Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

I can't for the life of me understand why the two of you are
supporting Bashar al-Assad. This guy is an enormous disaster to the
region and the world. He and Putin may end up being the ones that
trigger WW III.

It reminds me how the loony left college students in the 60s and 70s
would idolize Mao Zedong, even though he slaughtered tens of thousands
of people in the Great Leap Forward and the Great Cultural Revolution.
Some people just like psychopaths and genocidal monsters, I guess.

So merely critiquing the accuracy of your particular terms for what the Assad regime is doing (while not denying that large numbers of people are in fact being killed brutally, or that it is indeed horrible atrocity) is "supporting" Assad? Talk about stereotypical* Boomer flying-off-the-handle when someone has the audacity to disagree with even one word coming out of their mouth....

(*Note: "stereotypical" meaning that I know not all Boomers do this, I know some who are indeed fairly mellow, but you're part of the reason there is such a stereotype .)

Jordan and Justin challenge you on one legal and technical term, and so now of course they like psychopaths and "support" Assad (and maybe even teh Hitler), and probably even "idolize" him just as some people back in the 60s "idolized" Chairman Mao (and didn't make it with anyone anyhow).

Gradation? Yes, I'll agree with others here that you do definitely need some of that in your analyses, and in your responses to critics. I wonder if you are temperamentally capable of it though.

Note: I do enjoy your column for the actual stories you dig up. I do however, due in large part to these meta-issues, often take your analyses with a chunk of rock salt. There are some times I have agreed with you on them, though. I actually share your skepticism about Putin's motives (and Justin, why would he lie any less than a US politician or MIC source? He's just as much of a power player with a lot at stake based on manipulating how people believe). And I don't think anyone here disagrees that what Bashar Assad has been doing is monstruous wholesale butchery.

If you want to invoke emotional feeling and response in your writing (and that's fine, most editorial writers seek to do that to some extent), using an inaccurate term just because it invokes in our minds an emotional response similar to the one you want, is going to backfire with a learned and discerning audience who can spot such inaccuracies. Surely you can invoke the same kind of humanitarian outrage by describing what he's doing in strictly accurate terms--you don't need to use any cheap tricks as an easy shortcut, do you?

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

All I did was google something like "Hitler jewish collaborators" and
picked one out

(Shakes head) Oh goodness me, I thought you were better than that. So in order to fire off a quick response to an argument ("I'll show Justin!"), you played Google Russian roulette and shot yourself in the foot.

Might want to read any random Google hit from the wild and crazy internets before citing it, to avoid such future embarrassments.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Now, if Hitler had several Jewish ministers and the majority of the Wehrmacht were secular Jews, that would be an apples-for-apples comparison, but as it stands that's no more than a cheap example of Godwin's law in action.

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

What are Putin's intentions? What is he doing?

The same as any other competent wielder-of-power. His intentions are to stay in power, and what he is doing is what appears to a person in his position to be the appropriate means to that end. More specifically, a lot of what Putin does falls under the category "good for his base". The reason supporting Crimean secession and accession to the RF made him so popular is because when he observed that "Crimea is Russia", he was expressing the view of a vast majority of the Russian people. And the reason he didn't suffer for the girls who shouted obscenities in the state cathedral getting tossed in jail is because the vast majority of Russians saw what they did as wrong. And the reason he didn't suffer for letting those girls out early is because the vast majority of Russians, while they have a sense of consequences for wrongdoing, aren't assholes when it comes down to it.

You don't get and maintain an under-30% disapproval rating for long without doing a goodly chunk of stuff right, as far as the people allowing you to remain in charge see it.

Agree with Alioth and Justin above.

John, while the setting and backing down of red lines was particularly maladroit and probably setting the stage for further provocations and likely serious American overreactions in the future, I don't think destroying the Syrian air force would have ended it, just dragged it out even longer. We really need to get out of the habit of believing that we can and should get involved in everything, all over the world. We're probably going to have to suffer something much worse before we finally figure that out, though.

Also:

After a series of court rulings this week, Thailand's prime minister
Yingluck Shinawatra was impeached, and she and much of her cabinet
were forced to resign, in what opponents are calling a "judicial
coup." The case that was used to force the resignations appears to be
a really crazy activist government kind of thing. Yingluck in 2011
began a rice-subsidy scheme that paid rice farmers well above market
rate for their crop. This pleased Yingluck's biggest group of
supporters, the mostly indigenous Thai rural population, but it cost
the government $21 billion, and infuriated the powerful elite
opposition in Bangkok, mostly Chinese descendants.

The crisis was brought about by months of protests by the
"yellow-shirt" market dominant light-skinned Thai-Chinese elite
minority, vastly outnumbered by the "red shirt" dark-skinned Thai-Thai
who do most of the menial labor, and who continue to support the
Yingluck's Pheu Thai political party. Because of the Thai-Thai
majority, the Pheu Thai have won the last five elections and can
continue to do so. It's almost comical that the minority elite
repeatedly used the courts to throw out a Pheu Thai prime minister.

Now Thailand is in a ridiculous situation. Yingluck offered to resign
and call new elections in January, but the yellow shirt elite
protesters forced the new election to be called off because they knew
that the Pheu Thai candidate would win. Now Thailand has no
government at all, and the only constitutional way forward is another
election -- which the Pheu Thai would win.

The elites are backed by the King, by the army and by the courts, none
of whom like all those rural workers who grow the food and do the jobs
no one else wants to do. So they're going to use the army and the
courts to prevent another Pheu Thai candidate from becoming PM.
They're going to use the army and courts to appoint a "people's
council" of their own sycophants to run the country, with no election
required. The only problem with that is that the majority of
Thailand's population is going to be infuriated.

