is willing to believe that.

What's next? Am I banned? Not trying to be an ass, just honestly want to know.

-2

supernice wrote (edited )

If the shoe fits. I said nothing about mentally disabled, those are your assumptions.

Edit: I misread the last part of your comment. I thought you were saying that i was calling them mentally disabled. My comments have nothing to do with their mental disability nonetheless. It's all about the way they've engaged me in this thread. Read into it what you will.

-4

supernice wrote

A few things for you:

What westerns think is irrelevant to us

  1. Who on Earth is "us"? You've said this a second time now. Are you the representative of all of Raddle, all of the Middle East & North Africa, or simply the entire world?

  2. You insulted me with your first response, so what do you expect from me in return? A kiss on the cheek perhaps?

  3. I've called you a Wahabbi apologist, not a Wahabbi. There's a distinction. I say this based on your responses to me when you where using the account /u/_0_0_. Make excuses for Wahabbis and I'll call you an apologist for them, simple as that. I deal with Wahabbis and those who enable them the same as I deal with Nazis and their enablers. Deal with it.

  4. You've repeated that I'm not from MENA, yet you have no idea who I am or where I'm from. This is yet another example of your ample stupidity and arrogance. Considering you say that you are from Brazil (if that is not a lie), then I suppose that makes you not from MENA as well. What's your point then?

  5. I don't think you know what "ad hominem" means, so please stick to your limited vocabulary as it will help you rather than make you look foolish. My post to this thread was about my objection to a singular word....not you or the subjects of the article. When you came at me with your infantile insults and assumptions, I hit back. My attacks on you have little to do with your position on the use of that word, rather your inability to be civil (maybe you are a Wahabbi after all?). I wouldn't call that ad hominem, I'd call it dealing with an idiot on the only level they can understand. My days of dealing with fools nicely and trying to get through their thick skulls ended many years ago friend, you'll get no pity from me.

  6. Are you so fucking infantile that you are still going on about this rather than moving on with your sad existence? For fucks sake, surely you have better options than to engage with me further on this? We are obviously beyond the point of any rational discussion, why do you persist?

Please, for the love of all that is beautiful in this world, do not think that I actually want an answer to the questions I've posed above. They are merely there for you to ponder. Just piss off so that we don't have to suffer any further exchanges with each other.

1

supernice wrote

I appreciate that. Kurds are most certainly not of one mind on things, like any other group in the world. It's naive to think that way.

I want the mess to end in Syria as badly as anyone else here does, I just don't want it to end the way things ended in Egypt. Just replacing one shit situation for another. People deserve better, no matter who they are.

0

supernice wrote (edited )

If you are right, and it's 90-99% SDF, in my view they are being used by the US and it's cronies. That's not to say they have the same goals as the US and it's cronies. I'm sure they are not completely delusional and know very well what to expect from them, I just think it's a bad choice.

All I can hope for is that it doesn't end badly. If that makes me ethnocentric, or whatever else you may choose to call me, then what can I say other than you have the right to your own opinion? I didn't comment on this post to argue the merits of the Kurdish struggle. I didn't even comment on this post to say anything for or against the women listed in the article. I was simply expressing my opinion that what is happening in Syria should not be called a revolution.

It seems like differing opinions is something both you and /u/0w0 are unable to handle very well, though I'll admit, you far better than them. At least you had the decency to engage in dialogue with minimal insults. I'm still pissed that you called me ethnocentric, but I'll get over it :)

-1

supernice wrote

No problem. And maybe they're not the same user as /u/_0_0_ too, but calling me a western lefty, reductionist, or an orientalist is still going to get me to be hostile to them.

Does disagreeing with calling what's happened in Syria a revolution make me fair game for insults? I think I can have my own opinion without being insulted. If my opinion doesn't match theirs, we could simply have discussed it without the childish insults.

-1

supernice wrote

Perhaps it's because I don't appreciate being called a western lefty, a reductionist, or an orientalist. I have no real problem with those that choose the left label, I just don't do so myself.

Also perhaps because I suspect that this user is one and the same with u/_0_0_, who appears to be not-all-Wahabbis type. I make it a personal policy to not give any leeway to Wahabbis, or any other extremists for that matter.

0

supernice wrote (edited )

Ok, sorry I thought I was being clear but I guess not. I am not looking at the Kurds of Syria as one group. Although you have insulted me by accusing me of ethnocentrism, that's not me. The Kurds fighting in Syria, regardless of ethnicity, have varied interests and means.

Group 1: Kurds who are fighting for a better future, without taking sides (Assad or his enemies)

Group 2: Kurds who are fighting for a better future, but taking sides (Assad or his enemies)

That's probably as simply as I could put it without being too much of a reductionist, which OP claims I am. The reason I make the distinction in the first place is simply because those who are taking sides, one way or the other, are fooling themselves. Whichever major power they side with, will turn on them in the end, or simply abandon them, like we've already seen in Syria and in countless other historical situations. They are not looking at the long term. They are being used for a goal which is not their own and very likely conflicts with their own. If the goal was not in conflict, they would not be abandoned or turned on. But it is in conflict. NO ONE wants to lose control of that piece of land they are sitting on. They all covet it, and they all have designs on it. Whoever gets in their way will be marked as an enemy and fought. Including the Kurds.

I have no doubt that both groups want a similar result, i.e. control of their own destiny. It's the means they go about it that makes all the difference in the world. One method is something that I believe can succeed given the right circumstances, the other is one that I believe is doomed to failure because the parties they are engaging with to accomplish the end goal are much more powerful, and once you've assisted them (by being their tool) they will be far more powerful. The overall Kurdish situation in Syria can likely become far worse than it is now or has been in the past as a result of them taking sides instead of trying to make their own path while all potential opponents are in a weaker position.

EDIT: I said I am not looking at the Syrian Kurds as one group. Before I get more insults, let me clarify further yet. I am not looking at the Syrian Kurds as one fighting group.

0

supernice wrote

Calm down. There's nothing ethnocentric about saying a group of people took an opportunity to free themselves, even if the same thing happened next door by the same ethnicity. The fact that they did has nothing to do with with ethnicity, but it has everything to do with the fact that they were being oppressed. If they were living comfortably, regardless of ethnicity, they would have seen no need to do this.

What a joke. They need supplies to fight The Literal Islamic State, and the US offers them.

And to fight the Turks, rightfully so. But look what happened? They were used, much like a tool, until they were no longer needed.

Your entire argument seems to be that Syrians have no agency

No, my argument is that the "rebels", not including the Kurds (excepting those I mentioned before), were and are a proxy army for external interests. And the Kurds who didn't fall for the trap of being used, saw an opportunity to rid themselves of oppression and like anyone in their right mind would, took it.

Is that simple enough for you?

-3

supernice wrote

Oh my, you are still going on about this? You are more pathetic than I thought ......please, give it a rest. The more you link to things, the more you reveal that you are the same asshat that was going by /u/_0_0_.

Getting right back to your Wahabbi apologist act from last time you and I spoke pretty quickly aren't we? Maybe now is time to abandon this account a create a new one like you did previously since you've been found out? But please, be more clever this time with the username :)