Comments by "Seven Proxies" (@sevenproxies4255) on "Partition of the Syrian Arab Republic" video.

  1. IloveDoubleD: It's not just a matter of fighting. Any idiot can fight. The issue is about WINNING the fight and HOLDING the areas of land that you claim as your own. Clearly the kurds are inept at doing this, or they try to take lands right smack in the middle of other countries (like inside Turkey). If they try to steal lands in Turkey then naturally Turkey will use military means to prevent it. So it's kind of ridiculous seeing Kurds crying about "abuses" in Turkey, when they're actively and violently try to steal land from the Turkish government.
    4
  2. Turkey is clearly a rogue state that the west should cut all ties with. But the so called "kurds" are hardly "innocent victims" either. So frankly I don't give a shit how many kurds are killed by Turks or vice versa. All I care about is not letting in any kurds or turks into Europe and the U.S as well as throwing out all kurds and turks who are already here.
    4
  3. ANd what makes you think kurds have any right to "independence"? Unless they can claim a piece of land and defend it by force of arms, they have no right to an independent nation. It's that simple. Sovreign states are not just "handed out" to any ragtag group that demands one. Sovreign states have to be formed through violence and blood. Land has to be CONQUERED and then HELD by force of arms in order for a group to gain sovreignty. If the kurds cannot pull this off, then they deserve no country of their own.
    1
  4. "one man terrorist is another's freedom fighter" That's not really true though. What separates a terrorist from a freedom fighter/soldier is that the freedom fighter or soldier attacks military targets of the opposing force (like enemy troops or executive politicians who have authority over the enemy troops). A terrorist on the other hand purposefully attack and prey upon civilian targets with the intention of creating public fear and trying to get the civilian population to subvert the authorities and the military and get them to back down. Therefore the freedom fighter use just means in his or her struggle, but the terrorist use unjust means and this in turn morally invalidates the terrorists goals as well. A terrorist believes that the ends always justify the means. A freedom fighter does not.
    1
  5. But back during the civil war, there wasn't really much distinction between soldiers and terrorists to begin with. And regarding WWII, the bombings of cities wasn't really done by either side with the intention of killing civilians but because cities, aside from serving as population centers also tend to have countries primary industry facilities and infrastructured centered in and around those cities. It's not a terrorist act to destroy key infrastructure with the goal of breaking the economy and production capabilities of an enemy state, since the enemy is gearing their production towards the war effort. But civilians do usually work in these industrial facilities and usually live near them, which is the cause of loss of civilian life. There is a difference between accepting possible civilian losses in an attack against a military target, and PURPOSEFULLY attacking civilians with the intention of killing as many civilians as possible and in the most gruesome manner possible in order to scare and terrorize the population.
    1