The rural "red shirts" are planning a march around Bangkok on
Saturday. The red shirts have held off, as long as Yingluck remained
in office, but now they're expected to become a lot more belligerent,
and possibly violent.

As I pointed out before, you are seriously overstating the ethnic Chinese angle. Almost half the population of Thailand (some 40%) have partial Chinese descent. The Shinawatras are Thai-Chinese from Chiang Mai. The big split is regional (Lanna and Isan, who are closer to Lao, versus the Central and Southern Thai), class, and rural/urban.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

> 1. Obama should concentrate on getting any and all US military
> assets OUT of the Middle East.

A lot of people say that, but it's never going to happen.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

> So merely critiquing the accuracy of your particular terms for
> what the Assad regime is doing (while not denying that large
> numbers of people are in fact being killed brutally, or that it is
> indeed horrible atrocity) is "supporting" Assad? Talk about
> stereotypical* Boomer flying-off-the-handle when someone has the
> audacity to disagree with even one word coming out of their
> mouth....

And how would describe someone who said that Hitler didn't commit
genocide, or that there was no Holocaust? Or are you as ignorant as
you sound?

Originally Posted by Alioth68

> If you want to invoke emotional feeling and response in your
> writing (and that's fine, most editorial writers seek to do that
> to some extent), using an inaccurate term just because it invokes
> in our minds an emotional response similar to the one you want, is
> going to backfire with a learned and discerning audience who can
> spot such inaccuracies. Surely you can invoke the same kind of
> humanitarian outrage by describing what he's doing in strictly
> accurate terms--you don't need to use any cheap tricks as an easy
> shortcut, do you?

Or maybe I could just be like all the mainstream media types and just
play it safe and stick to criticizing only the Tea Party.

And by the way everything I've written about al-Assad is accurate.
Just because some al-Assad sycophants say he's a nice guy who's had to
kill a couple of people to defend himself doesn't make the sycophants
right. Al-Assad is a genocidal monster, and I've quoted many, many
facts to back that up.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

> (Shakes head) Oh goodness me, I thought you were better than
> that. So in order to fire off a quick response to an argument
> ("I'll show Justin!"), you played Google Russian roulette and shot
> yourself in the foot. Might want to read any random Google hit
> from the wild and crazy internets before citing it, to avoid such
> future embarrassments.

This whole argument has gone way past the bullshit stage. The
page that I referenced was for a whole book full of examples of
Jewish / Zionist collaboration with Hitler. That page concludes
with this paragraph:

Originally Posted by William Hughes on Lenni Brenner

> Finally, I think Brenner was right, when he wrote, “This book
> presents 51 historic documents to indict Zionism for repeated
> attempts to collaborate with Adolf Hitler. The evidence, not I,
> will convince you of the truth of this issue...Exposing the
> Zionist role in the [Nazi] era is part of the scrutiny of the
> past, required of historians.”

So I chose this link because it's backed by many, many examples of
collaborators, rather than just the one that "Goodspeed" deceitfully
implied was the only one on the page.

Justin's claim is that al-Assad isn't trying to exterminate Sunni
Muslims because he has a couple of Sunni Muslims in his cabinet.
That's a moronic argument, and it's as irrelevant as saying that
Hitler wasn't trying to exterminate Jews because he had dozens of
prominent Jews and Zionists as collaborators. So just to be clear,
the link I chose was right on point, and it shows how fatuous Justin's
claim is.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

> The same as any other competent wielder-of-power. His intentions
> are to stay in power, and what he is doing is what appears to a
> person in his position to be the appropriate means to that
> end. More specifically, a lot of what Putin does falls under the
> category "good for his base". The reason supporting Crimean
> secession and accession to the RF made him so popular is because
> when he observed that "Crimea is Russia", he was expressing the
> view of a vast majority of the Russian people. And the reason he
> didn't suffer for the girls who shouted obscenities in the state
> cathedral getting tossed in jail is because the vast majority of
> Russians saw what they did as wrong. And the reason he didn't
> suffer for letting those girls out early is because the vast
> majority of Russians, while they have a sense of consequences for
> wrongdoing, aren't assholes when it comes down to it.

You're absolutely right about this, but I would think that you'd be
embarrassed to say it. Doing something during a generational Crisis
era when the population is highly nationalistic, just because it's
popular, isn't something to be proud of. Hitler was wildly popular
for his attacks on the Jews. Leaders who pander to the worst
nationalistic feelings during a Crisis era are exactly the kinds of
leaders who trigger major wars, and that's what Putin is doing.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

> As I pointed out before, you are seriously overstating the ethnic
> Chinese angle. Almost half the population of Thailand (some 40%)
> have partial Chinese descent. The Shinawatras are Thai-Chinese
> from Chiang Mai. The big split is regional (Lanna and Isan, who
> are closer to Lao, versus the Central and Southern Thai), class,
> and rural/urban.

I disagree. Thailand is in a generational Awakening era, and so
ethnic differences are naturally played down. But the Chinese and
Chinese descendants are market-dominant minorities in Thailand and in
several other countries, and this will, in my opinion, play a major
role in the coming wars.

It's also worth comparing this with the role of ethnic Russians in
Ukraine. China is already the Great Defender of Han Chinese within
China itself (against those good-for-nothing Uighurs and Tibetans),
and it's only a matter of time before Han Chinese in some other
country call on China to defend them.

Justin's claim is that al-Assad isn't trying to exterminate Sunni
Muslims because he has a couple of Sunni Muslims in his cabinet.
That's a moronic argument, and it's as irrelevant as saying that
Hitler wasn't trying to exterminate Jews because he had dozens of
prominent Jews and Zionists as collaborators. So just to be clear,
the link I chose was right on point, and it shows how fatuous Justin's
claim is.

