I’m not sure multiple post-hoc edits are going to make people trust you more, but better than nothing. Do people who interact with you need to screenshot the goalposts?
As for ISIS being better than Assad, I mean the bar is in hell, but for Syrians I think it’s unmistakable and Others seem to agree. Kurds would result in a much better governance. What we ended up getting with Al-Sharaa seems like the 2nd best scenario of the 4, which almost certainly couldn’t have happened without Ukraine putting up the defense they did.
The Kurds were abandoned to Turkey, and you’re surprised they’re on the defense? Erdogan wants them dead more than anything. We can talk about alternative timelines, but let’s not ignore what got us to the current set of facts and pretend it was always going to be this way.
I’m not sure multiple post-hoc edits are going to make people trust you more, but better than nothing.
I was quite known for this on Reddit.
As for ISIS being better than Assad, I mean the bar is in hell, but for Syrians I think it’s unmistakable and Others seem to agree.
Yes, a literal apocolyptic death cult that bombs cities across the world and conduct mass shootings across the world is a better option than Assad? We will have to agree to disagree on this.
The Kurds were abandoned to Turkey, and you’re surprised they’re on the defense?
I am not surprised, I was just stating that they were on the defensive, all the way in the corner in fact.
Erdogan wants them dead more than anything.
I mean we can agree. Have you seen Turkish rhetoric on Kurds? It is genocidal.
What we ended up getting with Al-Sharaa seems like the 2nd best scenario of the 4, which almost certainly couldn’t have happened without Ukraine putting up the defense they did.
Well there were definitely far worst options, I can agree with that.
Then again, there are hardly good options when your country could only be described as “a country-sized battlefield that was fought over by the now-deposed murderous dictator Bashar al-Assad, DAESH remnants, Al-Qaeda psychos, proxies of Iran, proxies of Turkey, private military companies like the Russian-controlled Wagner Group, various oppressed minorities fighting to secede, and supposed moderate rebels”.
Lemmy has no edit history, so the only honest way to edit something after a reply has been made is to contain all new text after Edit: or at least add ()* if it’s to fix typos or reword. This should make people feel less like they’re arguing with a bag of water.
Let’s agree to disagree between who’s worse between two nightmare scenarios.
Fair enough, you weren’t surprised. Point stands, though, that Kurds are on the defensive largely because of a lack of support and powerful enemies. Hillary didn’t have recent events to contend with at the time, and her intended actions likely or at least plausibly would have stopped them from needing to behave that way. Erdogan made his move the literal moment Trump announced no more support, US involvement clearly prevented this up to that point.
Honestly, Al-Sharaa has been a great thing so far if stability is the real goal. This will be tested, though, once he tells a single big nation with economic interests in the region, “no” or if Trump/Putin can find something to extort them for.
I’m not sure multiple post-hoc edits are going to make people trust you more, but better than nothing. Do people who interact with you need to screenshot the goalposts?
As for ISIS being better than Assad, I mean the bar is in hell, but for Syrians I think it’s unmistakable and Others seem to agree. Kurds would result in a much better governance. What we ended up getting with Al-Sharaa seems like the 2nd best scenario of the 4, which almost certainly couldn’t have happened without Ukraine putting up the defense they did.
The Kurds were abandoned to Turkey, and you’re surprised they’re on the defense? Erdogan wants them dead more than anything. We can talk about alternative timelines, but let’s not ignore what got us to the current set of facts and pretend it was always going to be this way.
I was quite known for this on Reddit.
Yes, a literal apocolyptic death cult that bombs cities across the world and conduct mass shootings across the world is a better option than Assad? We will have to agree to disagree on this.
I am not surprised, I was just stating that they were on the defensive, all the way in the corner in fact.
I mean we can agree. Have you seen Turkish rhetoric on Kurds? It is genocidal.
Well there were definitely far worst options, I can agree with that.
Then again, there are hardly good options when your country could only be described as “a country-sized battlefield that was fought over by the now-deposed murderous dictator Bashar al-Assad, DAESH remnants, Al-Qaeda psychos, proxies of Iran, proxies of Turkey, private military companies like the Russian-controlled Wagner Group, various oppressed minorities fighting to secede, and supposed moderate rebels”.
Lemmy has no edit history, so the only honest way to edit something after a reply has been made is to contain all new text after Edit: or at least add ()* if it’s to fix typos or reword. This should make people feel less like they’re arguing with a bag of water.
Let’s agree to disagree between who’s worse between two nightmare scenarios.
Fair enough, you weren’t surprised. Point stands, though, that Kurds are on the defensive largely because of a lack of support and powerful enemies. Hillary didn’t have recent events to contend with at the time, and her intended actions likely or at least plausibly would have stopped them from needing to behave that way. Erdogan made his move the literal moment Trump announced no more support, US involvement clearly prevented this up to that point.
Honestly, Al-Sharaa has been a great thing so far if stability is the real goal. This will be tested, though, once he tells a single big nation with economic interests in the region, “no” or if Trump/Putin can find something to extort them for.