You quoted an article from a page called "Jew Watch", that you admitted was just the first page that popped up when you googled what you already decided was the right answer, mentioning Jews writing letters to the Nazi regime. How is that comparable to Assad's regime being substantially comprised of Sunni Arabs, including most of the rank and file, many of whom continue to support him? We're not talking about a few collaborators, we're talking about a huge chunk of his cabinet, most of the economic elite and middle class, and most of his soldiers. Your claim does not make sense. Nobody is denying that he's a dictator, or that it's a brutal civil war, but your claim that it is about exterminating the majority population, as opposed to just people in rebellion, is not supported by the facts.

Still, I would be surprised if Syria held together as a coherent state along its present borders in the long-term. The whole Middle East is ripe for an ethnic/sectarian/political realignment along the lines of Europe in the first half of the 20th century. It's very sad.

You're absolutely right about this, but I would think that you'd be
embarrassed to say it. Doing something during a generational Crisis
era when the population is highly nationalistic, just because it's
popular, isn't something to be proud of. Hitler was wildly popular
for his attacks on the Jews. Leaders who pander to the worst
nationalistic feelings during a Crisis era are exactly the kinds of
leaders who trigger major wars, and that's what Putin is doing.

So annexing the Crimea is equivalent to the Holocaust, now?

I disagree. Thailand is in a generational Awakening era, and so
ethnic differences are naturally played down. But the Chinese and
Chinese descendants are market-dominant minorities in Thailand and in
several other countries, and this will, in my opinion, play a major
role in the coming wars.

Ethnic differences get played DOWN during generational Awakening eras? You don't know what you are talking about.

Besides, the Crisis for Thailand last time was WWII, and the tensions are boiling over in part because of the King's impending death. How is this an Awakening?

The Thai-Chinese are undoubtedly a market-dominant minority, but that's true on both sides. The majority of the founder of Thai Rak Thai were at least part Chinese, and the majority of foot supporters of the PAD (Yellow Shirts) are ethnic Thais, and 40% of the population is mixed. There is ample evidence to suggest tensions relating to the regional and class splits. Please show me one source saying that this is an ethnic Thai uprising against the Chinese.

China is already the Great Defender of Han Chinese within
China itself (against those good-for-nothing Uighurs and Tibetans),
and it's only a matter of time before Han Chinese in some other
country call on China to defend them.

Entirely possible. I'd place my bets on Malaysia for that, though. There are much sharper tensions, and clearer lines between the ethnicities.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

> Besides, the Crisis for Thailand last time was WWII,

No, the last Crisis for Thailand was the Cambodian "Killing Fields"
war. You don't know what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

No, the last Crisis for Thailand was the Cambodian "Killing Fields"
war. You don't know what you're talking about.

Lol, the realigning event for Thailand was one they didn't participate in?

We're supposed to ignore the dramatic institutional changes (end of the absolute monarchy, process of Thaification) starting in 1932, the cultural upheaval and protests in the late '60s to late 80s, that toppled the existing oligarchy without replacing it with anything new, a conservative counterreaction that incorporated some of the leftist student's demands without building new institutions, and now we're having the country divide into two warring camps, complete with color coded uniforms, and this is supposed to be an Awakening?

So, no evidence of this being an anti-Chinese revolt (and a pretty weird one, considering the party revolting is run almost exclusively by Thai-Chinese)?

No explanation on how Awakenings supposedly minimize ethnic differences?

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

You're absolutely right about this, but I would think that you'd be
embarrassed to say it. Doing something during a generational Crisis
era when the population is highly nationalistic, just because it's
popular, isn't something to be proud of. Hitler was wildly popular
for his attacks on the Jews. Leaders who pander to the worst
nationalistic feelings during a Crisis era are exactly the kinds of
leaders who trigger major wars, and that's what Putin is doing.

a) Russia is in the latter half of its 1T era. All the markers on that count are clear and unambiguous.
b) Regardless, why would it be embarrassing to accurately point out the motivations a leader has? Or to accurately point out that the people keeping a particular leader in power are relatively happy with him? I would think that stating the facts correctly is more a cause for pride than shame*...


-----
*...must...resist... ....impulse... to.... ...snark.... ... must.... resist....

Oh, this is too funny. From the GenerationalDynamics.com Thailand Generational Country Study:

Generational Crisis Wars

-- Thailand: World War Two -- 1932-1945

Can't even keep your own stuff straight.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Oh, this is too funny. From the GenerationalDynamics.com Thailand Generational Country Study:



Can't even keep your own stuff straight.

You are truly a total moron.

** Thailand government collapses, ending crippling riots from class war
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...03.htm#e081203


*** Thailand protests - will they escalate
*** http://gdxforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=74


** 24-May-10 News -- Les Miserables of Thailand at a turning point
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...24.htm#e100524

Originally Posted by Justin '77

> a) Russia is in the latter half of its 1T era. All the
> markers on that count are clear and unambiguous. b) Regardless,
> why would it be embarrassing to accurately point out the
> motivations a leader has? Or to accurately point out that the
> people keeping a particular leader in power are relatively happy
> with him? I would think that stating the facts correctly is more
> a cause for pride than shame*... *...must...resist...
> ....impulse... to.... ...snark....
> ... must.... resist....

Once again, Russia in the 1990s had no regeneracy event, no crisis
fault line, and no crisis climax. The 1990s events you refer to are
all unraveling events. Putin is remaining in power for the same
reason that Hitler remained in power -- by pursuing the most vile
nationalistic attitudes during a generational Crisis era, with a
result that can only lead to war.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

You are truly a total moron.

** Thailand government collapses, ending crippling riots from class war
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...03.htm#e081203


** 24-May-10 News -- Les Miserables of Thailand at a turning point
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/...24.htm#e100524

Yeah, coming from the guy who thought that Nigeria was a French colony, not hurting my feelings.

So, uh, I read your "analysis", and let me see if I can follow your "reasoning", here:

- So, the sweeping political changes and alliance with WWII Japan (which gave them territorial gains vs Malaya and Indochina and saw them participate in the Burma campaign) didn't have enough "genocidal energy" to be a crisis, so you've decided that the crisis must have been... a war in another country they didn't participate in?

- And, the events in Thailand are clearly an Awakening event because, they're an Awakening event? Occupy Wall Street was goofy, too; Does that mean that we're in an Awakening as well?

Once again, Russia in the 1990s had no regeneracy event, no crisis
fault line, and no crisis climax.

Your own website calls the 1905 to mid 1920s period the Crisis, and the Soviet Union was ended by the very first Soviet leader born IN the Soviet Union, who took power 80 years after the start of the last crisis, and faced down a coup attempt that had tanks firing on the Parliament. Pretty much a textbook saeculum.

Putin and his reign since the end of 1999 are almost a caricature of a Nomad-run Recovery.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

> Putin and his reign since the end of 1999 are almost a caricature
> of a Nomad-run Recovery.

Mexico, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, along with Russia, are all
in Fifth Turning eras.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Once again, Russia in the 1990s had no regeneracy event, no crisis
fault line, and no crisis climax. The 1990s events you refer to are
all unraveling events.

You keep saying it, though all evidence -- and there is a whole lot of it -- is contrary. Shakespeare wrote something about roses and other names... Do you understand what he meant?

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Mexico, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, along with Russia, are all
in Fifth Turning eras.

A thing you made up, lacking mechanism or correllation. Apparently simply to permit you to deny clear evidence when it contradicts your pre-existing dogma.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Mexico, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, along with Russia, are all
in Fifth Turning eras.

I'm curious how you define something like that, particularly when the article you linked to on Thailand acknowledged that Generational crises eras can occur without wars. Is there a sixth turning as well? A seventh?

Why did you refer to Russia being in a generational Crisis era when you acknowledge that its 4T has come and gone?

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Romania demands explanation from Russia for bomber threat
• Russia's Rogozin says that Moldova seized Transnistria secession signatures
• Violence increasing in Ukraine ahead of referendum

****
**** Romania demands explanation from Russia for bomber threat
****


Tupolev TU-160 'Blackjack' bomber

Romania's foreign ministry is demanding an explanation from Russia
concerning a threat made by Russia's deputy prime minister Dmitry
Rogozin, after his plane was refused entry into Romania's airspace, to
return with a bomber. Rogozin's plane was refused entry because
Rogozin is on the list of Russian officials who are the targets of
European and American sanctions that were imposed as a result of
Russia's annexation of Crimea.

Rogozin was returning from Transnistria (Transdniestria), a small
Russian-speaking region within Romanian-speaking Moldova on the far
west border of Ukraine. Activists in Transnistria say they would like
repeat the events in Crimea, and become part of the Russian Federation
after seceding from Moldova. Rogozin visited these activists on
Friday as part of the celebration of Victory Day on the 69th
anniversary of Nazi surrender on May 9, 1945.

As he left Chisinau Airport in Moldova, Rogozin's plane first entered
Ukraine's air space, but the plane was met by Ukrainian warplanes and
was forced to return to Chisinau. Next, the plane attempted to
circumvent Ukraine by traveling through Romania and Bulgaria, but
Romania refused the request because of the EU sanctions.

In response, Rogozin, who is apparently a heavy twitter use, tweeted:

<QUOTE>"Romania has closed its air space for my plane, upon
the U.S. request, Ukraine doesn't allow me to pass through
again. Next time I'll fly on board TU-160."<END QUOTE>

The Tupolev TU-160 'Blackjack' bomber is a strategic bomber capable of
delivering both conventional and nuclear missiles.

Romania's Defense Ministry responded with the following statement:

<QUOTE>"The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has taken note with
surprise that today, May 10th, 2014 the Russian Federation’s
Deputy Prime Minister Dmitri Rogozin tweeted that “Upon US
request, Romania has closed its airspace for my plane. Ukraine
doesn't allow me to pass through again. Next time I'll fly on
board TU-160.”

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs feels that a Russian Deputy Prime
Minister threatening to use a strategic bomber is a very serious
threat in the current regional context where the Russian
Federation has violated Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial
integrity and separatist forces are committing grave violations of
public order in the neighboring state.

In this context the Ministry of Foreign Affairs requests that the
authorities in Moscow, the Russian Foreign Ministry, provide
public clarification whether the statements quoted from Deputy
Prime Minister Rogozin are the official position of the Russian
Federation with regard to Romania as a Member State of the EU and
NATO.

At the same time the Ministry of Foreign Affairs reminds that
Romania has unequivocally supported the sanctions regime instated
by the European Union with respect to actions that undermine or
threaten Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty and
independence."<END QUOTE>

There are still a couple of mysteries surrounding this saga. First,
how did Rogozin travel from Moscow to Chisinau on Thursday. VOR says
that his plane traveled through Bulgaria and Romania, but didn't
explain why he was permitted to do that. Second, how did Rogozin
travel back from Chisinau to Moscow? VOR says he's back in Moscow,
and speculates that he took an ordinary passenger plane. Voice of Russia and Romania Ministry of Defense

****
**** Russia's Rogozin says that Moldova seized Transnistria secession signatures
****

There's apparently more to the above story about the travels of
Russia's deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin. Rogozin
is claiming that when Ukraine's warplanes forced Rogozin's
plane to make a U-turn and return to Chisinau airport in
Moldova, boxes of signatures collected by secessionist
activists were seized. According to a Rogozin tweet
on Saturday:

<QUOTE>"Moldovan security services are on our plane and
seizing boxes with Transdniestrian people’s signatures for
reunification with Russia."<END QUOTE>

It's been reported for several weeks that secessionists have been
collecting these signatures, hoping to force a referendum that would
permit Transnistria to secede from Moldova and join the Russian
Federation, following the example of Crimea. But if Rogozin's tweet
is correct, then all of those boxes of signatures have now fallen into
the hands of Moldovan security forces. Itar-Tass (Moscow) and
New Eastern Europe Journal

****
**** Violence increasing in Ukraine ahead of referendum
****

Pro-Russian separatists plan to go ahead with secessionist referendums
in two cities, Donetsk and Luhansk, in eastern Ukraine on Sunday,
despite a call on Wednesday by Russia's president Vladimir Putin to
postpone the referendums. It's now believed by many politicians that
Putin's call was made to protect himself from further Western
sanctions, rather than for any desire to see the referendum called
off.

This follows a day of violence in the city of Mariupol in
eastern Ukraine, which resulted in 20 deaths following clashes
between government forces and anti-government activists.
Putin did his best to fire up pro-Russian nationalist
sentiments by coming to Crimean and speaking to the screaming
crowds:

<QUOTE>"There is a lot of work to be done, but we will
overcome all the difficulties because we are together. This means
we have become even stronger, and I congratulate you on the great
victory."<END QUOTE>

Putin said he was sure that 2014 would become known in history as the
year Crimea's people decided to return to Russia and the memory of
their ancestors. CNN and
VOA


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Dmitry Rogozin, Russia, Romania,
Ukraine, Crimea, Moldova, Transnistria, Transdniestria

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

And how would describe someone who said that Hitler didn't commit genocide, or that there was no Holocaust? Or are you as ignorant as
you sound?

But Hitler did commit genocide--a clearly-stated goal of his (and especially the actual architect of the "final solution" and death camps, Himmler) was to eliminate the Jews in Europe. Not only has Assad to my knowledge not expressed the same intent vis a vis Sunnis, but the majority of his army is Sunni (whereas the majority of Hitler's Wehrmacht weren't Jews), and six of his cabinet/high command, including the second-in-command of his army, are Sunnis. If he were committing genocide against the Sunnis, I guarantee he wouldn't have that level of cooperation from Sunnis, nor put that much trust in them. Again, gradation. If you don't want to look ridiculous here, then learn it.

He is committing wholesale slaughter against people and communities he deems are opposed to his rule, or anyone associated/related to them. See what his father did in Hama in the 80s--that's where a lot of his opposition lived then, that's where protests and riots against his rule largely occurred, and so he basically laid seige to the city and leveled much of it. At one point he deemed anyone still remaining in the city to be automatically opponents and traitors, and did a "kill em all let God sort em out" play. Brutal, over the top? You bet it was (especially so if you think killing even real political opposition to be brutal and over the top (as I and most of us here no doubt do), let alone anyone merely associated by location). Genocide? While you might say it is morally just as atrocious as genocide (I think I'd actually be inclined to say that), it technically isn't because an ethnic/ancestral/religious group wasn't specifically targeted. I think what Bashar's doing is of a similar vein to what Papa Hafez did in Hama--only more numbers and wider areas are affected because things have come to an even bigger head now.

I suppose you might be thinking "genocide is a distinction without a difference" here, especially if you feel what Assad is doing is just as bad. But as a columnist, if you want to have a good standard of accuracy and professionalism (whether you get paid or not, "professionalism" is good and commendable, and I think you like to see yourself as "professional"), you won't want to use technically inaccurate terms--or at least, you aren't going to bitch if people point those inaccuracies out, but just say "very well, my mistake" and take the correction.

Unless you can elaborate better your case that Assad is deliberately out to remove or eliminate the Sunni sect in Syria. Rather than just brutalizing anyone who lives in areas where there is particular dissent.

Or maybe I could just be like all the mainstream media types and just
play it safe and stick to criticizing only the Tea Party.

Yeah, that is exactly what I said you should do .

What I said was, use accurate terms, and/or don't fly off the handle if you don't and someone points it out. It may take more work to invoke the same kind of emotional response in readers that you want, but it will be honest work. Cheap rhetorical tricks can work fine until you are caught using them, which you have been . (And once you are caught, people will trust what you say less, even that which may be true--although owning up to it may help regain that trust.)

And by the way everything I've written about al-Assad is accurate.
Just because some al-Assad sycophants say he's a nice guy who's had to
kill a couple of people to defend himself

And who here has actually said that? Can you provide quotes? Who here is a "syncophant" of Assad? Or is it, you're either with John J. Xenakis (and his every word), or you're "with the terrorists" so to speak? Is that it?

doesn't make the sycophants
right. Al-Assad is a genocidal monster, and I've quoted many, many
facts to back that up.

Al-Assad is a mass-murdering monster. You have not yet satisfied the definition of "genocidal". Words have meaning.

This whole argument has gone way past the bullshit stage. The
page that I referenced was for a whole book full of examples of
Jewish / Zionist collaboration with Hitler. That page concludes
with this paragraph:

See, citing an anti-Semitic website on the civilized parts of the internets (such as here, believe it or not) is kind of like shitting the bed. I suspect a site labeled "Jew Watch" is such a site, although admittedly I didn't go on it myself because I'm at work, and I try to avoid even the possibility of stumbling onto hate sites while on the work computer (because at the very least that could lead to an unpleasant conversation with the HR people). Maybe I'll look at it at home, although hopefully the site won't give my computer any bad cooties, or fucking syphilis. I trust Jordan's assessment of it as an anti-Semitic site, and the rhetoric in the paragraph you quoted does seem to further hint that it's one of those sites that think those Joos bear watching because they're in a vast conspiracy to distort history and take over the world or some nonsense.

I'd suggest citing a respectable site that's safe for work, to illustrate examples of Jewish collaboration in high levels of Hitler's government (anything even close to comparable to Sunni participation in Assad's regime). I'm not going to go to just any shithole on the internet, and I should trust that a respectable columnist/blogger like you won't lead me to such places. Am I wrong?

But this all illustrates the idea that if you must do a quick Google search to back up an argument being challenged, at least read it beyond the cursory glance you probably did give it, and definitely consider the caliber and credibility of the source (if you must, investigate that too). That's what any good journalist would do, or good journalistic analyst.

(Oh, and I'm not sure if you ever saw or remember this here, but a brief flash-in-the-pan and rather obnoxious poster named "Summer in the Fall" once played similar Google Russian roulette in an attempt to present an argument that Jesus was African or somesuch, and ended up similarly (and probably unknowingly) citing an anti-Semitic site--anyone else here remember that, lol? What is it with anti-Semitic sites coming up first on Google searches of dubious statements anyway?)

So I chose this link because it's backed by many, many examples of
collaborators, rather than just the one that "Goodspeed" deceitfully
implied was the only one on the page.

Does it deny the Holocaust too? Or is there now a new argument amongst such circles that I'm not yet aware of, that "the Jews Holocausted themselves"? As I said, I'm not going to access such a site at work, and don't really want my home computer sullied with such either. If that's the only kind of site that you think can back you up, then you really aren't going to get that far.

Justin's claim is that al-Assad isn't trying to exterminate Sunni
Muslims because he has a couple of Sunni Muslims in his cabinet.
That's a moronic argument, and it's as irrelevant as saying that
Hitler wasn't trying to exterminate Jews because he had dozens of
prominent Jews and Zionists as collaborators. So just to be clear,
the link I chose was right on point, and it shows how fatuous Justin's
claim is.

There are more than just two Sunnis in his cabinet/high command--I counted six in the list given above. Again, as Jordan said, it would be apples-to-apples if the German army were composed primarily (or even of any significant percentage) of Jews, and there was (to be charitable) at least one known Jew in his cabinet or high command (or who otherwise directly had any real influence in executive decisions).

There were no doubt a few Jews here or there who either successfully hid their background from the Gestapo and blended in (and may have even ended up in the armed forces or even as mid-level bureaucrats--but not as known Jews), or turned in fellow Jews in exchange for favors they may or may not have ended up even getting, or Jews in the death camps who were entrusted with basic assistant or supervisory tasks or as "prison snitches" by the guards in exchange for an extra crust of bread or somesuch. This kind of thing happens in any sort of oppressive system with some of the oppressed.

The difference remains, that the Jews were specifically and systematically targetted by the Nazis, and the populace as a whole was whipped into a furor of hate for them with Nazi propaganda and rhetoric, whereas Assad is crudely blasting or gassing whole towns and areas where dissenters have generally been concentrated, and not specifically targetting Sunnis as a whole. Dissent and opposition (or any supposed association with that) is what he is targetting, with a definite campaign of state terror. And that's certainly bad enough to invoke plenty of righteous outrage. So why not leave it at that, since that is unambiguously accurate?

I should add that I recognize there are definitely sectarian dividing lines in the Syrian conflict, and that the minority Alawite sect has been the Assad family's main power base (and while the military as a whole is majority Sunni, four-fifths of the officer corps are Alawite)--although it is too small a portion of Syrian society (about 12%) to rule on its own. The Sunnis among the merchant and business classes in Damascus have been and remain (IIRC) part of his power base, among other elements (whereas the Jewish merchant/business classes in Germany were destroyed early on). I think one could characterize the conflict as at least starting as class-based primarily, with those in opposition mainly opposed to the privileged position of the Alawite sect and other elements of Assad's general ruling/elite coalition, along with general economic dissatisfaction similar to what drove other Arab Spring revolts, along with the usual Islamist anti-secularist elements. The fact that the Alawite sect is a privileged minority certainly has fueled resentments among many of the majority Sunnis, and it has become an increasingly sectarian conflict as a result. But Assad's brutality is still driven mainly by his desire to keep a stranglehold on power, not to exterminate the Sunnis specifically (over half his country, whom he's always needed at least a good portion of to make his rule possible). Whereas the elimination/extermination of the Jews was a huge and fairly explicit part of Hitler's policy goals from the beginning.

I think intent and goals have a lot to do with the definition of genocide. Is Assad's goal the killing or removal of all Sunnis? I think this needs to be demonstrated. Although if that does eventually evolve as a goal (and it could, if he sees most or all Sunnis turning against him), then yes at that point you could say what he does is genocide.

Oh, he has undoubtedly aggravated sectarian tension, and plays on them to try and stay in power. But at 12%, they simply don't have the power to exterminate the Sunnis en masse, even if they wanted to. Far more likely is the eventual rebirth of Alawite State, and possibly the Jabal-al Druze and part of Kurdistan, if and when the regime falls. In conjunction with what's going in Iraq and Lebanon, the proxy war between the Saudis and the Iranians, Israeli/Palestinian conflict (which will likely kick into a high gear in the not too distant future) .the youth bulge, etc. the Middle East is probably going to tear itself apart. I don't think having the US stick around and play fuck-around games with people's lives to satisfy people's messianic delusions is going to help matters.

*** 12-May-14 World View -- Afghan Taliban launches last spring/summer offensive against Nato

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Saudi farmers kiss their camels in defiance of MERS warnings
• Afghan Taliban launches last spring/summer offensive against Nato
• Summit of Asian nations splits on China

****
**** Saudi farmers kiss their camels in defiance of MERS warnings
****


Saudi farmer kisses his camel in defiance of official Saudi warnings (Al Sharq)

Health officials in Saudi Arabia are telling people to drink only
pasteurized camel milk, to eat only well-cooked camel meat, and, for
those who handle camels, to wear masks and gloves in doing so. Camels
have been identified as the "reservoirs" of MERS-CoV (the Middle
Eastern Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus), which has been continuing
to spread, especially in Saudi Arabia. Studies show that it's been
common in camels for at least 20 years, without spreading to humans.
But apparent mutations in the MERS virus have allowed it to spread to
humans, and have allowed some human to human transmission, raising
pandemic concerns.

However, some camel farmers in Saudi Arabia have been calling the
warnings ridiculous, and have been posting photos and videos of
themselves defiantly hugging and kissing their camels. Some farmers
are demanding that evidence be produced that their camels have the
virus, and others point out that they've lived for decades with camels
and have never been infected by them. Gulf News and Reuters and Recombinomics

****
**** Afghan Taliban launches last spring/summer offensive against Nato
****

The Afghan Taliban is announcing its final offensive against Nato,
prior to Nato's withdrawal. According to a statement by the Islamic
Emirate of Afghanistan:

<QUOTE>"In order to fully complete our religious obligation
in attaining the gratitude of Allah (SWT) and in defense of our
Islamic homeland, we once again announce our annual spring
operations under the name of ‘Khaibar’ with the onset of the new
military year against the invaders and their spineless backers!

The upcoming ‘Khaibar’ operation shall begin with the cries of
Allah u Akbar throughout the country at 5am local time on Monday
... 12th May of 2014.

Like previous years, the main target of the current year’s blessed
Jihadi operation shall be the foreign invaders and their backers
under various names like spies, military and civilian contractors
and everyone working for them like translators, administrators and
logistics personnel.

Similarly the blessed ‘Khaibar’ Jihadi spring operations shall
target all high ranking government officials, cabinet ministers,
members of Parliament, security officials, occupation backing
officers in the Interior and Foreign Ministries, attorneys and
judges that prosecute Mujahideen as well as agents in the National
Directorate that pursue and torture Mujahideen.

Various modern military techniques shall again be utilized in the
current annual ‘Khaibar’ operations. Back-breaking martyrdom
strikes, infiltrator operations (insider attacks), targeting large
and well fortified enemy bases with heavy weapons and missiles as
well as carrying out head-on offensive operations against enemy
gatherings shall be some of the main techniques used in these
spring operations.

The main targets of the annual spring ‘Khaibar’ operations shall
be the military gatherings of foreign invading forces, their
diplomatic centers and convoys as well as the military bases of
their internal mercenary stooges, their convoys and the facilities
of foreign, interior, intelligence and Arbaki
militia."<END QUOTE>

The Battle of Khaibar was fought by Mohammed in 629. Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and Khaama Press (Afghanistan)

****
**** Summit of Asian nations splits on China
****

Anti-China protests are generally prohibited by the Vietnamese
government, but apparently the government approved hundreds of people
demonstrating in front of the Chinese Embassy on Saturday to protest
China's installation of a mobile oil rig in waters near the Paracel
Islands that Vietnam claims are in its exclusive economic zone.
They were demanding that China remove the rig from Vietnamese waters.

There was a major naval confrontation last week when Vietnam sent a
flotilla of about 30 ships to blockade the rig. China responded by
sending 60 ships to break the blockade. Vietnam has released video of
Chinese ships ramming the Vietnamese ships and spraying them with
water cannons.

There was another confrontation last week, when the Philippine
maritime police arrested 11 Chinese fishermen hunting sea turtles were
captured in Philippines waters. The Chinese have demanded that the
fishermen be released, but Philippines officials are saying that the
fishermen will be tried in court on the charges of hunting endangered
species.

This week's meeting of ASEAN (the Association of South East Asian
Nations) was dominated by discussion of these two confrontations with
China. Vietnam and the Philippines wanted ASEAN to issue a strong
statement criticizing China, but the other members don't wish to risk
antagonizing China. China has indicated that it will use its vast
military power to take control of the entirety of the South China Sea,
and all islands and properties in it, despite that fact that parts
have been historically belonged to Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia,
Indonesia and the Philippines, often for centuries. Chinese media has
indicated that it is using a "salami-slicing strategy," where it
annexes one region after another, each one too small to expect the
U.S. or anyone else to react militarily. Reuters and AP


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Saudi Arabia, camels,
Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus, MERS-CoV,
Afghanistan, Nato, Taliban, Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, Khaibar,
ASEAN, Association of South East Asian Nations,
Vietnam, Philippines

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

> Mexico, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, along with Russia, are
> all in Fifth Turning eras.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

> I'm curious how you define something like that, particularly when
> the article you linked to on Thailand acknowledged that
> Generational crises eras can occur without wars. Is there a sixth
> turning as well? A seventh?

> Why did you refer to Russia being in a generational Crisis era
> when you acknowledge that its 4T has come and gone?

This is not rocket science. Turnings are determined entirely by
generational changes, and so by the number of years since the climax
of previous crisis war, at roughly the following intervals: 1T at
climax+0, 2T at climax+18, 3T at climax+38, 4T at climax+58. Of these
four figures, the 3T figure is the softest, as the 2T and the 3T blend
together.

So when you've been in the 4T for 20 years with no crisis war, what
then? Obviously a whole new generation has grown up, so you can't
simply ignore it and say it doesn't matter. It's going to be
different. That's a 5T. As I said, it's not rocket science. I've
written a few times about some of the societal differences between a
4T and a 5T, but I've never really completely pinned it down, except
to establish that there are differences.

Some people confuse a crisis era with a crisis war. (And
unfortunately I sometimes make the same mistake of referring to a
crisis era when I mean a crisis war, which just adds to the
confusion.) The 4T crisis era begins at climax+58, and is NOT event
driven. The crisis war IS event driven, and it begins after the
"regeneracy events." However, a crisis war can begin in a 3T, a 4T or
a 5T (and probably a 6T as well, but I have no examples of that). It
can even begin in a 1T or 2T if, for example, there's an unexpected
invasion of extermination, and that causes a "first turning reset,"
which means that after the war is over, the society returns to a 1T,
irrespective of where it started out at the beginning of the invasion.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

> But Hitler did commit genocide--a clearly-stated goal of his (and
> especially the actual architect of the "final solution" and death
> camps, Himmler) was to eliminate the Jews in Europe. Not only has
> Assad to my knowledge not expressed the same intent vis a vis
> Sunnis, but the majority of his army is Sunni (whereas the
> majority of Hitler's Wehrmacht weren't Jews), and six of his
> cabinet, including the second-in-command of his army, are
> Sunnis. If he were committing genocide against the Sunnis, I
> guarantee he wouldn't have that level of cooperation from Sunnis,
> nor put that much trust in them. Again, gradation. If you don't
> want to look ridiculous here, then learn it.

If I don't want to look ridiculous here???? You are droll. That line
is ludicrous on so many levels.

So, in other words, if Hitler had tried to eliminate the Jews, but had
only had the good sense to keep his mouth shut about his intentions,
then it wouldn't be genocide? I don't think so.

If memory serves, it was not known until after the war that Hitler's
intention was to eliminate the Jews. It would not have made sense for
him to reveal his intentions until it was too late to stop it. So in
fact Hitler did keep his mouth shut. So by your reasoning, he didn't
commit genocide or, at worst, he only committed genocide in
retrospect, after his intentions were revealed.

Similarly, it would not make sense for al-Assad to reveal his
intentions until it's too late. What I'm saying is that all the signs
indicate that al-Assad's intentions are to eliminate the the Sunnis.
I'm not a mind reader, and maybe the intention is more refined than
that -- perhaps to eliminate only the Sunnis in specific regions, or
only certain groups of Sunnis. Maybe that's why he has Sunnis in his
cabinet. Maybe he's made a deal of some kind: "I'll spare your Sunni
village if you serve in the cabinet and keep your mouth shut." But
anyone who carpet bombs neighborhoods of innocent people with barrel
bombs containing chlorine gas, and who creates millions of refugees,
is not doing this by accident, in my opinion. In my opinion he has a
specific goal in mind, and it's almost certainly going to be related
to the minority size of Alawite sect. But whatever his intentions
are, the facts indicate that he's committing genocide, and wants to
eliminate some group of people.

At my age, I have very little patience with the sophistry of your
posting. Yeah, genocide is a legal term, and he hasn't yet been
indicted, hasn't been given a trial, and hasn't been convicted in
court, blah, blah, blah.

The reason that I have tens of thousands of regular readers, many of
whom have told me that the first thing they do every morning is read
my World View column, is that I don't say stupid things like, "Some
people say that Assad kills too many people, and some don't. Who
knows?" I analyze the situation, I tell what's going on without
worrying about hurting someone's feelings, and if I make a mistake
then I admit it immediately and explain what happened. I don't have
to worry about what anyone thinks (or if some joker thinks I "look
ridiculous") because I don't get paid, I have no advertisers, and
because I'm serving a need that almost no other media source is
serving. There is no web site in the world that's like
www.GenerationalDynamics.com, or that describes the world as it is.

I've been writing about al-Assad's actions since the beginning of the
war three years ago. In my opinion, the facts are unequivocal, just
as they were unequivocal about Hitler or about Mao. People who make
excuses for al-Assad are, in my opinion, at best useful idiots and at
worst sycophants. (Or, maybe I should say, at worst useful idiots and
at best sycophants.) That's my opinion, and if some facts emerge that
prove that I'm wrong, then I'll admit it immediately and write at
length about how I got it wrong. But I don't think that's going to
happen.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

> Mexico, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, along with Russia, are
> all in Fifth Turning eras.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

> A thing you made up, lacking mechanism or correllation. Apparently
> simply to permit you to deny clear evidence when it contradicts
> your pre-existing dogma.

Casting aside your usual litany of nasty, deprecating crap, it's not
even possible that the 1990s decade was a generational crisis for
Russia. It was a 4T crisis era, but there was no crisis. To have a
generational crisis, there has to be a regeneracy event that unifies
the society and its generations behind its leader. The breakup of the
Soviet Union did not unite anyone, but instead blew everything apart,
which is the opposite of a regeneracy. Essentially, it was an
Awakening Era climax -- a major bloodless governmental change that
occurs as the climax of a generational change. (Other major examples
are the collapse of Iron Curtain in eastern Europe, and the collapse
of apartheid in South Africa.) In the 1990s in Russia, there was no
regeneracy event, no crisis fault line, and no crisis climax. This
isn't a matter of opinion. Maybe "bad things happened" in Russia in
the 1990s, but it's literally impossible that this was a "crisis" in
the sense of generational theory.

You can believe in the tooth fairy or any crap you want, but instead
of blaming the messenger, you might instead want to think about how
you want to prepare yourself and your family for the coming crisis.